Version: 5
Labels:
Note:   This is the header of an rmail file.
Note:   If you are seeing it in rmail,
Note:    it means the file has no messages in it.

1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18377; Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:02:37 PDT
	id AA18377; Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:02:37 PDT
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:02:37 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610011002.AA18377@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #0

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:02:37 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #0

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 0

Today's Topics:
		 Administrivia: Happy Fiscal New Year
	   Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
			    Re: L5 society
       National Space Society (was Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing)
			  Re: Re: L5 society
			Re: TAV is too secret
			   Seed the Stars ?
			Re: replacing the SRBs
		  How to view a Space Shuttle launch
			Re: replacing the SRBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Subject: Administrivia: Happy Fiscal New Year
Date: 1 Oct 86 0:00:01 PDT
From: space-request@Angband (The Moderator)

I want to wish everyone reading the Space Digest a very happy and
prosperous Fiscal New Year!

As some of you may have realized the Space Digest changes volumes on
the first of the Fiscal New Year (as the US Government sees it).  This
issue should be Volume 7, issue #0.  For those of you who keep track
of such things, the last issue of last year was number 403.

Let's all hope this year will be better for space development than
last year was; it could hardly be worse.

	Ted Anderson

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

Date: 24 Sep 86 08:22:12 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> I'm sorry.  Expanding life off the planet is, to me and many others, several
> orders of magnitude more important than any pure science.  Even without
> this, there is no reason that knowledge of the planets and universe is
> intrinsically more important that knowledge of how gravity affects life
> or the fundimental properties of materials.  In fact, scientific fads
> aside, there is no reason to believe any knowledge more important than
> any other for its own sake.  Only in application does importance take
> on any but a personal meaning.  In application, of course, materials
> and life science are far more important than astronomy.  Both of these
> fields require manned presence.

Rather than argue fundamental philosophy, I'll just point out the
self-conflict in your argument. Our current method for reaching space is far
too expensive to make sense for all but a very small, select set of space
applications (communications, remote sensing, etc).  In particular, space
travel far too expensive (by many orders of magnitude) for "moving life off
the planet"; that's just not realistic with present technology. (By "present
technology" I don't mean just the Shuttle; I mean "chemical rockets").

Truly major technological advances (of the type that would really make
space travel and habitation practical on a meaningful scale for a much
wider variety of purposes) tend to occur only after an increased
understanding of the basic laws of nature.  Even "routine" engineering
work, as empirical as it is, requires a deeper understanding of
mathematics and the physical sciences today than in the past. Face it,
the brute-force Thomas Edison approach just doesn't hack it anymore.
Instead of tediously trying 6,000 different materials for light bulb
filaments until you find one that works, it makes far more sense in the
long run to understand why certain filaments last longer than others by
studying the basic physics involved.

If you're going to have any chance at all of "expanding life off the
planet", you're going to have to discover some new physical phenomenon
you can use to replace chemical rockets.  Now it seems logical that
you're more likely to find a new physical phenomenon in an exotic place
people haven't looked at before, and certainly many of the objects
astrophysicists like to study fall under the definition of "exotic".
QED. (1/2 :-)

A word that has gotten bandied about a lot here lately is
"infrastructure".  I understand this to mean "the collection of
facilities, people, engineering knowledge, etc., that support an ongoing
space exploration capability", as distinguished from any specific
mission.  It is alleged (and I agree) that taking the time to build the
proper "infrastructure" results in much better results in the long run,
even if that delays short-term results.  So why isn't the same true for
science and technology as a whole? Just because a particular pure
science space mission doesn't immediately aid your single-minded goal of
"expanding life off the planet", why dismiss it?  It might be the one
that discovers the key physical principle you need to further your aims.

Clearly we need a wide range of scientific activities in space. I didn't
say that life sciences research involving human presence isn't
worthwhile. I'm only saying that, in my personal opinion, it has gained
an unwarranted overemphasis at the cost of many other equally (or more)
deserving fields that, unfortunately, lack the political sex appeal of a
floating astronaut waving to a TV camera.

Phil

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

Date: 25 Sep 86 23:50:42 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: L5 society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> In recent flaming people have said some pretty disparaging things about the
> L-5 society. In the board's opinion, is it still worth joining?

As one of the flamers AGAINST L5, I recommend that you join.  It's
actually quite a good society if your tolerance for right wing shuck and
jive is moderately high.  The society does do some good work and the L5
News (the major benefit of membership) has apparently improved of late.
Some of the local chapters are excellent.

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

Date: 24 Sep 86 12:45:48 GMT
From: adelie!munsell!infinet!barnes@ll-xn.arpa  (Jim Barnes)
Subject: National Space Society (was Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <351@lewey.UUCP> evp@lewey.UUCP writes:
>If you're interested in a good view of a launch (when they resume),
>join the National Space Society and take their launch tour.  Phone
>number is available from Washington D.C. AT&T Information, I don't
>have it handy.

I don't have a phone number handy, but their address is:

	National Space Society
	P.O. Box 7535
	Ben Franklin Station
	Washington D.C. 20044

Annual membership dues are $30 (tax deductible in 1986 :-).

Jim Barnes

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

Date: 26 Sep 86 00:15:34 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: L5 society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> At one point I urged people to join the Planetary Society, 
> Unfortunately, the PS now appears to be devoting most of its
> efforts to promoting a Marsdoggle program. 

I forgot, another thing incredibly annoying about L5 is their hatred for
the Mars project.  If the trip to Mars is to set up a permanent base it
could be decisive in developing space society.  Only if it is a one shot
would it be disadvantageous.

> It's (the Planetary Society) a club run by Sagan and his cronies.

The reason for L5's hatred of Mars lies in this sentance.  Sagan, of
course, has done more to popularize space than perhaps any single
individual and certainly more than the L5 society has.  He has put
together a society with about 110,000 members while L5 has about
6-9,000.  Worse than that, he's a liberal.

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

Date: 24 Sep 86 00:06:49 GMT
From: amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: TAV is too secret
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <732@riccb.UUCP> jmc@riccb.UUCP writes:
>So you see
>if it's a military bird first, the arlines will pick up on it sooner
>or later; where as if not, it may go the way of the SST and only OTHER
>countries will have it.  

A good point, but the SST hardly provides the kind of example you are
looking for.  Supersonic aircraft *were* developed by the military.
Quite successfully, too.

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Multimate International    52 Oakland Ave North    E. Hartford, CT 06108

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

Date: 25 Sep 86 20:44:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Seed the Stars ?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


[al@aurora.UUCP ]
>Expanding life off the planet is, to me and many others, several
>orders of magnitude more important than any pure science.  

(1) I agree. 

2) I read it to mean *human* life and its environment.  But  what
if  we  read  it  literally, meaning *any* kind of life? It could
probably be done right now, sending out some assortment of  hardy
spores  in  appropriate containers, and initial environment for
them to start new life and evolution.

They could be sent to places known to be lifeless - or at random outside
the Solar system.

Is this desirable? Should this be done, at least, if things get really
hot here? (Not that all life on Earth is likely to perish - but all
possibility to spread it might).

Is this a Good thing to do, a Bad or an Indifferent thing?

I lean on the side of doing it - but am interested in opinions and
arguments.

		Jan Wasilewsky

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

Date: 26 Sep 86 14:13:29 GMT
From: emil@rochester.arpa  (Emil Rainero)
Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>As background, I'll say a few words about why reusable liquid
>boosters seem (to me) such an obviously desirable option.
>
>One major factor is simply performance.  Liquid fuels pack more energy
>per pound of propellant, giving higher specific impulse.  Moreover,
>the dry mass of a liquid fueled booster would be substantially less
>than that of a comparable solid booster, since the entire casing of a 
>solid booster must withstand the kind of pressure that only has to be 
>contained in the main combustion chamber of a liquid fueled rocket
>engine.  That helps performance even more.  As a result, liquid fueled
>boosters would enable the shuttle to reach higher orbits with heavier 
>payloads, without having to drive the SSME's past 100% thrust rating.

What about being able to withstand the force of impact?  As I seem to
recall, the casings were being pretty bent up due to high impact
velocity.  This may have been to an early problem with the parachutes.
Anyone else recall seeing anything recently on this?  I'm also not
convinced that build a one million plus thrust booster is all that easy.
The saturn five used a 1.5 million pound first stage engine (5 of them),
but it was definitely not reusable, steerable, or throttleable.  Perhaps
these features are not that important, the SRB's get along just fine
with a crude steering system.  Another very big advantage to a liquid
SRB is the possible abort to launch site that is almost impossible while
the SRB's are firing.  A liquid booster could be turned off and a safe
separation would be much more likely.  There is also a much greater
safety risk when the SRB's are in the vehicle assembly building.  I
remember reading that the vehicle assembly building was off limits to
tours until a separate isolated SRB storage building (READ BOMB PROOF
BUILDING) was completed.

Overall, I think there might be some justification to the argument that
a liquid booster is preferred, but we definitely don't have all the
facts and since these decisions were made 10-15 years ago when liquid
boosters were really the top banana, there were probably good reasons
for a solid booster.

Emil Rainero:	emil@rochester.arpa

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

Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 16:33:08 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: How to view a Space Shuttle launch

Someone asked about how to best view Space Shuttle launches.  My
experience on Shuttle launch viewing is based on my seeing the STS-1
launch from the VIP area.  The following is a list of possible ways of
viewing a shuttle launch and how to set it up:

1) The absolute best place is from inside the space shuttle itself,
preferably from the left hand, front seat.

2) The next best place is in the NASA Kennedy employee viewing area
which is next to the VAB, north of the Saturn Causeway.  Obviously only
Kennedy employees with friends and family can get in there.

3) The VIP & Press area is south of the Saturn Causeway but near the
firing room.  It's chief disadvantage is that you are looking straight
into the SRB's plume.  However you can see SRB separation **if** you
position yourself as close to the Saturn Causeway as possible.

4) Causeway West is were they stick all non-Kennedy NASA employees and
dependants.  It is easier to see SRB separation here but it is further
away from Pad 39-A than the VIP area.

5) The worst place is the area outside the fence near Titusville where
the riffraff and anyone who can't finagle a pass has to go.  Not only is
this spot far away but it smells horrible from decaying vegetation,
(Cape Canaveral is built on a swamp).

The airport to fly to is Orlando Airport.  Make hotel reservations well
in advance of the launch date and plan on the launch being delayed by at
least 2 days.  The traffic into NASA Kennedy is terrible, so build that
into your planning.  You could well find yourself viewing the launch
from a traffic jam on the road leading into the launch facility if
you're not careful.  NASA is very tricky about issuing passes.  If John
Q. Public asks for a launch pass, they will prompty send him a very
official looking (and totally worthless) pass that puts him in on the
public side of the fence in Titusville with the unwashed masses.  If
your friend at NASA asks for a pass, he will end up at Causeway West.
The best trick is to work a pass through a NASA Kennedy employee or
secure press credentials (that was my trick).  If you can sneak into the
press area, don't forget to check the literature room.  The amount of
information about the shuttle available to the press is absolutely
amazing.  Their are pamphlets and handbooks describing the shuttle down
to the rivet head, and they're all distributed free to the press.
However don't try and sneak in without a pass.  Security is very tight
as it should be.  NASA security police were nabbing guys right and left
when I was there.

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

Date: 26 Sep 86 06:20:32 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Why not liquid fuel SRB's?

I could make some guesses.  It may be that the plumbing and combustion
chambers for a liquid fueled rocket won't survive a drop into the ocean,
so you'ld have to give up the reusability.  That might not be so bad--i
was assuming that it wasn't really cost effective to reuse the boosters
anyway, that it was more of a political issue.

david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #0
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29811; Thu, 2 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT
	id AA29811; Thu, 2 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610021002.AA29811@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #1

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 2 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #1

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 1

Today's Topics:
		   Re: number of falling satellites
			Re: Re: JEP statements
		       snippet from Aug 4 AW&ST
			  Re: JEP statements
	     Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
			   Langrange points
		    American Astronautical Society
		    And one more flame against L-5
		 SRB boosters, yet once again dammit
		     Shuttle Solid Rocket Motors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 86 20:13:07 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: number of falling satellites
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...  Given that these things are
> massive (55 feet and 12 tons for Big Bird) and fall out of the sky so
> often, all the attention lavished on Skylab before it decayed seems a bit
> silly.

Skylab wasn't even the biggest thing to fall out of orbit.  That honor
belongs to the Saturn V second stage that accompanied it into orbit, and
fell several years earlier, probably in central Africa.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Sep 86 21:40:56 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: JEP statements
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > I certainly wouldn't support them (Planetary Society) while they have 
> > likes of Van Allen on their letterhead.
> 
> I dislike Van Allen's recent positions, but he is a great scientist and
> a space pioneer.

Which, unfortunately, is not inconsistent with being a short-sighted fool.

How apt that the deadliest hazards to manned spaceflight near Earth are
named after him.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Sep 86 20:29:42 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: snippet from Aug 4 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Something that I missed in my earlier posting of space news from this
issue of Aviation Week, several weeks ago...  In a discussion of solid-
booster technology in Japan, which is working up to building the big
solids for the H-2 heavy launcher:

	"The Japanese did not raise technology transfer as an
	H-2 booster issue during the Aviation Week visit -- but
	they also politely refused to show any of the H-2 solid
	rocket booster hardware that has been developed, and the
	only photographs of the hardware they would provide were
	of a desk-top model and a flexible bearing under development".

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Sep 86 20:08:29 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: JEP statements
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> However, I think even the Planetary Society has come around to a
> compromise position that we will FIRST build the infrastructure and
> lunar base, and THEN go for Mars...

Unfortunately, the emphasis in the politicking is still on "Mars" and
not on "infrastructure".  Most everybody agrees that the Mars mission
*should* be done by infrastructure-building, but we all know where the
road paved with good intentions leads...

The situation is not unprecedented.  Although the Saturn V's basic
requirements were dictated by Apollo, it was also intended as an item of
fundamental infrastructure.  It was going to be NASA's heavy launcher
well into the 1980's, launching things like space stations and heavy
planetary probes as well as lunar exploration.  Then the budget crunch
hit, and all the "infrastructure" part got quietly deleted because the
"Moon" part had been publicized as the major objective.

I'm afraid the Mars-mission people, with the best of intentions, are
setting us up for a repetition of this.  We need a *commitment* to
infrastructure-building, not just good intentions.  I fear that this
requires putting the infrastructure out front and the Mars mission in
the background, even if this doesn't make for quite such exciting press
releases.
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Sep 86 21:56:13 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Are you referring to the experiment that tested the effects of zero gravity
> on moths, or are you referring to the experiment that tested the effects of
> weightlessness on monkees, or... :-)

I'm sure you can read the manifests for Spacelab missions and the mid-deck
payload lockers just as easily as I can.

> Ahem. My point is not really that there aren't worthwhile experiments
> involving human intervention, but that they've been given an importance (PR
> appeal?) far out of proportion to their real significance.  I wouldn't mind
> so much if it didn't interfere with the less glamorous, but clearly more
> important space applications which are better off without humans getting in
> the way...

Clearly, their "real significance" and whether they are less "important"
is a function of who you talk to.  Personally, I would class most of the
astrophysics etc. experiments you laud so highly as *more* glamorous,
but it's not at all clear that they are more important.

> Or ask the satellite operators who are faced with safety requirements orders
> of magnitude more stringent than anything they had to deal with on
> expendables because of the "man-rated" factor.

This is a real problem, but it has much more to do with overconservative
management brought on by severe budget pressure and a ridiculously tiny
orbiter fleet than with any inherent requirement of manned spaceflight.
Those satellites are all carried to the launch area on manned trucks.

> > Clearly the best solution for planetary science in the long run [...]
> > is the "orbital propellant farm" concept [...]
> 
> Clearly the best solution for planetary science in the long run is a large,
> unmanned, expendable booster in the Titan III-E class or better. Titan
> worked very well for Voyager, Viking and Helios...

I was thinking in terms of something that would be *better* than
early-70s launchers like Titan/Centaur, which do have their limits.
Actually, there was a line of large expendables which were much better,
but the planetary science community quietly stood by while Congress
gutted them in the name of economy.  Perhaps because they were
associated with manned spaceflight (although they were perfectly capable
of unmanned missions) and hence were contaminated and taboo.
Titan/Centaur can't launch Ulysses into an orbit that will meet its
mission goals, last I heard, not even with the fatter Centaur variants
originally developed for the shuttle.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Sep 86 20:50:49 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Langrange points
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Can someone show how to derive the positions of L4 and L5?  Last time I
> tried, I made too many simplifying assumptions...

I've never seen a simple and intuitive explanation of the L4/5 points;
it's not a trivial result.  I'd recommend Archie E. Roy's "Foundations
of Astrodynamics" [I think -- I'm typing this from memory], which gives
a complete derivation without *excessive* math.  (You will need calculus
and some idea of what vectors are about.) 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 26 Sep 86 16:25:48 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Subject: American Astronautical Society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Recently I saw a brochure describing the annual meeting of the AAS in
Boulder during October. Can anyone tell me anything about AAS?  In
particular, how it differs from the other space-related groups like
National Space Committee, L5 etc.  Perhaps 30% of the convention
sessions are chaired by NASA HQ people, a lot of space station stuff,
little mention of the shuttle (the shuttle seems to have become a
"non-person" in the NASA world).

As the convention fee for non-members includes one year's membership
dues, and as I may be passing through Boulder when the meeting is on,
I'm thinking of stopping by. Any info. will be appreciated.

Thanks much.

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

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 86 16:49:52 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: And one more flame against L-5

I think I'll add my flamage to the rest by pointing out that L-5 was a
flawed organization from day one.  As their name suggests, their whole
focus was on only one issue, namely the fabricating of space colonies at
the libration points.  I personally think this is a really **dumb**
idea.  Why invest all that effort and energy to lob stuff up from the
moon to a Lagrangian point for making a colony when it would be vastly
simpler and cheaper to merely bore tunnels into the moon's crust and
make enormous underground colonies.  Because it focused on only one idea
and an unfeasible one at that, L-5 never really had any credibility.
L-5 has done some good things however.  For example, they played an
important role in preventing ratification of the so called Moon Treaty
by Congress.  There has been sufficient flamage against the Moon treaty
already, so I shall not repeat it.  Let it suffice that for having
opposed the Moon treaty the L-5 leadership should have their names
inscribed in gold letters on a stone monolith set on the lunar surface.
The problem with L-5 and other space activist groups is that they tend
to get flakey or locked into single issues.  The Planetary Society is
following this same track with this nonsense being spewed by Van Allen.
Stan Kent was a very important space activist, and skillfully used the
Viking landers as a basis for advancing his influence.  However the
Vikings crapped out on him, destroying the sole basis for his
organization's income.  Besides Stan couldn't figure out whether he
wanted to be an aeronautical engineer or a rock star. He made the
mistake of allowing his credibility to sink to zero and getting labeled
as a "flake".  This is the fundamental contradiction in space activism.
I'll call this the "Carl Sagen Syndrome".  How does one go public in
advocating space industrialization and still maintain his credibility as
an Aerospace Engineer.  It is typical for these space groups to turn
into "Star Trek fan clubs".  Or even worse, someone will build up an
organization and then stupidly allow someone who is hearing voices from
Mars to get on the executive committee.  One would think that the AIAA
should serve as the prime advocate for space industrialization.  However
the AIAA is too wrapped up with the military-industrial complex, and
with such down-to-earth things like "next years Star Wars budget" to be
concerned with pie-in-the-sky like colonizing the moon.

                      Gary Allen

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

Date:           Sat, 27 Sep 86 10:07:18 PDT
From: Dana Myers <bilbo.dana@locus.ucla.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        SRB boosters, yet once again dammit


> Why aren't SRB casings threaded and screwed together like iron pipe?

  Like almost everyone else on this net, I am only marginally qualified
to answer, but, like everyone else on this net, I will anyway....

  I suspect that the heat and acceleration have a lot to do with why the
segments aren't threaded and joined, but I think that the most important
issue is that of the wall thickness. I once read (in a screw brochure)
that using a coarse thread gives maximum strength. A fine thread does
not have nearly as much strength. A fine thread would be used where
adjustability is important. The segment wall thickness might allow a
very weak fine thread to be made - no way. A coarser thread could be cut
if the SRB segment wall was a lot thicker... that's pounds off your
payload, bud.

  Another fact to consider is that cracks in metal tend to occur near
sharp edges or corners - when building a high performance internal
combustion motor, an important step is de-burring and smoothing the
block to avoid block cracks. Cutting (or casting) a thread into the SRB
segment wall would (a) raise the issue of sharp edges and (b) reduce
wall thickness in many places. A cracked booster would leak, and we all
know what a leaking booster does....

   The sharp edge issue could be reduce by rounding the thread cuts, but
I think then you start to lose strength even more.

  A final point is that a segment below another will tend to swell at
the top - the threads would have to be coarse enough to allow for that
and that also means thicker walls...


      Could you imagine if, while assembling the SRBs, one got 
CROSS THREADED? ..............

dana

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

Date: 26 Sep 86 01:08:12 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Shuttle Solid Rocket Motors
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News - September 5,1986
NASA Awards Study Contracts For Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor

	NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has
awarded study contracts to five aerospace firms for conceptual designs
of an alternative or Block II Space Shuttle solid rocket motor (SRM).
	The 120-day contracts, not to exceed $500,000 each, were awarded
September 3 to Aerojet Strategic Propulsion Co., Sacramento, Calif.;
Atlantic Research Corp., Alexandria, Va., United Technologies Chemical
System Div., San Jose, Calif.; Hercules Aerospace Company's Aerospace
Div., Salt Lake City, Utah; and Morton Thiokol, Inc., Brigham City,
Utah, NASA's contractor for current SRM.
	The contracts call for each study to provide a conceptual design
for a Block II SRM, a preliminary development and verification plan for
the SRM defining how the proposed SRM program would be conducted, a
capability assessment report defining the resources needed by the
contractor to conduct the program, a cost estimate for the program and
production cost of a flight set of Block II SRM's.
	In addition, the contractors will provide conceptual designs of
their proposed SRM case joints within 60 days. It was a failed joint on
the current SRM which lead to the failure of Mission 51-L.
	The design concepts for the SRM essentially must duplicate the
outside geometry of the current Shuttle solid rocket motor and its
interfaces with other Shuttle elements. But, with few exceptions, the
studies provide the five contractors a free hand to propose a new SRM.
	The studies will lead to a final product geared to helping
determine NASA's long-term policy for Shuttle SRM's. When the studies
are completed, NASA will consider the benefits to be gained from the
Block II studies, determine how the ongoing solid rocket motor redign
efforts are proceeding and from that determine NASA's long-term
strategy.

-------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-124
by Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Ed Medal Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, Ala.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
NASA News Releases Originate from NASA Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #1
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06374; Fri, 3 Oct 86 03:02:35 PDT
	id AA06374; Fri, 3 Oct 86 03:02:35 PDT
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 86 03:02:35 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610031002.AA06374@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #2

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 3 Oct 86 03:02:35 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #2

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 2

Today's Topics:
	       Chariots for Apollo #2 - A one way trip?
			 Re: Seed the Stars ?
			  Re: Re: L5 society
			    Kirin vs. CFE
	      Why I don't think HOTOL separates nitrogen
		       space suit power supply
		      Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
		   Space Station & decaying orbits
			  Conestoga Booster
			Re: replacing the SRBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 86 21:44:33 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Chariots for Apollo #2 - A one way trip?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

	The fact that the United States had no large boosters in its
inventory caused several farfetched schemes to surface.  One such
proposal promoted rendezvous and refueling while in transit to the moon,
a concept pushed persistently by a firm named AstraCo. ...
	Another approach was the proposal to send a spacecraft on a one-
way trip to the moon.  In this concept, the astonaut would be
deliberately stranded on the lunar surface and resuppiled by rockets
shot at him for, conceivably, several years until the space agency
developed the capability to bring him back!  At the end of July 1961, E.
J. Daniels from Lockheed Aircraft Corporation met with Paul Purser,
Technical Assistant to Robert Gilruth, to discuss a possible study
contract on this mode.  Purser referred Daniels to NASA Headquarters.
Almost a year later, in June 1962, John N. Cord and Leonard M. Seale,
two engineers from Bell Aerosystems, urged in a paper presented at an
Institute of Aerospace Sciences meeting in Los Angeles that the United
States adopt this technique for getting a man on the moon in a hurry.
While he waited for NASA to find a way to bring him back, they said, the
astronaut could perform valuable scientific work.  Cord and Seale, in a
classic understatement, acknowledged that this would be a very hazardous
mission, but they argued that "it would be cheaper, faster, and perhaps
the only way to beat Russia."  There is no evidence that Apollo planners
ever took this idea seriously.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA
SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: 27 Sep 86 21:00:40 GMT
From: husc6!husc4!chiaraviglio@zarathustra.think.com  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

	Actually, seeding the stars blindly would be very unethical.
Just think of this situation: how would you like it if someone else
decided to do that, only their hardy organisms (not necessarily spores
in the sense that molds and bacteria have -- who knows what might
develop elsewhere?) are much more robust than most Earth life and take
over, and thus everyone dies a horrible death by disease and/or
starvation.  Imagine if what was sent out was something like the
creatures in Aliens?  While our bacteria aren't that horrible at a
macroscopic level, they could possibly be just as horrible
microscopically.  It would be pretty bad if we sent some yeast or mold
or bacteria which just happened to be incredibly more efficient than the
native life where it landed at utilizing the resources, or just happened
to find the organisms there (possibly including intelligent ones) to be
an attractive alternative growth medium, and thus killed everything off.
I am in favor of going to the stars -- but keep in mind that doing so
irresponsibly could be very bad for others.  Therefore, go ahead and
send out star probes, but please take the same precautions as were taken
for the Mars landers: make sure that anything that lands is sterile, at
least until we know what we are dealing with on the other end.

					Lucius Chiaraviglio
					lucius@tardis.ARPA
					seismo!tardis!lucius

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

Date: 27 Sep 86 02:55:48 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Re: L5 society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > It's (the Planetary Society) a club run by Sagan and his cronies.
> 
> The reason for L5's hatred of Mars lies in this sentance.  Sagan, of
> course, has done more to popularize space than perhaps any single
> individual and certainly more than the L5 society has.  
> He has put together a society with about 110,000 members
> while L5 has about 6-9,000.  Worse than that, he's a liberal.

Even more annoying to many L-5 people is that Sagan is ardently
anti-SDI.  The Planetary Society promotes the Mars mission primarily as
a substitute for SDI, something that demands peaceful cooperation
between the US and USSR. Whatever they (and I) may feel about the
relative merits of manned and unmanned missions to Mars, an expensive
manned mission is enormously preferable to the continuation of Star
Wars, even if unmanned missions could perform the same scientific
functions more cost-effectively.

I am a member of the Planetary Society. I have always found their
publication (the Planetary Report) to be much more informative and
educational than the L-5 news.  The L-5 news always seems to be filled
with political rumors, radical philosophical diatribes and the like. The
Planetary Report usually contains at least one excellent article per
issue by a scientist closely involved in one of the various space
science missions.

But then again I have this layman's interest in planetary science, which
of course is worthless because it does nothing to further moving mankind
off the planet...

Phil

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

Date:     Thu, 25 Sep 86 17:57 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Kirin vs. CFE
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",DIETZ       

Fortune magazine (10/13/86, page 33) reports that Amgen, a California
biotech firm, and Kirin Brewery Co., a Japanese beer maker, are
cooperating to make erythropoietin (EPO) with genetically modified
microorganisms.  Amgen cloned the EPO gene in 1983.  EPO occurs
in minute quantities in urine; McDonell-Douglas has been trying to
purify natural EPO with its microgravity continuous flow electro-
phoresis machine.

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

Date:     Fri, 26 Sep 86 17:00 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:  Why I don't think HOTOL separates nitrogen
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",IN%"ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu",DIETZ       

In response to a query I sent him on the HOTOL engine, Gary Allen posted
his synthesis of some rumors on an oxygen condenser the HOTOL engine may
contain.

  I said:
  >> Wouldn't one get more thrust (and, due to the lower exhaust temperature,
  >> more complete combustion) if the nitrogen were not excluded [from
  >> the oxygen/hydrogen reaction] ?

  Gary said:
  > Burning air in the rocket wouldn't work because too much energy would
  > go into heating the nitrogen and forming useless NOx molecules.  The
  > specific impulse would be [too] small to make the [propulsion] system
  > viable against a pure oxygen system...

I believe Gary is wrong here.  Yes, pumping the nitrogen into the
combustion chamber will decrease exhaust temperature and exhaust speed,
but specific impulse is proportional to exhaust speed only in rockets
that carry their own oxidizer.  Specific impulse is thrust per unit
*fuel* divided by g.  Adding nitrogen will greatly increase the exhaust
mass (by a factor of 4) and so should, in the absence of other effects,
decrease exhaust speed by a factor of 2 and increase thrust by a factor
of 2 -- *for the same fuel consumption*.  Note that this decreases the
exhaust speed of the engine from around 4000 m/sec to around 2000 m/sec
-- which is a bit greater than Mach 5, as one would expect if HOTOL
stops breathing above that speed.

I've ignored the drag suffered when slowing down atmospheric nitrogen,
but unless the engine can separate N2 and O2 in a hypersonic airstream
the drag will be unavoidable.

Gary points out that NOx will be formed.  However, the equilibrium
concentration won't be very high, especially if more hydrogen is
injected than is stoichiometrically necessary to burn all the oxygen
(note that in the SSME's the molar ratio of H2 to O2 is about 4:1).

About Gary's heat exchanger: I don't think the trick of getting ice
crystals to form in "mid air" does the trick, since the real problem is
then separating the ice crystals from the air parcels in which they
formed.  Also, I don't see how Gary can extract heat from "mid air" in
his design, unless he runs the air through a compressor and an
intercooler before expanding it again.  In any case, Gary's design
accelerates atmospheric nitrogen up to vehicle speed, which should cause
large amounts of drag.  Only if the nitrogen is mixed into the engine
exhaust can this be overcome.

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

Date: Sat, 27 Sep 86 20:26:44 pdt
From: bradley thompson <thompson%arc.cdn%ubc.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: space suit power supply

what is the mass [and volume] of the power supply for the US space suits?
if it is alot would it not be better to transmit power by microwave or
something on a continuous basis to the suit?

merci
brad thompson

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

Date: 24 Sep 86 00:05:18 GMT
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@hplabs.hp.com  (Alan Silverstein)
Subject: Re: Shuttle Launch Viewing
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> To get inside, you need a vehicle pass.
> I got mine by calling my Senator's office...

No need to do that unless you're hoping for a VIP pass, which might get
you a little closer (unless something's changed).  Otherwise,...

/* hpfcla:net.columbia / ajs / 11:53 am  Sep 12, 1984 */

I called the folks that hand out car passes...
phone number is 305-867-2363, and the address is:

	NASA Public Affairs
	PA-VIC
	Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899

The lady I talked to said that the passes are good to get you four miles
from the pad, not six as I heard earlier.

Alan Silverstein

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

Date: 28 Sep 86 05:14:26 GMT
From: melpad!osi3b2!james@ngp.utexas.edu
Subject: Space Station & decaying orbits
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

How high will the Space Station be placed?  Main Question: how long will
it stay in place without needing some boost to maintain position?  Due
to the cost I assume it is meant to stay there a long, long time.

James R. Van Artsdalen    ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james    Live Free or Die

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

Date: 27 Sep 86 14:40:41 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Conestoga Booster
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News - September 8, 1986
SPACE SERVICES INC. TO USE NASA LAUNCH FACILITY

	NASA and Space Services Inc. of America (SSI), a Houston-based
aerospace company, have agreed to general terms on the use of NASA's
Wallops Flight Facility, Wallops Island, Va., for the launch of the
expendable Conestoga booster.
	SSI will reimburse NASA for all direct costs for launch
operations support provided by NASA to SSI.
	Under the agreement, SSI will be responsible for preparation and
launching of the vehicles, including all required non-NASA resources,
and NASA will participate as observers to the extent necessary to insure
compliance with all range and safety requirement. Overall range
control, safety and operation will be the responsibility of the Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md., which controls the Wallops Flight
Facility.
	In signing the agreement, Isaac T. Gillam IV, Assistant
Administrator for the Office of Commercial Programs, said, "Here is a
clear and early example of NASA's continued support and commitment to
the President's commercial space policy."
	"With some modification and the construction of a Conestoga
gantry at one pad, the Wallops facility is ideal for our type of
operation", said Donald K. "Deke" Slayton, President of SSI. "It's an
exciting arrangement and we are looking forward to working with the NASA
people at both Goddard and Wallops."
	First flight of the Conestoga with a commercial payload could
come as early as 1987 followed by two to three launches in 1988.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-128
by Azeezaly S. Jaffer Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reproduced with permission for electronic distribution
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 28 Sep 86 06:47:12 GMT
From: melpad!osi3b2!james@ngp.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I have some questions about SRBs and I'll post it as a followup of Roger's
message.

In article <348@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
> As background, I'll say a few words about why reusable liquid
> boosters seem (to me) such an obviously desirable option.
> 
> One major factor is simply performance.  Liquid fuels pack more energy
> per pound of propellant, giving higher specific impulse.  Moreover,
> the dry mass of a liquid fueled booster would be substantially less
> than that of a comparable solid booster, since the entire casing of a 
> solid booster must withstand the kind of pressure that only has to be 
> contained in the main combustion chamber of a liquid fueled rocket
> engine.  That helps performance even more.  As a result, liquid fueled
> boosters would enable the shuttle to reach higher orbits with heavier 
> payloads, without having to drive the SSME's past 100% thrust rating.

Is this really the case?  I was under the impression that the solids
give substantially more thrust than the liquids.  I realize that solids
are not as consistent as liquids in performance, and that performance
cannot be adjusted in flight, and assumed that's why there are liquid
rockets.

> A "wild card" factor is environmental considerations.  Solid rocket
> exhaust is pretty awful stuff.  I don't recall how many tons of
> hydrochloric acid are dumped into the atmosphere by one shuttle
> launch, but I do recall that it's measured in tons.  The only reason
> that it's not a problem is that shuttle flights are too infrequent 
> for the pollution to really matter much.  If the shuttle, or shuttle
> derived vehicles using the SRB's, were to fly with the frequency that
> was originally projected, the pollution would definitely be an issue.

What is the fuel composition of the solid fuel?  I remember from when I
saw the Spacelab-I launch that the solids are an off-orange or brown
exhaust, whereas the liquids is white apparently.

There's one thing I haven't seen discussed much in the news.  When the
Challenger blew up, the SRBs survived pretty much intact and continued
operating.  While a seal break from the SRB's ultimately caused the
explosion, I wonder why more attention hasn't been paid to the fact that
the SRB's are pretty sturdy and reliable devices if they survived an
explosion with the energy of a very small nuclear device so close, and
continued operating after a fashion (since I never heard otherwise, I
assume from looking at the TV pictures that the SRBs continued burning).
But given the obvious and numerous disadvantages of solid fuel boosters,
I had always assumed they had much greater thrust per $ than liquids.

James R. Van Artsdalen    ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james    Live Free or Die

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #2
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29113; Sat, 4 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT
	id AA29113; Sat, 4 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610041002.AA29113@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #3

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #3

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 3

Today's Topics:
			  Emergency Locater
			Re: replacing the SRBs
		Re: How to view a Space Shuttle launch
			  Re: Re: L5 society
		 Re: A couple of satellite questions
		      Re: Space without science
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Sep 86 14:08:32 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Emergency Locater
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

NASA News - September 11, 1986
NONSTOP GLOBAL VOYAGER AIRPLANE TO CARRY EMERGENCY LOCATER

	The around-the-world flight of the Rutan Voyager airplane, a
25,000 mile, 12 day, non-stop, unrefueled mission, can count on
assistance from an international search and rescue system --
COSPAS/SARSAT -- if it runs into problems. The Voyager will carry an
emergency international search and rescue beacon similar to the ones
which have saved more than 600 lives over the past 4 years.
	Four satellites -- three from the Soviet Union and one from the
United States -- can pick up "emergency" signals from downed aircraft or
ships at sea and relay the information to rescue forces.
	A lightweight prototype personnal locator beacon will be
provided to the airplane's crew by NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, Md. The 1-1/2 pound, waterproof beacon is powered by five 9
volt alkaline batteries, according to Fred Flatow, mission manager for
the search and rescue project at Goddard.
	The Voyager aircraft, designed by aeronautical engineer Burt
Rutan, will be piloted by his 45-year-old brother, Dick, and 32-year-old
Jeana Yeager. The pair will take off from Edwards Air Force Base,
Calif., on Sept.  15 and fly westward via Australia and Africa. They
will be confined in a cockpit on 39-1/2 inches wide and 33 inches
deep.
	The Voyager has a wingspan of 111 feet, about the same as a
Boeing 727 jet. It weighs only 1,838 pounds, but with its crew and 1,400
gallons of fuel, takeoff weight will be approximately 11,300 lbs.
	The prototype transmitter, built by Telonics, of Mesa, Ariz.,
will transmit on frequencies of 406 and 121.5 MHz, according to Morton
L.Friedman, the project's systems engineer. The 406-MHz frequency signal
would be used primarily to determine the location of a transmitted
distress signal. The 121.5 MHz signal would be used by rescue forces to
"home in" on the beacon.
	Friedman says tests of the prototype transmitter, of which there
are only two, indicate the beacon could operate for up to 23 days. He
said tests indicated the prototype provided an extremely good signal
which would permit ground stations to pinpoint its location very
accurately.
	COSPAS/SARSAT, an acronym meaning, in general, search and rescue
satellite aided tracking, is a cooperative program between Canada,
France, the Soviet Union and the United States. Other nations
participating in the program include Bulgaria, Denmark, Finland, Norway,
Sweden and the United Kingdom.  Brazil is expected to join in the near
future and other nations have expressed an interest in COSPAS/SARSAT.
	Should the Voyager encounter an emergency and the crew were to
activate the emergency transponder, its signal would be relayed via
satellite to a a ground station. In the event the satellite is not
within range of a ground station, the signal would be recorded for later
transmission to one of the eleven ground stations around the world.
	Four stations are located in the U.S. at Scott Air For Base,
Ill.; Kodiak, Alaska; Pt. Reyes, Calif.; and the Goddard Space Flight
Center. Three stations are in the Soviet Union at ARchangel, Moscow and
Vladivostok. Other stations are located at Toulouse, France; Lasham,
England; Ottawa, Canada; and Tromso, Norway.
	Since the program began in September 1982, 606 lives have been
saved in 251 different emergencies worldwide, according to Flatow. Of
the rescues, 259 have been maritime saves; 326 have been air and 21 have
been terrestrial, such as hikers and campers.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-132
by Jim Kukowski Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
   Jim Elliot Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. 
Reproduced with permission for electronic distribution
------------------------------------------------------------------------.

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

Date: 28 Sep 86 06:58:35 GMT
From: melpad!osi3b2!james@ngp.utexas.edu  (James R. Van Artsdalen)
Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

More questions from an amatuer interested in NASA:

In article <21112@rochester.ARPA>, emil@rochester.ARPA (Emil Rainero) writes:
> The saturn five
> used a 1.5 million pound first stage engine (5 of them), but it was definitely
> not reusable, steerable, or throttleable.   Perhaps these features are not
> that important, the SRB's get along just fine with a crude steering system.
> Another very big advantage to a liquid SRB is the possible abort to launch 
> site that is almost impossible while the SRB's are firing.  A liquid booster
> could be turned off and a safe separation would be much more likely.
> There is also a much greater safety risk when the SRB's are in the
> vehicle assembly building.  I remember reading that the vehicle assembly
> building was off limits to tours until a separate isolated SRB storage building
> (READ BOMB PROOF BUILDING) was completed.

1) Where the Saturn V's really not steerable or throttleable???  How did they
   steer the spacecraft and keep it going up instead of down?  Also, I seem to
   recall that the Shuttle varies thrust to manage aerodynamic pressure.  Did
   the Apollo launches not worry about aerodynamic pressure or what?

2) "almost impossible [to abort] while the SRB's are firing".  May I take this
   to mean absolutely impossible to abort?  Assuming that the SRB's could
   be released while still firing, wouldn't they run ahead of the Shuttle
   uncontrollably for a little while and expose the Shuttle to SRB exhaust
   heading the other direction?

3) As regarding the "bomb proof building", does the solid fuel burn oe explode?
   I thought the liquid fuel would explode but that the solid fueld only
   burned.  This is admittedly a minor difference:  enough fuel burning fast
   enough would be just as bad (and at some point you end up calling a fast
   burn an explosion anyway I suppose).

James R. Van Artsdalen    ...!ut-ngp!utastro!osi3b2!james    Live Free or Die

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

Date: 27 Sep 86 20:05:28 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: How to view a Space Shuttle launch
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Having been fortunate enough to see a launch (STS-9) from the press
site, I fully agree that this is the way to go if you can arrange it.  I
came back with a stack of literature almost a foot thick, including one
of those comprehensive press kits on the Space Transportation System.

One really nice thing about getting in as press was that NASA offered a
steady stream of bus tours out to the pad in the days before launch.
Watching the Rotating Service Structure being rolled back and the lights
turned on while standing just east of the pad after sundown is an
experience not to be forgotten.

The problem with KSC is a) it's enormous, and b) there's little there to
give the structures a sense of scale. You can only appreciate the size
of the pad by going out there.  At the time, pad 39-B was still under
construction, so they were able to take us right into the flame duct on
the north side of the pad. This thing is B I G!

Phil

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

Date: 28 Sep 86 20:38:14 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (e.c.leeper)
Subject: Re: Re: L5 society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> > Unfortunately, the PS now appears to be devoting most of its
> > efforts to promoting a Marsdoggle program. 
> 
> I forgot, another thing incredibly annoying about L5 is their
> hatred for the Mars project.  If the trip to Mars is to set 
> up a permanent base it could be decisive in developing space 
> society.  Only if it is a one shot would it be disadvantageous.

We had a great plan in the 1960's to make a moon landing.  There was
even talk of a permanent lunar base, etc., etc.  And the result?  We
landed 12 men on the moon between 1969 and 1972 and haven't been back
for 14 years.  What makes you think that a Mars landing would be any
different?

> > It's (the Planetary Society) a club run by Sagan and his cronies.
> 
> The reason for L5's hatred of Mars lies in this sentance.  Sagan, of
> course, has done more to popularize space than perhaps any single
> individual and certainly more than the L5 society has.  
> He has put together a society with about 110,000 members
> while L5 has about 6-9,000.  Worse than that, he's a liberal.

There's nothing wrong with popularizing space, but when it comes to
*doing* something, I think one has to look at the activity involved.
The North Jersey L5 chapter, for example, has made two trips to
Washington to meet with all the senators and representatives from New
Jersey to raise their awareness about space.  Its members have written
many letters in support of funding bills that were up for votes in
Congress.  It recently got about 15 phone calls to Senator Bradley in
favor of transferring $2.9M from DoD to NASA for a replacement orbiter.
(And if you don't think that 15 phone calls in a 4-hour stretch to a
Senator's office on a committee vote (not a floor vote) is a lot, you
don't realize how apathetic most people are.)  The North Jersey chapter
also sponsors informational booths at the New Jersey State Museum for
the Museum's Super-Science Weekend, helps organize Space Day activities
at the Museum (including a speech by astronaut Terry Hart and two NASA
science demonstrations last year and a space-related art show and film
festival the previous year), helps judge space-related exhibits at the
Murray Hill Science Fair for high school students, and provides speakers
for other organizations interested in hearing about the future in space.
The strength of the L5 Society is in its chapter organization.  You may
or may not agree with the national organization's position or the
actions they are taking, but you'll never change it by doing nothing,
and the "grass-roots" nature of the chapters makes it possible for *you*
to do something.

Needless to say, I'm a member.  Standard disclaimer applies: I am
speaking for myself.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@topaz.rutgers.edu
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl

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

Date: 27 Sep 86 10:24:32 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: A couple of satellite questions
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> (1) How long are GEO satellites expected to stay up?  In particular I
> was just reading a science fiction story in which, 8 million years
> from now, there aren't any left.  Is this realistic?  Certainly it is
> for LEO but I thought GEO was high enough to avoid atmospheric drag.

It's hard to project such things out so far into the future, but it
seems safe to say that geostationary satellites will not eventually
decay due to atmospheric drag. A much more significant set of forces
acting on them involve perturbations due to the sun, moon, and
non-spherical shape of the earth.  These tend to be "conservative"
forces, in that they do not change the amount of (kinetic + potential)
energy in the satellite, they simply move the orbit plane around.  But
who knows what will happen in 8 million years?

> (2) How does a sun-synchronous orbit work?  This is an orbit that
> always stays over the terminator.  My understanding was that the plane
> of the orbit is always fixed with respect to the fixed stars, so that
> if it's sun-synchronous at one point it's not three months later.
> What's wrong with this picture?

Your understanding of a fixed orbit plane would be correct if the earth
was a point mass with perfect spherical symmetry.  It isn't.  The real
earth has a very pronounced bulge around the equator due to its spin.
This causes what are called "secular perturbations", variations in the
satellite's orbital elements which accumulate over time (as compared
with "short period perturbations", which cancel out over an orbit).

Secular perturbations occur in right ascension of the ascending node
(RAAN) and the argument of perigee.  In a circular orbit the argument of
perigee is undefined, so the important one here is the RAAN.  This
defines the "celestial longitude" where the satellite crosses the
equator going from south-to-north (the "ascending node").  If you select
the inclination and the orbital period properly, you can cause the RAAN
to increase at a steady rate of 360/365.25 degrees per day. This exactly
matches the apparent increase of the sun's right ascension, hence the
orbital plane maintains a constant orientation with the sun-earth line.
This doesn't have to be over the terminator, it can be at any angle you
want.

The RAAN rate-of-change is negative for inclinations below 90 degrees
and positive above.  This is why all sun-synchronous orbits are slightly
retrograde (inclination between 90 and 180 degrees), since they need a
positive RAAN increase of + 360/265.25 degrees/day.  This is usually
achieved from Vandenburg by launching to the south-southwest, and from
Kourou by launching to the north-northwest.  Either direction will
satisfy the orbital mechanics; if you can launch either way you have two
launch windows per day, but if you can only launch one way (as is the
case at both sites for range safety reasons) then you only get one
chance per day.  These windows are usually VERY short, 5 minutes or so,
and will be quite a challenge for the Shuttle should it ever fly out of
VAFB.

The launch time depends, of course, on the angle you want between the
orbital plane and the sun-earth line. These orbits are usually specified
in terms of local equator crossing times, e.g., a 6am/6pm
sun-synchronous orbit would have the satellite crossing the equator
southward on one side at 6am local time and then again northward 1/2
orbit later at 6pm local time.  It would be launched from Vandenburg
somewhat after 6AM Pacific Standard time.

Sun-synchronous orbits are very useful for earth observation satellites
of all types, since they maintain relatively constant sunlighting
conditions on the earth below.

Phil

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

Date: 17 Sep 86 17:36:08 GMT
From: cbatt!clyde!watmath!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Space without science
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Summary:

In article <158@ka9q.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>> You don't _need_ mathematics for space travel.  With enough power, orbits
>> don't have to be elegant.
>
>Utter nonsense!!
>Mathematics is so completely intertwined with technology (including space
>technology) that the latter is impossible without the former.  How do you
>design your rocket engines? Or your mechanical structures? ...
>Engineering would be completely Hit-or-miss (mostly the latter) without
>mathematical analysis tools.

Not really nonsense; merely very expensive and difficult.
Mathematical analysis is just a way of making mistakes cheaply.  The
builders of the great cathedrals of Europe didn't have any engineering
knowledge in the modern sense, and as a result, they had a failure
rate that we wouldn't accept today.  It also helps that their
structures didn't have to be optimized for weight.  Early engineers
*were* frequently hit-or-miss, and their bridges fell down too.  But
if the structural demands aren't too great, you can be mathematically
ignorant and still succeed.  Do you calculate the failure modes when
you hammer together a picnic table?  I just cut down a large enough
tree.

"But," you say, "spacecraft aren't like that.  They *have* to be
weight optimized."  This is only true if you start at the bottom of a
large hole.  Had we evolved on the moon, we would have spread through
much of the solar system by now, and be marvelling at the pictures
sent back from the crushing gravity of Earth by unmanned probes.  (A
beautiful and strange place, but unvisitable by man; even if we could
survive on its surface, we could never build a vehicle capable of
landing and lifting off to orbit again.  Although some wild-minded
types suggest that the thick atmosphere could actually be used to
advantage...)

The time-worn truism is that you can jump off a small enough moon, and
that takes that mathematical ability of a grasshopper.  Rules of thumb
for building craft and calculating orbits may evolve through time.
However, there's no reason that a low-G environment could not lead to
the creation of a low-tech craft.  And space Vikings in their space
roundships might care little about the cost in lives.

John Hogg
hogg@utcsri.uucp
hogg@csri.toronto.cdn

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #3
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA26416; Sun, 5 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT
	id AA26416; Sun, 5 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610051002.AA26416@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #4

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 5 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #4

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 4

Today's Topics:
			Re: replacing the SRBs
	     Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
		      do we need new technology?
	       Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
		    response to space group flame
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 86 21:49:23 GMT
From: husc6!husc4!chiaraviglio@zarathustra.think.com  (lucius)
Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


I'm not an expert on the subject of solid-fuel vs. liquid fuel
rockets, but I'll say what I have read or otherwise found out anyway.
Warning: I read some of this stuff up to 10 years ago, and am saying
it from memory.  Do not rely on this information alone when designing
rocket motors.  :-)

	Specific impulse depends on how much useable thrust you can
get for a given amount of energy (in this case chemical) expended.
Since exhaust velocity for exhaust of a given molecular weight is
dependant on temperature, and velocity for exhaust of a given
temperature is inversely dependant on molecular weight (that is, for
exhaust ejected by thermal expansion -- does not apply to ion drives
and propellors, for instance), specific impulse is to a significant
degree inversely dependant on the molecular weight of your exhaust
(smaller molecules composing exhaust means it comes out faster for a
given temperature (which is dependant on how much energy you get per
molecule), giving you more useable thrust and less energy wasted as
unuseable heat).

	Now, if you are getting your energy from a chemical reaction,
you can't make your exhaust be of the lightest molecular weight
possible for any substance.  Free protons and electrons and monatomic
hydrogen are out because you can't get them from an energy-producing
chemical reaction, and diatomic hydrogen and several other things
lighter than water are out for that reason or because chemical
reactions which produce them do not make enough energy to be useable
as rocket fuels (besides which they also tend to make heavy and
generally non-gaseous products -- no good for your thrust-to-weight
ratio).  That leaves us with things like water and diatomic nitrogen
and a number of other compounds of similar or somewhat heavier weight
which can be produced by highly exothermic chemical reactions which do
not also produce non-gaseous products (assuming complete combustion).
However, note that hydrogen and fluorine would be unacceptable as a
fuel/oxidizer combination, even though the reaction is highly
exothermic and the exhaust is light, because the exhaust (hydrogen
fluoride) and the fluorine are too dangerous (not to mention the
trouble you would have to go to to make engines that wouldn't corrode
in that stuff at high temperature).

	With liquid fuels you can get exhaust as light as water
(molecular weight 18) if you use hydrogen and oxygen as fuel and
oxidizer, and the formation of water gives a good amount of energy.
Problem with solid fuels is, in order to make a fuel that is solid at
a useful temperature, you have to use carbon in your compounds.
Carbon is trouble because it wants to form carbon monoxide (bad stuff)
or preferably carbon dioxide, and even though the formation of carbon
dioxide gives more energy than the formation of water (per molecule),
it uses twice as much oxygen (per molecule of carbon dioxide formed),
and the molecular weight of carbon dioxide is 44, which cuts down on
specific impulse of carbon-based fuels relative to hydrogen/oxygen.

	Now, specific impulse is not the only issue in how good a
rocket fuel is.  Energy produced per weight of fuel is of course
another consideration -- the best of liquid and solid fuels are pretty
good in the respect (although I think solid fuels waste some
weight-to-energy ratio in glue to hold the stuff together); how fast
you can burn the fuel is another consideration.  The faster you can
burn the fuel the better it will be, because the less time you will
spend fighting gravity in a given part of your launch trajectory.
Since solid- fuel engines are simpler than liquid-fuel engines, it is
easier to design a huge solid-fuel engine than to design a huge
liquid-fuel engine.  Also, while liquid hydrogen is very good in
energy-to-weight ratio, it is very poor in weight-to-space ratio
(density); having to build a huge tank, insulation, and supporting
structure for a small amount of fuel is no insignificant matter (I
think this was one of the reasons for using kerosene in some
liquid-fuel rockets, such as the first stage of the Saturn rockets).

	Also, if you are building 1-shot rockets or rockets which are
going to take a swim in the ocean after each use, the lesser
complexity (which probably also means lesser cost) of solid-fuel
rockets can be an important consideration.

					Lucius Chiaraviglio
					lucius@tardis.ARPA
					seismo!tardis!lucius

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

Date: 28 Sep 86 05:16:05 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>> Or ask the satellite operators who are faced with safety requirements
>> orders of magnitude more stringent than anything they had to deal with
>> on expendables because of the "man-rated" factor.

> This is a real problem, but it has much more to do with overconservative
> management brought on by severe budget pressure and a ridiculously tiny
> orbiter fleet than with any inherent requirement of manned spaceflight.

Overconservative management? Where have you been since January?? Do
you seriously believe that the safety requirements for shuttle
payloads are actually going to get *easier* in the future?

We've been over this issue many times before. Manned vehicles,
particularly expensive, reusable shuttles, put far more at risk on
each mission than unmanned expendables. There's just *no way* that the
safety requirements for the Shuttle can ever be made equal to or less
stringent than those for expendables. Given that the shuttle orbit by
itself is pretty much useless for many (if not most) space
applications, you'll always need to carry extra propulsion to get into
a useful orbit. And propulsion is generally considered a "hazardous
system", for which the weight of the safety paperwork must exceed the
weight of the system or else it can't fly.

Curiously enough, though, many people justified the shuttle because it
would somehow make payloads cheaper to build...

Phil

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

Date: 5 Oct 86 07:37:46 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: do we need new technology?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

== From: karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn)
== 
== Rather than argue fundamental philosophy, I'll just point out the
== self-conflict in your argument. Our current method for reaching space is far
== too expensive to make sense for all but a very small, select set of space
== applications (communications, remote sensing, etc).  In particular, space
== travel far too expensive (by many orders of magnitude) for "moving life off
== the planet"; that's just not realistic with present technology. (By "present
== technology" I don't mean just the Shuttle; I mean "chemical rockets").

I must agrue most strenously with this conclusion. There has been
strong reason to suppose for many years that a combination of chemical
technology for reaching LEO and Mass Drivers/Ion Motors for getting
around in space will be sufficent for "moving life off the planet" in
the sense of establishing self-sufficient bases in space. The fact
that the shuttle was not "cheap" does not prove that it is not
possible to build "cheap" chemical powered shuttles to LEO.

== If you're going to have any chance at all of "expanding life off the
== planet", you're going to have to discover some new physical phenomenon you
== can use to replace chemical rockets.  Now it seems logical that you're more

The major thrust of the discusion of space development since Von Braun
has been that we don't need some super nifty technology; we just need
to do it! This is not intended to imply that no further engineering
work is needed, just that were Von Braun still with us and getting all
the money he needed, I bet he could do it in about five years.

== Clearly we need a wide range of scientific activities in space. I didn't say
== that life sciences research involving human presence isn't worthwhile. I'm
== only saying that, in my personal opinion, it has gained an unwarranted
== overemphasis at the cost of many other equally (or more) deserving fields
== that, unfortunately, lack the political sex appeal of a floating astronaut
== waving to a TV camera.

My personal opinion is that the time has come to build infrastructure
rather than send 20 probes to the outer planets. Let's fund planetary
exploration on the level we fund other "big science" projects like
particle physics. NASA's infrastructure building should be funded at
10X that amount or more - still a tiny fraction of the federal budget.

== Phil

Dale

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

Date: 5 Oct 86 06:55:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

==> At one point I urged people to join the Planetary Society, 
==> Unfortunately, the PS now appears to be devoting most of its
==> efforts to promoting a Marsdoggle program. 
== 
== I forgot, another thing incredibly annoying about L5 is their
== hatred for the Mars project.  If the trip to Mars is to set 
== up a permanent base it could be decisive in developing space 
== society.  Only if it is a one shot would it be disadvantageous.

I absolutely agree with your position. That's why I'm so concerned
with the Proxmire/Matsunaga joint US/Soviet Mars expedition as
endorsed by the New York Times. Such a mission would almost certainly
be a one shot political stunt that would result in little more
infrastructure in space that an old space station and four used up
shuttles.  The Mars expedition described in the National Commission on
Space report is that way to go - after a lunar mining base and
numerous space stations have been established - at the END of a FIFTY
YEAR program of infrastructure building.

Remember folks: Apollo was supposed to be followed by a base on the
moon. We must focus solidly on building an industrial future in space,
not on glitzy space adventures that finally are nothing but an insult
to the underclass of America.

== > It's (the Planetary Society) a club run by Sagan and his cronies.
== The reason for L5's hatred of Mars lies in this sentance.  Sagan, of

Nonsense.
	1)My original intent was to point out that the PS is not
	a democratic organization and that L5 was. The members of the PS
	do not elect a board of directors - the members of L5 do. This
	matters to me.
	2)I don't speak for anyone but myself, but I don't think
	the L5 Society "hates Mars." Pro and Anti Mars articles
	have appeared in the L5 News. I think it's safe to guess however,
	that most L5 members would not like to see a one shot stunt
	Mars expedition. I also think almost all would be glad to
	see a permanent base on Mars.

== course, has done more to popularize space than perhaps any single

This is exceedingly debatable

== individual and certainly more than the L5 society has.  

True. Sad, but true.

== He has put together a society with about 110,000 members
== while L5 has about 6-9,000.  Worse than that, he's a liberal.

The problem with Mr. Sagan is not his liberalism. Mr. Sagan believes
living and working in space is a childish dream. See the June 86 isue
of Space World for a transcript of a debate between O'Neill and Sagan.
As I see it, Mr. Sagan has fastened on a Mars expedition as a way to
pry loose the public support for space science. Since polls the PS
took revealed strong support for humans in space, the entire
orientation of the society apparently has shifted toward promoting a
Mars expedtion, any Mars expediton.

With this in mind, I think Mr. Sagan must be viewed as one of the
greatest enemies of space developement at this time since he offers in
its place the seductive dream of vicariously bounding over the sand
dunes of Mars by TV camera.

Dale Skran
Speaking only for himself.

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

Date: 5 Oct 86 08:32:07 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: response to space group flame
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

== Subject: And one more flame against L-5
== 
== I think I'll add my flamage to the rest by pointing out that L-5 was a
== flawed organization from day one.  As their name suggests, their whole
== focus was on only one issue, namely the fabricating of space colonies at
== the libration points.  I personally think this is a really **dumb**

Although this was true at one point, L5 has shifted its focus from L5
Space colonies per se to space development and the human habitation of
space in general, although clearly space colonies are still a major
concern. In fact, for reasons I don't want to go into, it was almost
immediately realized that the L5 points are not the best place to put
colonies.

== idea.   Why invest all that effort and energy to lob stuff up from the
== moon to a Lagrangian point for making a colony when it would be vastly
== simpler and cheaper to merely bore tunnels into the moon's crust and
== make enormous underground colonies.  Because it focused on only one idea
== and an unfeasible one at that, L-5 never really had any credibility.

I personally find the notion of colonies in space as described in
numerous books, including NASA summer studies, to be more sensible and
feasible than this concept of tunnels in the moon. I suggest that you
read "Space Settlements- A Design Study(NASA summer study)" and "The
High Frontier" by O'Neill and then we can continue this discussion at
a later time.  Still, if lunar colonies are really the better idea, I
feel confident L5 members will support them.

== L-5 has done some good things however.  For example, they played an
== important role in preventing ratification of the so called Moon Treaty
== by Congress.  There has been sufficient flamage against the Moon treaty
== already, so I shall not repeat it.  Let it suffice that for having
== opposed the Moon treaty the L-5 leadership should have their names
== inscribed in gold letters on a stone monolith set on the lunar surface.

Surely an organization deserving such an honor also deserves some
support between now and the time we can actually return to the moon to
build the monument?

== The problem with L-5 and other space activist groups is that they tend
== to get flakey or locked into single issues.  The Planetary Society is
== following this same track with this nonsense being spewed by Van Allen.

== Stan Kent was a very important space activist, and skillfully used the
== Viking landers as a basis for advancing his influence.  However the
== Vikings crapped out on him, destroying the sole basis for his
== organization's income.  Besides Stan couldn't figure out whether he
== wanted to be an aeronautical engineer or a rock star. He made the
== mistake of allowing his credibility to sink to zero and getting labeled
== as a "flake".  This is the fundamental contradiction in space activism.

I suggest you read Trudy Bell's discussion of Stan Kent and the
failure of Delta Vee in Upward: Status Report and Directory of the
American Space Interest Movement(1984-1985). Clearly Delta Vee
suffered from being a one issue group. It also suffered by Kent's own
admission from being a one man show.

== I'll call this the "Carl Sagen Syndrome".  How does one go public in
== advocating space industrialization and still maintain his credibility as

Why call it the Carl Sagan anything? When has Mr. Sagan ever advocated
space industrialization?

== an Aerospace Engineer.  It is typical for these space groups to turn
== into "Star Trek fan clubs".  Or even worse, someone will build up an

What organization do you have in mind? I can't think of any.

== organization and then stupidly allow someone who is hearing voices from
== Mars to get on the executive committee.  One would think that the AIAA

This seems even more unlikely. Examples please.

== should serve as the prime advocate for space industrialization.  However
== the AIAA is too wrapped up with the military-industrial complex, and
== with such down-to-earth things like "next years Star Wars budget"
== to be concerned with pie-in-the-sky like colonizing the moon.

On this I agree with you; the conservatism of AIAA is well known.
==                       Gary Allen


My personal opinion is that the space interest groups are failures in
general, including L5, because their members are incapable of working
together and making the compromises necessary for political success.
By this I mean working with Jerry Pournelle even if he right wing and
for SDI. By this I mean being willing to put aside
liberal/conservative flamage to support the space station, the space
shuttle, and space industrialization. By this I mean being able to
understand the need to support existing programs like the shuttle
while working for future oriented programs like the TAV. If every L5
member who quit because they *thought* L5 had done something to
support SDI re-joined, and if every L5 member who quit because they
had a personal dislike for some particular officer re-joined, and if
every L5 member who quit once they realized the purpose of the society
was not to entertain them via the L5 News re-joined, by god, L5 might
become a really meaningful force rather that the gamely struggling
group it is.

Give it some thought folks. Are we going to grow up and work together
to get into space, or spend our days until WWIII arguing about the
shuttle?

Send $30 dues to the L5 Society, 1060 E. Elm Street, Tucson, Arizona, 85719

Dale Skran

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #4
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13249; Mon, 6 Oct 86 03:02:46 PDT
	id AA13249; Mon, 6 Oct 86 03:02:46 PDT
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 03:02:46 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610061002.AA13249@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #5

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 03:02:46 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #5

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 5

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Chariots for Apollo #2 - A one way trip?
		      Re: Space without science
		     more on replacing the SRBs..
		      Re: sun-synchronous orbits
		    shuttle solid rocket boosters
		 Re: A couple of satellite questions
			 Screw-threaded SRBs
		       Liquid vs. Fuel boosters
	    how to get a press pass for shuttle launches?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Sep 86 21:50:59 GMT
From: blarson@oberon.usc.edu  (Bob Larson)
Subject: Re: Chariots for Apollo #2 - A one way trip?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

There was a (made for TV?) movie based on this concept.  (Aprox. 1968)
The lunar lander was a gemeni capsule on a lunar module base.  I saw
this on the late**3 show on one of the independent stations here in LA
about a year ago.

Bob Larson
Arpa: Blarson@Usc-Eclb.Arpa	or	blarson@usc-oberon.arpa
Uucp: (ihnp4,hplabs,tektronix)!sdcrdcf!usc-oberon!blarson

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

To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Space without science
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 86 21:32:53 -0500
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>


Joel Swank writes:
>In article <15800016@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU writes:
>> 
>> Ever wonder what a space-faring culture might be like (if it is possible)
>> without mathematics?  What would _we_ be like if not for Newton, Mach,
>> Einstein, etc.?
>> 
>> You don't _need_ mathematics for space travel.  With enough power, orbits
>> don't have to be elegant.
>
>Are you serious? We couldn't come close to space travel without mathmatics.
>No advanced society could even exist without science. Every advancement
>depends heavily on all that went before. How would you do it? Prayer?

You need mathematics for _rockets_.  However, there just might be a
simpler way to travel that we've overlooked so far.  There have been a
couple of stories in Analog recently on this theme.

Speaking of technology - the December issue of Analog has an article by
Thomas Donaldson on some really advanced stuff that particle physics
may bring - commercial production of antimatter, magnetic monopoles,
strings, collapsed matter (to form "quark matter", not neutronium or
black holes) and strange matter.  Neat stuff.

                                     - Jim Van Zandt

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

Date: 29 Sep 86 06:05:07 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: more on replacing the SRBs..
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

My thanks to those who have replied, both on the net and by email,
to my previous posting on "replacing the SRBs".  I'll summarize here
what I've been able to glean so far, and add a few more thoughts.  My
question asked why it was "that NASA has evinced so little interest 
in developing reusable liquid fueled boosters as replacements for the
Shuttle SRBs".  I consider the question still very much open, as I've 
seen no really definitive replies.

On the technical side, it happens that solids do have some advantages 
over liquids, aside from reliability and lower development cost.  In
particular, it's easy to achieve high thrust in a comparatively small
solid rocket, just by shaping the fuel cores for a fast burn rate.  
The rocket won't burn very long, and it won't be terribly efficient,
but if high thrust for a short time is all you need, then solids are
the way to go.

For a liquid fueled rocket, thrust depends on the power of its pumps,
which sets a limit on how fast fuel can be forced into the cumbustion
chamber.  It is certainly possible to produce a liquid fueled rocket
with as much thrust as the Shuttle SRBs (2.1 million pounds), but it
might be felt that such a development would be wasted on a "mere" SRB
replacement.  If you were going to go to that effort, you'd want it
to be part of a larger effort leading to a new generation, fully 
reusable system.
 
I'm only speculating about that latter point, but I can understand 
such a point of view.  The Shuttle design is presumably optimized for
maximum effectiveness of the Shuttle main engines.  The size and burn 
rate for the SRBs would be calculated for the minimum needed to get 
the stack out of the atmosphere and to the point that the SSMEs can
carry the orbiter and external tank the rest of the way to orbit.  It
is certainly possible, in principle, to replace the SRBs with reusable
liquid fueled boosters programmed to emulate the SRB boost profile,
but if that's all you did, you wouldn't be getting nearly as much out
of them as they would be capable of delivering.
 
If you had a reusable liquid fueled booster, you'd really want it to
burn longer and do more of the "work" of the launch than the SRBs now do.
But then, unless you increased the Shuttle payload quite a bit, you'd be 
under-utilizing the SSMEs.  And you can't increase the Shuttle payload 
by much, because of vehicle structural limitations.
 
Of course, the fact that a system optimized for a reusable LF booster
wouldn't involve merely replacing the existing SRBs doesn't prove that 
such a replacement isn't desirable.  You could come pretty close to an
optimized design by also modifying the external tank.  Shorten the LOX
tank, add LOX crossfeed from the booster to the smaller tank, and stick
on the Aft Cargo Compartment that Martin is itching to build.  You'd end
up with a system that might deliver 100,000 pounds to LEO, exclusive of 
the orbiter vehicle and the external tank, and could handle larger 
diameter payloads to boot.  
 
Several who responded mentioned the problem of ocean recovery for a
liquid fueled booster.  That's not surprising, since I know that at one 
time, early in the program, NASA was very seriously considering use of
liquid fueled boosters for the Shuttle, and it was the ocean recovery
problem that was generally acknowledged to have killed that option.  
There were two issues that I'm aware of--concern for the ability of the
lighter and thinner shell of a liquid fueled booster to withstand ocean
impact, and concern for the effects of salt water on the pumps and 
engines.  More specifically on the latter point, there was concern for
what it would cost to guarantee, after each flight, that no corrosion
damage was present.  It was assumed that the whole works would have to
be disassembled and inspected.
 
Ocean recovery is a problem only if you assume that you're going to be
fishing the booster out of the drink.  That's what we do with the SRBs,
certainly, but I can think of at least three alternatives.   The most
obvious is to give the boosters true fly-back capability.  That ups the
development ante, and creates even more incentive to make the development
part of a whole new system.  The other alternatives would be less costly,
but I don't think I want to try to explain them here.
 
The most basic issue seems to come down to whether or not it's worth
making a major investment to improve the current shuttle system.  Many 
space advocates seem to feel that, given the reality of limited budget
resources, it's best to do only the minimum necessary to get the Shuttle
flying again, and put maximum effort into the aerospace plane.  At any
rate, that's the way NASA seems to be headed.
 
That's something that scares the hell out of me.  It's entirely too
reminiscent of the situation back at the start of the shuttle program.  At
that time, a deliberate decision was made to focus all development effort
on "the" space transportation system, or STS, as the program was known.  
The manned space program basically went on hold for 10 years, and the
rest of the space program limped along at low levels with the same 
expendable launch vehicles that had been in use for years.  We didn't like
it, of course, but accepted it because we knew "THE SHUTTLE IS COMING".
 
We are now witness to the bitter fruits of that policy, yet we seem 
intent on repeating history.  Only this time, of course, it's "THE SPACE 
PLANE IS COMING".  
 
I dunno, maybe the space plane will be the wonder that everyone is 
hoping for.  My cynical heart merely whispers a couple of disquieting 
facts:
 
   1) it's never much fun to clean up a project that you weren't
      responsible for; given half a choice, any normal manager or
      engineer prefers to start with a clean slate.  In fact, they
      will go to great lengths to convince you that the old system
      is beyond repair, but if you let them do it RIGHT..  
 
      Sometimes, they're even correct.  More often, the new system
      ends up with just as many problems as the old.
 
   2) for all its elegant "efficiency", the space plane does little or
      nothing directly to address the single overwhelming element in
      the high cost of flying the Shuttle: the army of technicians and
      support personnel that labor for months after each flight
      preparing the vehicle for its next launch.  
 
Cost of fuel has essentially nothing at all to do with the price of a
Shuttle flight.  If you want cheaper space transportation, the one and
only factor you currently have any business looking at is vehicle
turnaround costs.
 
Enough!  Thanks, all, for your indulgence.
 
- Roger Arnold   ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

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

Date: Tue 30 Sep 86 02:43:21-EDT
From: Robert.Berger@c.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: sun-synchronous orbits
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Orbits would stay fixed relative to the star field IF the earth were a
perfect sphere. In reality, the flattening of the earth at the poles
causes orbits to precess. The rate and direction of the precession
depends on the orbital period and inclination. By choosing these
paramaters appropriately, an orbit can be produced which precesses
once per year in the direction needed to produce a sun-synchronous
orbit.

An interesting sidenote is that the required inclination is > 90
degrees, which means the satellite travels to the west. Most
satellites travel to the east to take advantage of the rotational
speed of the earth during launch.

-Robert Berger
berger@cmu-c

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

Date: 30 Sep 86 02:32:39 GMT
From: video.dec.com!kovner@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: shuttle solid rocket boosters
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I seem to recall that the original design for the space shuttle did
not use solid boosters at all, but that it had a re-useable PILOTED
'first stage'. In that design, the orbiter would have engines for a
and fuel for a powered re-entry and landing. As is often the case in
government projects (except for military ones), the budget was cut
back to the point where the design had to be simplified to lower
development costs. (Who cares about the costs later. :-)

The budget restraints also resulted in changes in the way NASA tested
the parts. Their previous practice would be to test EACH PART. In the
case of the shuttle, they had to test the engines complete. This found
problems, which caused delays, which caused budget overruns..... When
will they ever learn? The GAO study found that the delays in getting
the shuttle flying were primarily due to insufficient funding at an
early stage, where problems could be corrected more cheaply.

Maybe NASA should hire some military contractor's lobbyists. If they
could afford them. :-)

Steve Kovner

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

Date: 28 Sep 86 13:38:17 GMT
From: ihnp4!chinet!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch)
Subject: Re: A couple of satellite questions
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <3195@columbia.UUCP> eppstein@garfield.columbia.edu (David Eppstein) writes:
>(1) How long are GEO satellites expected to stay up?  In particular I
>was just reading a science fiction story in which, 8 million years
>from now, there aren't any left.  Is this realistic?  Certainly it is
>for LEO but I thought GEO was high enough to avoid atmospheric drag.

Well.. First, there is SOME drag at 22,000 miles.  Drag from the solar
wind, drag from the Earth's magnetic tail, and drag from impact by
micrometeoroids.  However, the most important effect on a satellite in
the Clarke Orbit is that of gravitation.  The moon alternately speeds
up and slows down these satellites on a monthly cycle.  The planets
exert small varying forces on these bodies.  The sun exerts a varying
pull as the Earth moves from perihelion to apohelion.

Over 8 million years, these would sweep clean anything in an orbit
that was not self-correcting.  For example, I think that something in
the Earth-Sun L5 point MIGHT be there in 8 million years.

-David B. (Ben) Burch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)

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

Date:           Mon, 29 Sep 86 09:52:53 PDT
From: Todd Johnson <lcc.todd@locus.ucla.edu>
To: king@kestrel.arpa
Cc: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Screw-threaded SRBs

> Does anyone know why SRB's segments are NOT simply threaded and
> screwed together like iron pipe?
>-dick

Sure. If you accidentally got some of the solid propellant on one of
those screw threads and tightened - bang! (That's not as impossible as
it seems). More importantly, adding screw threads increases the
chances of having the SRB come apart due to fatigue loading. Also, how
could you accurately torque a 2 meter wide segment? Equally, how true
does the roundness of the SRB have to be in order to screw together
properly?

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

Date:     Mon, 29 Sep 86 13:33 EST
From: "Sherlock Holmes" <WELTYC%cievms@rpics.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Liquid vs. Fuel boosters
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@s1-b.arpa"

>Can anybody out there tell me why it is that NASA has evinced so little
>interest in developing reusable liquid fuel boosters as replacements for
>the Shuttle SRB's?

	From what I understand (this is second generation `sound', ie
I got it from someone who has accesss to reliable sources) about the
situation, the entire Shuttle program is going to be replaced by some
sort of TAV (well, hopefully and eventually), so long-term development
ideas for the shuttle are not being considered.  Keep in mind that
most of the shuttle was designed many years ago, so the SRB's were
great then, and liquid fuel boosters did not seem as feasable.  For
now, they are trying to redesign the SRB's with as little money as
possible, and this removes the possibility of major development, and
really new ideas (like liquid fuels, new composite materials, and
others).

					-Chris Welty
					 RPI/CIE Systems Mgr.

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

Date: 29 Sep 86 16:33:30 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Subject: how to get a press pass for shuttle launches?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Several people have commented that a good spot for viewing a shuttle
lauch is the press area, for which a press pass is necessary. But how
could I get one of those, considering that I don't work for NBC etc?
Presumably one does need genuine press credentials to get such a press
pass.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #5
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA28378; Tue, 7 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT
	id AA28378; Tue, 7 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610071002.AA28378@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #6

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #6

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 6

Today's Topics:
		   Question about getting to orbit
		 Re: Question about getting to orbit
		 Re: Question about getting to orbit
		 Re: Question about getting to orbit
		 Re: Question about getting to orbit
		   Question about getting to orbit
    What is the most likely design of the HOTOL propulsion system
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Sep 86 09:05:42 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!tekecs!kendalla%blast.gwd.tek.com@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kendall Auel)
Subject: Question about getting to orbit
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I have been wondering about something, and it seems that this group is
full of people who should have the answer. Why aren't/can't rockets be
put into orbit in the following way:

1) Launch/Fly at sub-sonic speeds, until you're about 100,000 feet up
  (Whenever the atmosphere gets thin).

2) Kick in the big rockets and accelerate to orbital velocity, without
   all the aerodynamic drag.

I'm very naive about these things, but it seems to me that if you took
something along the lines of a DC-9, stuffed it full of rocket fuel
intead of people, flew it as high as it could go (maybe with a gentle
boost from the rockets), that you could then accelerate to orbital
speeds fairly easily.

I guess the real question is: how much fuel is spent fighting aero-
dynamic drag, and how much is used to actually get into orbit? Also,
the fuel that is burning to overcome this drag had to be accelerated,
so the extra fuel needed to do that must be included.

If you want to send up a couple of people in a small cockpit, just how
much extra mass do you need to get them there? In 1960 it was an
Atlas rocket (or whatever). What I would like to see is something
on the scale of a VW bug.

Kendall Auel
Tektronix, Inc.

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

Date: 3 Oct 86 13:59:39 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <7692@tekecs.UUCP> kendalla@blast.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes:
>I have been wondering about something, and it seems that this group
>is full of people who should have the answer. Why aren't/can't rockets
>be put into orbit in the following way:
>
>1) Launch/Fly at sub-sonic speeds, until you're about 100,000 feet up
>  (Whenever the atmosphere gets thin).
>
>2) Kick in the big rockets and accelerate to orbital velocity, without
>   all the aerodynamic drag.

As a previous article said, this slow start isn't enough to seriously
save much in orbit insertion costs.  The `space plane' or Trans
Atmospheric Vehicle (TAV) is meant to give you a bigger start, even more
than an SR-71's height and speed, by using more exotic engines and
materials.  Even when you're that high, the air still causes a lot of
heat and drag because you're moving so fast, so the TAV will be
difficult to design and build.

Your question about the cheapest possible way to get into orbit is hard
to answer because there are so many possibilities.  We're at the bottom
of a deep gravity well, so expect to burn a lot of energy to get out.
Here are some ideas gleaned from several sources I've read over the past
few years:

1) A small, cheap TAV, launched from a high plateau (maybe Tibet), to
   get you high enough to rendezvous with an orbital tug at its lowest
   possible orbit.  Maybe something along the lines of Hermes, a French
   shuttle design, would be close to what is needed.

2) Get in a rocket with no engine and let large ground-based lasers
   burn the fuel in your combustion chamber.  This saves a lot of weight
   and money.  SDI research is producing big, powerful lasers that may
   be applicable.

3) A small rocket launched VERTICALLY that deposits your capsule
   within reach of a long space station that catches you and accelerates
   you up to orbital velocity to dock.  Remember to pack a parachute if
   you miss (:-).

4) An even smaller rocket can get you high enough to grab a tether
   suspended from low orbit.  Then as the tether rotates, jump off at
   the high end onto a higher tether or rendezvous with another
   spacecraft.

5) A `launch loop' can throw your capsule high enough so that a small
   rocket boost will get you into orbit.  The launch loop is a huge
   chain of steel accelerated to orbital speeds (while held to the
   ground at the ends!)  using linear electric motors and bending
   magnets.  A capsule rides on top of the loop, magnetically supported
   and accelerated.

6) Just step into the elevator and ride up to orbit on a `beanstalk'.
   If we can find a material strong enough, we can attach one end to the
   ground near the equator and the other to a station at geosynchonous
   orbit.  Then your elevator climbs the cable using electric power
   generated from solar power satellites.
					Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: 2 Oct 86 14:49:00 GMT
From: silber@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Actually, some of the SDI and anti-satelite missles are launched from
F-16s, so I suppose that it's possible.  The biggest problem would be
re-entry.  I remember a mid-30s SF story which involved getting into
space in a small airplane, the way suggested in the base note.  in the
story, the pilot merely flew his plane back into the atmosphere.  If I
remmember correctly, re-entry velocity tends to be over 15000 mph from
LEO, and arround 25000 from a lunar mission.  What might be possible
would be some sort of space plane similar to the X-15, dropped from a
high altitude, high payload aircraft.

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

Date: 4 Oct 86 03:07:53 GMT
From: karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Actually, some of the SDI and anti-satelite missles are launched from
> F-16s, so I suppose that it's possible.

The American ASAT (launched from F-15's) is never anywhere close to
being in orbit. It is just lobbed up into the path of the oncoming
satellite, which smashes into it.  "Orbital altitude" is easy; it's the
VELOCITY component that's hard.

Phil

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

Date: 3 Oct 86 18:08:14 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> I'm very naive about these things, but it seems to me that if you took
> something along the lines of a DC-9, stuffed it full of rocket fuel
> intead of people, flew it as high as it could go (maybe with a gentle
> boost from the rockets), that you could then accelerate to orbital
> speeds fairly easily.

In principle this is correct.  In practice, the DC-9 is heavy and its
payload is limited, and when you do the arithmetic it comes out "no go".
What is needed is a very light vehicle which can carry a very large load
of rocket fuel to quite high altitudes.  People have been looking at
such things for a long time; the arithmetic keeps saying "it's just
barely possible, which means that in practice you might not pull it
off".  The situation is getting better, however, as better structural
materials are developed and rocket engines become more efficient.

> I guess the real question is: how much fuel is spent fighting aero-
> dynamic drag, and how much is used to actually get into orbit? ...

To a very sloppy first approximation, the shuttle's solid boosters are
to get it up above the atmosphere, and the main engines are to
accelerate it to orbital velocity.  The shuttle is not moving all that
fast at booster burnout, but it's above most of the air.  Most of the
fuel in the external tank goes for near-horizontal acceleration at very
high altitudes.

> If you want to send up a couple of people in a small cockpit, just how
> much extra mass do you need to get them there? In 1960 it was an
> Atlas rocket (or whatever)...

It's not going to get too much smaller and lighter than an Atlas.  The
Atlas in particular was and is an outstandingly lightweight booster.
Note that the basic Atlas, as used in the Mercury program, is only "one
and a half" stages (the "half" is that two of its three engines are
jettisoned at high altitude, but there is only one set of tanks for all
three) and nevertheless puts a modest payload into orbit.  Compare this
to Titan or Ariane, which are three-stage rockets.  Atlas could
certainly be improved by using modern engine technology and possibly
liquid hydrogen as fuel, but that would not produce a drastic shrinkage.
Atlas shows the right order of magnitude for the effort needed to launch
payloads with chemical fuels.  Repackaging into a reusable vehicle won't
alter that.
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 6 Oct 86 13:26:48 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: space
Cc: tektronix!orca!tekecs!kendalla%blast.gwd.tek.com@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Question about getting to orbit

In answer to your question about aerodynamic drag let me quote from a
table of altitude versus pressure from the "Handbook of Tables for
Applied Engineering Science".  Note that the pressure is basically the
weight of all the air above you (per unit area).  Since the weight is a
very weak function of altitude (below 300,000 feet) the pressure in
units of atmospheres gives you the precentage of the atmosphere above
you.
	alt.	pressure		alt.	pressure
	(K ft)	(atm)			(K ft)	(atm)
	0	1.000			20	0.474
	1	0.966			30	0.313
	2	0.932			40	0.200
	3	0.899			50	0.124
	5	0.837			75	0.038
	10	0.697			100	0.012
	15	0.577			200	0.000237
	18.677	0.500 (interpolated)	300	0.000001

A commercial jet can fly as high as 40,000 ft without much trouble which
that is above 80% of the atmosphere.  Since velocities during the early
part of a shuttle flight are fairly low and mostly vertical this is not
much of a problem.  Air drag is the reason for this flight profile, but
that doesn't add to the difficulty of getting to orbit.

The actual altitude is about 1/15 of the energy required to get to
orbital altitude.  But the real problem is that 600 mph is only about a
1/30 of the required velocity and the energy deficit is proportional to
the square of that ratio (about one part in 1000).  A jetliner is not a
big help from either drag or energy standpoints.

I'd approach this problem with the following line of argument.  The
rocket uses its fuel at a roughly constant rate.  We can ask: how much
of its time does a rocket spend in the atmosphere (or within the
performance envelope of an airplane)?  My recollection is that the
Shuttle is well outside these parameters within 30 seconds.  I vaguely
recall that the SSMEs run for 10 minutes (more or less).  So about 5% is
inside the atmospheric region.  And during that time it is surely not
spending more than 10% of its force pushing air so I'd guess the air
resistance factor at less than one half percent.

In answer to the question: why not on the scale of a VW bug?  The basic
problem is that the mass ratio of a rocket is exponential in required
velocity.  Mass ratio is the ratio of the fuel mass to the payload mass
and a rocket is anything that must carry its own reaction mass
(airplanes use the air, cars use the road surface).  Since you need so
much velocity to reach orbital velocity this exponential is affects
every aspect of rocket design.  Using multiple stages helps a lot but
not enough.
	Ted Anderson

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

Date: Tue, 30 Sep 86 10:42:52 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: What is the most likely design of the HOTOL propulsion system

Paul Dietz and I are engaged in a running debate on the operating
principles of the HOTOL.  My position is that the HOTOL burns pure
oxygen extracted from air that is passed through a supersonic inlet
and over a liquid hydrogen heat exchanger in a region of separated
flow.  Paul's position is that atmospheric gases are liquified through
turbomachinery and combusted in the HOTOL's rocket engines, with the
nonreacting nitrogen acting constructively as a working fluid.

I've based my view on having seen one cross sectional diagram of a
Japanese HOTOL type propulsion system that was displayed in an obscure
corner of the Japanese section at the 1986 International Luftfahrt
Ausstellung (Hannover Airshow).  The main reason why I don't think
Paul's view is correct is that at Mach 5 the stagnation temperature
for air as it hits the vehicle is 1800 deg. Kelvin.  After undergoing
mechanical compression I strongly suspect that the air will be so hot
that keeping Paul's turbomachinery from melting would require
excessive cooling and plumbing.  I have heard through the grape vine
that materials problems due to heating are the number one difficulty
in the HOTOL.  I was also told that the total weight and mass ratio
are big problems with the HOTOL.  For example the HOTOL must be
launched from a cradle that is left behind to save mass. It seems
unlikely that the designers would tolerate the extra mass of a
complicated turbocompressor.  In addition it seems to me that a
practical design would favor an oxygen extraction system that employs
no moving parts rather than a relatively unreliable turbocompressor.
Anyone familar with the history and troubles connected with the
Rockwell SSME Powerhead could see the wisdom in avoiding complicated
turbomachinery if possible.

However I should emphasize that Paul's and my discussion on this issue
border on a theological debate.  Nobody really knows what Rolls Royce
has up its sleeve with the HOTOL.  The design isn't even frozen yet.
It is quite possible that they could reject the design that I've
described and adopt something like Paul's.  What I find interesting
about the HOTOL concept is that it could provide a means for small
countries to get into low earth orbit.  Also the HOTOL propulsion
system would be very useful for the NASP because the NASP's scramjets
are useful only at high Mach number.  I think a rocket based system
would be better for getting the NASP's scramjets to their operating
point rather than a variable cycle turbojet.
                         Gary Allen

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #6
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01459; Wed, 8 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT
	id AA01459; Wed, 8 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610081002.AA01459@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #7

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 8 Oct 86 03:02:30 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #7

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 7

Today's Topics:
			    L5/ PS Flames
			      Re: (none)
		     Re: DoD and funding research
			  Re: Re: L5 society
		 Re: Space Station & decaying orbits
			Re: replacing the SRBs
		  Re: And one more flame against L-5
			Re: replacing the SRBs
			   Re: L-5 Society
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Sep 86 14:25:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: L5/ PS Flames
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I've read several articles blasting the L5 society while comparing with
the Planetary Society (PS). I for one use to belonged to both and
decided to terminate my support for the Planetary Society in favor of
L5. It was a stressful decision because I fundamentally agree with many
of the goals of the Planetary Society, however, not being rich I felt it
nonproductive supporting two groups that where hurting each other. L5
came out for the space station and PS was pretty much against it.
(Notwithstanding the "Mars Mission" PS is generally against man space
missions.)

Despite comments to the contrary, L5 and many of its members, including
me, are not pro SDI. And yes for your bucks PS gives you a very slick
publication, clearly superior to the L5 news. The true difference
between the organizations is not along the lines of liberal/conservative
but rather scientific inquiry/space development.  L5 is dedicated to
establishing permanent space colonies and the development of space
resources. The Planetary Society is dedicated to scientific exploration
of the COSMOS. Both are noble objectives.

The problem comes when both groups get politically active and fight over
the same "limited" Federal funds for their pet projects. In an ideal
world, both groups would get what they need to accomplish their goals.

I personally feel a need to do more than just read about the COSMOS.
I'd like visit it personally, well if not me then my grandchildren. I
also feel that channeling our resources into opening up the "High
Frontier" is far more productive than building more weapons to turn the
Earth into atomic rubble.

It really is a crime that these two highly intelligent groups of
motivated people can't learn to work with each other instead of against
each other. Perhaps the human race deserves to fall back into the
primeval goo, instead of inheriting the stars.

				Fred Mendenhall

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

Date: 30 Sep 86 18:40:30 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: (none)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Does anyone know why SRB's segments are NOT simply threaded and
> screwed together like iron pipe?

Probably because it's too difficult to do in such large sizes.  Those
segments are not even rigid objects at that size, as witness problems
with things like out-of-round segments.  Also, threads are not
necessarily the answer to everything: the key problem is the gas-tight
seal, not the mechanical joint.  As witness the huge bites out of the
recovered SRB pieces where the leak was, a gas leak can chew away solid
steel at a shocking rate when the pressures and temperatures are at SRB
levels.  Threads that size almost certainly could not be made gas-tight;
it would be necessary to use sealing rings, and the control over seating
and so forth would probably be more difficult.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Sep 86 19:18:12 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: DoD and funding research
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> The department of Health and Human services should fund biomedical research,
> not DoD.  The only function DoD should serve is the defense of our country...

The two functions are not mutually exclusive.  World War II was the
first major war in which the bulk of the military casualties were from
wounds rather than disease.  The military has a major and legitimate
interest in the practical side of medical care.  More fundamental
research, though, is indeed an arguable point.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Sep 86 19:29:41 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: L5 society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> But then again I have this layman's interest in planetary science, which of
> course is worthless because it does nothing to further moving mankind off the
> planet...

The average space-interested layman likes unmanned planetary missions
only as a somewhat-unsatisfactory vicarious substitute for getting
people -- not just a handful of specially-trained people, but lots of
people, specifically *himself* or his children -- into space.  (His
support for the Shuttle is only a little warmer, because it's clearly a
step in the right direction but nowhere near enough.)

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Sep 86 19:32:28 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station & decaying orbits
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> How high will the Space Station be placed?  Main Question: how long will it
> stay in place without needing some boost to maintain position?  ...

I don't remember the numbers, but the working plan for some time has
been to reboost every few months, as I recall.  If reboost coincides
with visits by shuttle to resupply the station, this adds the useful
bonus that the shuttle can meet the station at its lowest point rather
than its highest, increasing the shuttle payload.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Sep 86 18:58:02 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Can anybody out there tell me why it is that NASA has evinced so
> little interest in developing reusable liquid fuel boosters as
> replacements for the Shuttle SRB's?  ...

Because there is no money for it.  NASA badly wanted a liquid booster in
the first place.  When funding made it impossible, NASA pushed a liquid
booster as a mid-life upgrade for the shuttle for quite a while.  The
issue has been dropped in recent times mostly because it has become
clear that it will never be funded.

> That leaves the issue of development cost...
> ... -if- the decision not to pursue development of liquid
> fueled boosters came down to the issue of development costs, then I'd
> like to know what the parameters were thought to be, and what 
> tradeoffs were considered.  

Basically, there were no tradeoffs involved: everyone agreed that liquid
boosters were better but would cost somewhat more to develop, since they
are more complex.  (Seawater protection for the engines is a
particularly significant issue, whereas the SRB casings don't need much
protection.)  For much of its early life, Shuttle development was
constrained by an absolute non-negotiable $1G/yr limit set by OMB.
After a lot of trying, NASA concluded that there was no way to develop a
liquid-booster system within that limit.  End of story.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Sep 86 19:08:47 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: And one more flame against L-5
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...L-5 was a
> flawed organization from day one.  As their name suggests, their whole
> focus was on only one issue, namely the fabricating of space colonies at
> the libration points...

I believe there was actually a major debate about this at one point, and
the upshot was that L5 explicitly moved away from that sole emphasis and
towards promoting space development in general.  Your use of the past
tense is appropriate; L5 is not a space-colonies-only group today.

> I personally think this is a really **dumb**
> idea.   Why invest all that effort and energy to lob stuff up from the
> moon to a Lagrangian point for making a colony when it would be vastly
> simpler and cheaper to merely bore tunnels into the moon's crust...

The whole space-colony concept arose only when it became clear that,
given an economical source of lunar or asteroidal materials, virtually
every aspect of a colony is easier in space than on/under the moon.
Boring tunnels into the moon's crust is not as simple or cheap as it
looks.

> L-5 has done some good things however.  For example, they played an
> important role in preventing ratification of the so called Moon Treaty...

What do you mean, "important role"?  L5 prevented the ratification of
the Moon Treaty, pure and simple, in the face of general apathy from
most of the rest of the space movement and active hostility from the US
State Department and several other groups.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Sep 86 19:51:35 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...  I was under the impression that the solids give
> substantially more thrust than the liquids...

Other things being equal -- which they often aren't -- liquids have
higher thrusts and higher exhaust velocity (which is the important
parameter for rocket performance in general).  They are more complex and
hence more expensive to develop, however.  Cost dominated many aspects
of the shuttle design.

> What is the fuel composition of the solid fuel?  I remember from when I
> saw the Spacelab-I launch that the solids are an off-orange or brown
> exhaust, whereas the liquids is white apparently.

To a very sloppy first approximation, the solid fuel is powdered
aluminum and synthetic rubber.  So the exhaust is aluminum oxide plus
assorted breakdown products of the rubber, probably carbon dioxide,
water vapor, hydrogen chloride, and a whole mess of partly-burned
organics.

The liquid exhaust from the shuttle is water vapor, with some unburned
hydrogen (the mixture must be kept hydrogen-rich because an oxygen-rich
mixture will destroy the engine walls very quickly) and some small
amounts of other odds and ends caused by things like interactions with
the air.

> I wonder why more attention hasn't been paid to the fact that the SRB's are
> pretty sturdy and reliable devices if they survived an explosion with the
> energy of a very small nuclear device so close...

It's two sides of the same coin: once they start burning, they keep on
doing it until they run out of fuel.  They don't pay much attention to
what's happening outside them, which means neither unwanted disturbances
nor an urgent need to shut everything down has much effect.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

[Similar information also from:
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
	-Ed]

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

To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: rohn@rand-unix.arpa
Subject: Re: L-5 Society
Date: Wed, 01 Oct 86 15:12:25 PDT
From: rohn@rand-unix.arpa


AG> = Al Globus

AG> As one of the flamers AGAINST L5, I recommend that you join.  It's
AG> actually quite a good society if your tolerance for right wing shuck
AG> and jive is moderately high.  The society does do some good work and
AG> the L5 News (the major benefit of membership) has apparently
AG> improved of late.  Some of the local chapters are excellent.

Al makes two good points here: the L-5 News has, in my opinion, improved
quite a bit in the past few years, and many of the local chapters are
very active and quite good.  However, I don't think the comment about
"right wing shuck an jive" is fair.  There are many members of L-5 at
both ends of the political spectrum.  I've heard at least as much anti-
militarism/SDI as pro-militarism/SDI and as much left wing "shuck and
jive" as right wing.  There are also members on both sides of the
abortion issue, but what has any of that got to do with being pro-space?
The L-5 Society is made up of people, all of whom have their own views.
That doesn't mean any of those views are those of the Society as a
whole.

AG> I forgot, another thing incredibly annoying about L5 is their hatred
AG> for the Mars project.  If the trip to Mars is to set up a permanent
AG> base it could be decisive in developing space society.  Only if it
AG> is a one shot would it be disadvantageous.

L-5 does not hate the idea of a Mars project.  There was a short series
of articles (2 or 3, I think) called "The Case Against Mars" in the L-5
News recently, but, again, this does not mean that L-5 is against going
to Mars.  If an equally well-researched and well-written article in
favor of going to Mars were submitted, I have little doubt that it too
would be published.  The Society presents information in its publica-
tions and at its conferences which it feels will be of interest to its
members.  It does not necessarily endorse any of those viewpoints.

I've been an active member of L-5 for about 6 years now, and, while I
haven't always agreed with the views of some of the Society's leaders,
I still think L-5 is a good group with worthwhile goals.  I encourage
people to join.  I don't think you'll be disappointed.

*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
Lauri Rohn
rohn@rand-unix.arpa

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #7
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05443; Thu, 9 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT
	id AA05443; Thu, 9 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610091002.AA05443@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #8

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 9 Oct 86 03:02:23 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #8

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 8

Today's Topics:
			      Solid Fuel
		       Solid Rocket Motor fuel
		   The F-1 engines of the Saturn V.
			   Seed the Stars ?
		      Re: Al Globus, L5 Society
			    Re: L5 flamage
  Re: What is the most likely design of the HOTOL propulsion system
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 08 Oct 86 09:44:36 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Solid Fuel

to: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)

>> What is the fuel composition of the solid fuel?

>To a very sloppy first approximation, the solid fuel is powdered
>aluminum and synthetic rubber.  So the exhaust is aluminum oxide plus
>assorted breakdown products of the rubber...

Wrong.  To a sloppy first approximation, the solid fuel is
Ammonium Perchlorate (Often called "AP",technically an oxidizer, but
it will burn without any further additional fuel.)
To a second approximation, the fuel is AP plus a rubbery binder,
which holds the AP together and acts as additional fuel (I think the
binder used is HTPB, but I'm not sure).  To a THIRD approximation,
the fuel is this plus aluminum powder, not strictly necessary but it
adds a little (about 10% if I recall correctly) to the specific impulse.
Exhaust products are those expected from the decomposition of
Ammonium perchlorate and the reaction of the products with
the mostly organic binder, primarily things like HCl, H20, and CO2.

>[Similar information also from ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET  -Ed]

Similar, but not the same.
            --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
              Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
        (alternate route: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu)

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

Date: Wed, 8 Oct 86 11:22:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Solid Rocket Motor fuel

    > [Similar information also from ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET  -Ed]
    Similar, but not the same.

I apologize for glossing over this misunderstanding.  I thought SRMs
burned powdered aluminum oxidized by the rubber binder.  In retrospect
I realize this is fairly unlikely.
	Ted Anderson (aka -Ed)

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

Date: Wed, 01 Oct 86 13:58:47 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The F-1 engines of the Saturn V.

In SPACE Digest V7 #0, Emil Rainero had the following to say about the
Saturn V.

    The saturn five used a 1.5 million pound first stage engine (5
    of them), but it was definitely not reusable, steerable, or
    throttleable.

Emil is partially correct on the first point, dead wrong on the second
point and possibly correct on the third.  There were plans to recover
the S-Ib stage of the Saturn V **if** the Apollo program had been
continued into establishing a permanent lunar base, or expanded into a
Mars program (yes, we could have had a Mars program based on Saturn V
technology).  However the whole thing got canned, so there was no point
in modifiying the first stage into being recoverable.  Saying that the
F-1 engines of the S-Ib couldn't be steered reflects poorly on Emil.
The F-1s were mounted on hydraulic actuators for gimballing.  Next time
you see a movie of the Saturn V taking off, take a close look at the
F-1s and you'll see that they're gimballing like crazy.  The need for
doing this is obvious since the Saturn V stack is staticly unstable and
requires an active control system to keep it from tumbling over.
Besides a lunar injection trajectory requires alot of precision.  You
couldn't have the Saturn V flying around willy-nilly on the first stage,
with the upper stages taking up the slack.  The energy penalty would be
too high.  I am not certain that Emil is right on the third point.
However I have never heard that the F-1 could be throttled.  It is
interesting to note in passing that Hughes is considering two F-1s for
its Jarvis medium lift ELV.
                          Gary Allen

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

Date: Wed, 1 Oct 86 10:06 EDT
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: Seed the Stars ?
To: space@s1-b.arpa

   Apart from the moral question, the technical aspects of "seeding the
stars" seem prohibitive.  The "appropriate containers" for the spores
have to travel distances measured in light years at sub-relativistic
velocities, during which time any life-support equipment will surely
break down.  Also you need astronomical numbers of containers to have
any chance of hitting a planet instead of a star.  You might as well
just forget the containers and shoot them out of a cannon from the space
shuttle.

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

Date:  1 Oct 1986 22:46-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Wed, 1 Oct 86 03:14:05 PDT

Please note that Mr. Globus is in error. It is more likely you need a
high tolerence for LIBERTARIAN shuck and jive. (The society has no
particular political stand, but there are enough of us flaming
libertarians around to give it a certain flavor if you get into rambling
conversations with a group of us)

Liberals and Conservatives never could tell the difference. Libertarian
ideas just don't fit into their overly limited and rather dogmatic
worldviews. We confuse them by actually thinking about our stands rather
than accepting them straight from Mother Jones or The 700 Club.

There are also some people who cannot accept being surrounded by a wide
range of opinions, and thus typify an organization by the opinions of
those who don't agree with them. Our organization encompasses quite a
wide variety of people. We are not right wing. We are not left wing.  We
are not Republican. We are not Democrat. We are all of the above and
none of the above.

				A shuckin and jivin Libertarian
				     space activist,
					Dale Amon


disclaimer: None of the above should be construed to be an official
statement about the L5 Society. I am speaking strictly personal flamage
and not in my official capacity.

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

Date:  2 Oct 1986 13:45-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: L5 flamage

I consider the fact that people bother to attack L5 as a sign that we
are quite successful.

Our purpose is not to be universally beloved.

It is to kick ass and get a space civilization going TOMORROW. And we
really don't give a damn whose pretty toes get stubbed or what powerful
figures we make a fool of in the process.

Our attitude is simple. Get moving or get the hell out of the way.  You
either commit yourself to doing something or shut up and leave.

That's why we call ourselves THE Active Space Organization.

There are lots of turkeys out there who will cast stones at anyone who
has the gall to actually DO something.

Well I challenge all of you. Do you want a space program or do you want
to talk about it? Do you want to spend all your time in catty attacks on
people who are actually trying to do something and are carrying YOUR
share of the load or are you going to take some of your precious spare
time and skip a golf game or two and work?

If I've gotten some of you good and mad, then good. Take that anger and
sign up with a space organization and prove that I'm wrong about you.
There are enough organization out there with enough different stands
that you can find one to suit your tastes. And if they aren't doing
enough, and are using your capabilities, then call the main office until
something happens. Don't wait for me to get around to your share of the
work. ACT!!!

Here is a brief list of organizations:

L5 Society				Merging with NSS soon. Promotes
					commercial space development
					and a primary emphasis on
					creation of space settlements.
					Organized international
					grassroots activism. 80
					chapters in US, Canada,
					Australia, Sweden. Active members
					in Scotland, England, Germany
					and many other countries.
					Apolitical.

Space Studies Institute			Doing better, cheaper and more
					advanced research than NASA.
					When we set up our lunar base,
					nearly all the basic research
					will have been done by them.
					All research supported by public
					subscription. Apolitical.

World Space Foundation			One of the organizations
					supporting Elinor Helen's
					asteroid search. Solar Sail
					under construction, to be flown
					in a few years as proof of
					concept. Apolitical.

Independent Space Research Group	Student organization at RPI
					that has been building an
					amateur space telescope over
					the last 5 years. Apolitical.

National Space Society			Merging with L5 soon. NSS
					was formerly NSI. Founded by
					Werner Von Braun. Apolitical.

Spacepac				Political action. Has seperate
					Republican and Democrat funds
					you can earmark your
					donations to.

American Astronaut Memorial Foundation	L5 spinoff to construct a
					national astronaut memorial in
					DC. Chaired by Eugene Cernan.

American Space Foundation		Political action. Slightly
					conservative leanings.

AMSAT					Design, build and operate
					amateur radio satellites.
					Working on a packet radio
					satellite.

Spaceweek				Coordinates the annual
					anniversary celebration of the
					flight of Apollo 11.

United States Space Foundation		Colorado area. Slightly
					conservative leanings. Very
					professional.

Students for Exploration and		Student organization.
 Development of Space			Chapters on several university
					campuses. Number of chapters
					varies by a large magnitude
					from year to year, as with any
					student organization. Apolitical.

Planetery Society			Founded by Sagan, Friedman &
					Murray. Was primarily planetary
					science oriented, has shifted
					to strong support of manned
					Mars mission. Anti-SDI.
					International.

Campaign for Space			Political action. I know little
					about them.

High Frontier				Pro defense, pro SDI, pro
					commercial Development

STARS					Anti defense, anti SDI

Hypatia Cluster				Feminist space group

Space Generation Foundation		Foundation to promote
					international awareness of
					space among youth.

Young Astronauts			Promote space as an education
					tool in primary and secondary
					schools

And many others				(sorry if I didn't remember you)

If you don't actively support one or more of these then start your own.
Maybe start the "Gay Androgenous Necrophiliac Terran Rocketry Yahoos
(GANTRY)" If you don't fit anywhere else. Just don't cry about our space
program. Get off your ass and DO something. NOW.

				Shuckin' and Jivin',
					Dale Amon

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

Date: 1 Oct 86 20:56:23 GMT
From: rutgers!husc6!husc4!chiaraviglio@spam.istc.sri.com  (lucius)
Subject: Re: What is the most likely design of the HOTOL propulsion system
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

	I may be missing something that was said before, but how would
one pull pure oxygen out of the air at the speed needed to run a variety
of jet engine or rocket motor?  My understanding of the method for
extracting liquid oxygen from air is that it requires repeated
fractional liquification and distillation, because the boiling points of
oxygen and nitrogen are not far apart, and because most of the air is
nitrogen.  This sounds like something that would take far too much
weight to be practical on an air- or space- craft.  Could someone please
explain?  I may be speaking from knowledge of outdated technology.

					Lucius Chiaraviglio
					lucius@tardis.ARPA
					seismo!tardis!lucius

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #8
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02094; Fri, 10 Oct 86 03:02:54 PDT
	id AA02094; Fri, 10 Oct 86 03:02:54 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 03:02:54 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610101002.AA02094@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #9

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 03:02:54 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #9

SPACE Digest                                        Volume 7 : Issue 9

Today's Topics:
			      Re: (none)
			Re: replacing the SRBs
		     Electrodynamic tethers again
			 Bootstrap Starships
			 Re: Seed the Stars ?
		   U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Oct 86 16:37:49 GMT
From: fbr@astro.as.utexas.edu  (F. B. RAY)
Subject: Re: (none)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <7165@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > Does anyone know why SRB's segments are NOT simply threaded and
> > screwed together like iron pipe?

Because no one makes a "pipe wrench" to handle those diameters.  Imagine
what applying such torques as are necessary to tighten those huge
threads would do to the walls of the tubes.  If the tube walls were made
stong enough to withstand such forces, then the SRBs would very likely
not be cost effective.  The fact that the SRBs fly at all means they are
fairly efficient aerospace structures, a class, incidentally, quite
removed from those appropriate for plumbing, and thus they involve the
structural tradeoffs common to all airframes.  The designer must allow a
degree of flexibility to guarantee flight, and yet supply enough
integrity and strength in the design to keep things from flying apart.

All aerospace designers face the risk that they have not anticipated the
totality of operating conditions for their craft, but considering the
complexity of the various space programs, they do remarkably well.

In most exploration, one of the most fearsome unknowns is the cost, but
we must realize that it is always greater than we expect it to be.
Courageous explorers may stop a few moments longer to re-evaluate the
probability involved in risking their own lives, but there will be
droves of replacements.  There is probably no reliable method of
assessing the benefits of space exploration versus the unknown cost.  It
pretty much boils down to whether the powers-that-be want to do it (or
must do it).  These monumental efforts, we should all realize, may yield
benefits only for our great grandchildren or perhaps for their great
grandchildren, but it seems appropriate to allocate a portion of the
budget for that sort of investment, and this must include considerations
that an engineer, a pilot, a bureaucrat, etc. may err seriously.

In the Kennedy years, we seemed more united in the push to land men on
the moon. Now the goals are more diffuse, the apathy growing, the doubts
rampant.  What is interesting is that space exploration is continuing,
much like other areas of research, losing its romantic connotations
(remember the 50's?)  and its forbidding mystery, so deftly exploited by
science fiction writers, and that's a much better environment in which
to make decisions.

fbr@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
Frank B. Ray, McDonald Observatory
University of Texas at Austin, 78712

[Threaded SRB responses also received from:
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu (Ken Jenks)
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!niland@hplabs.hp.com  ( Bob Niland )
	-Ed]

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

Date: 1 Oct 86 16:45:36 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: replacing the SRBs
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 	Specific impulse depends on how much useable thrust you can get for a
> given amount of energy (in this case chemical) expended.
>			... 
> 	Now, specific impulse is not the only issue in how good a rocket fuel
> is.  Energy produced per weight of fuel is of course another consideration --

Specific impulse is the amount of impulse (transferred momentum) you get for
a given amount of MASS expended.  It is measured in the number of seconds
you can get 1 pound of thrust out of 1 pound (actually 1/32.2 slug) of
propellant -- or equivalently, the number of seconds you can get 1
kilogram (actually 9.8 newtons) of thrust out of 1 kilogram of propellant.

Specific impulse has dimensions of impulse/mass = force*time/mass = velocity.
It is often given in seconds because of improper cancellation of force and
mass.

I have a paper by P. W. Healy entitled "Rockets and Interplanetary Flight",
which gives the following table.

Propellant		Exhaust velocities km/second

Oxygen/gasoline			2.5
Oxygen/methane			2.6
Oxygen/ethanol			2.5
Oxygen/ammonia			2.6
Oxygen/hydrogen			3.6
Nitric acid/gasoline		2.4
Fluorine/hydrogen		3.8
Fluorine/hydrazine		3.2
Hydrogen peroxide/gasoline	2.3

"Values calculated for reasonable motor losses and chamber pressures as
used in rockets in 1951.  Values 10% higher would be obtainable if chamber
pressures were doubled.  Optimum mixture ratios and operation in a vacuum
have been assumed (After Arthur Clarke)."

Considering how nasty fluorine and hydrofluoric acid exhaust are, the
attraction of oxygen/hydrogen is apparent.

>						Since exhaust
> velocity for exhaust of a given molecular weight is dependant on temperature,
> and velocity for exhaust of a given temperature is inversely dependant on
> molecular weight (that is, for exhaust ejected by thermal expansion -- does not
> apply to ion drives and propellors, for instance), specific impulse is to a
> significant degree inversely dependant on the molecular weight of your exhaust

Indeed, coupled (as you later say) with the amount of energy released in
the chemical reaction.  Propellers are of course another ballgame
because they use external reaction mass.  Ion drives are also dependent
on the exhaust particle weight because velocity depends on net
charge/particle mass.  Knocking one electron off a hydrogen is more
effective than knocking one electron off an iron.  On the other hand,
heavier atoms don't hold on so tightly to their outer electrons, and
require less energy to knock one off.  Ion drive efficiency involves the
cost (weight) of the energy source as well as the exhaust velocity.  I
understand current ion engines use mercury as the propellant.

			David Smith

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

Date:     Wed, 1 Oct 86 22:40 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Electrodynamic tethers again
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",DIETZ       

An additional comment on electrodynamic tethers being used to drive
engines:

Even if this doesn't make sense as an OTV engine, it could still be
useful as a power source for a space station.  The idea is to draw power
from the tether, diverting some into a rocket to maintain momentum and
using the rest to power the station.  At 100% efficiency one could use
this scheme to extract all the orbital kinetic energy of the expelled
mass.  One metric ton of reaction mass per month in low earth orbit
could generate 11 kilowatts.  More practically, this scheme could be
used to recover energy from waste fluids that would otherwise be vented.

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

Date:     Thu, 2 Oct 86 17:22 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Bootstrap Starships
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",DIETZ       

Here are a couple of ideas for engines for interstellar travel.  Both
are based on the idea of generating energy by interacting with ambient
matter, and using that energy to eject reaction mass, much like the
tether/engine combination mentioned previously.

In the first design, a collector is used to generate energy from passing
interstellar gas.  I assume the vehicle is travelling at a good clip (.1
c, say) before this engine is turned on.  The generator is a thin foil a
few atoms thick.  On either side of the foil I place a sparse grid
negatively charged with respect to the foil.  Interstellar hydrogen
atoms will hit the foil and be ionized.  Their nuclei will pass
unhindered through the trailing grid.  The electrons, which are much
less energetic, will oscillate between the grids, losing energy in the
foil, eventually stopping there.  Electrons can be drawn off the foil to
do useful work, like driving an ion engine.  The electrons are
eventually ejected out the back to neutralize the gas atom nuclei.

Some problems: the foil will lose mass by sputtering, and the vehicle
will have to travel light years to get significant acceleration because
the interstellar gas is thin.  However, the idea does seem more feasible
than ramjets of various kinds.

By turning off the ion engine and the electron gun we can let the
generator become very negatively charged.  Gas nuclei will be
accelerated up to the vehicle's speed.  The generator acts as a
parachute.


A second design is for ultrarelativistic flight.  It interacts with the
cosmic background radiation.  At high speeds the spacecraft perceives a
temperature gradient: the radiation is hotter in front than behind.
This gradient can be used to drive a heat engine, and the energy used to
expel reaction mass.  The low density of the CBR means this engine is
best used for long trips at very high speeds (for intergalactic travel).

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

Date: 1 Oct 86 03:31:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


[chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu ]
>It would be pretty bad if we sent some yeast or mold or  bacteria
>which  just happened to be incredibly more efficient than the na-
>tive life where it landed at utilizing  the  resources,  or  just
>happened to find the organisms there (possibly including intelli-
>gent ones) to be an attractive  alternative  growth  medium,  and
>thus killed everything off.

Yes, this is a danger. We might try to estimate this risk and guard
against it. There's no way to make it zero, though.  If we send probes
first, they may be mistaken. But another risk is that life is very rare
or even unique to Earth and can die here. This is what the idea is
about, and these opposite dangers need to be balanced.

The rarer life is estimated to be in the universe, the less the
contamination risk, and the greater the opposite risk .

Any other program of space exploration involves risk, too - both for
alien life and for life on Earth in case we contact something nasty, and
it follows us here. Again, it can be guarded against but not eliminated.

Perhaps combined probes/seeders could be designed that would get
destroyed in any atmosphere, thus selecting only airless worlds?

Is there any objection to immediately seeding some places on lifeless
worlds like the Moon and Mars ? So far (if I am not mis- taken) we have
avoided contaminating them with life.

It could provide some pointers about whether to go on, and how.  Besides
the goal stated, it would be an interesting experiment.  And (I only
just thought of it) it would gain some extra publici- ty for the space
program.  There would be exciting reports on how our terrestrial
co-beings are doing out there.

		Jan Wasilewsky

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

Date: 2 Oct 86 18:41:46 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

There's an interesting article in this month's National Geographic
describing the USSR Space Program. The article makes the point that the
USSR program is in some ways more successful than the US program, the
difference being relentless consistency on the USSR side:

US:	Technology: rapid, leading-edge technological developments 
	during periods of adequate funding, due to superb U.S. 
	technological infrastructure.

	Planning: long term planning impossible due to short-term
	funding cycle; strong preference for expensive, shorter 
	term programs, which are fundable year to year, sustain 
	NASA (for now), and are impressive to the public mediawise. 
	Such programs are often a poor or useless long-term 
	investment due to their inherent short-term orientation.

USSR:	Technology: slower developments generally using well 
	proven, dated technology. Leading edge technological 
	developments hampered by backwardness of USSR technological 
	infrastructure. 

	Planning: long term planning aided by political stability
	and long term funding cycle. Preference for steady, 
	relatively safe block-building missions which support 
	progess towards long-term goals. Closed society reduces 
	attractiveness of risky, flashy missions which may 
	jeopardize long-term funding.

The Baikonur spaceport is many times the size of Kennedy, and lauches
ten times as many vehicles per year. The technology may not be
breathtaking to watch on TV but most of them get up there just the same.
The launch rate has been maintained year in, year out and no doubt will
be in future (probably increased).

In addition to development of a new, massive unmanned booster, the USSR
shuttle is probably a few years away from flight. The landing runway at
Baikonur has been built. A shuttle was photographed atop a Bison bomber
which had skidded off a runway while a US satellite was overhead. It
will carry a larger payload than the US shuttle due to better design (no
rocket engines on orbiter). Long-term, the goals are certainly
continuous, increasing manned presence in earth orbit, and very likely a
manned mission to Mars around 2000. Both goals can be done with
extensions to current technology, given consistent application, of which
the Russians are obviously capable.

The US Muddle? (there I go again, I mean Program). Ah well.  There's a
revealing front page article in today's USA today (10/2).  The situation
can only be described as pathetic. Some quotes:

'...was an up and coming Boeing Aerospace analyst six months ago,
refurbishing the shuttle's launch pad. Today, he pushes a broom at
Cornerstone Church for $5 an hour.'

'He's moved 10 times in 11 years to stay in the space industry.  "It's a
vicious cycle. Every couple of years you get laid off."'

'"What am I going to do, work at Wendy's?"'

'"I wish I had gotten into another field and with a sturdy company."'

"'I've got to get out of here. I thought this was my career."'

What comment does that make about a society which reduces irreplaceable,
highly skilled engineers to broom pushers and hamburger servers? It
seems that that's what you get in this country for devoting your working
life to space exploration.

Not only is the U.S. program inherently incapable of pursuing long-term
goals, even short term goals fall flat without DOD support (shuttle) or
a catch-up-with-the-Russians panic when they appear to have gotten ahead
(Mercury/Gemini/Apollo). Both these stimuli depend on the USSR's rate of
progress. Apollo would never have flown without Sputnik, the shuttle was
whittled down to mediocrity because the Russians didn't have one, and
Americans won't go to Mars unless it appears the Russians might
otherwise get there first.

So you see, those of us keen to see the U.S. space program flourish
should keep our eyes on the Russkies. If the USSR shuttle goes up before
the SRB's are fixed, NASA will on $20 billion a year in no time.  And if
the Russians are dumb enough to reveal an imminent manned trip to Mars,
watch out! You won't be able to get a hamburger in Titusville for love
or money. Several thousand McDonald's and Wendy's employees will revert
to aerospace engineers overnight.

On the other hand, the smart ones may learn their lesson and hang in
there for promotion to manager of a fast food outlet. Or maybe they'll
go for job stability by working for the Russians at Baikonur. But what
would life be worth without Big Macs?

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #9
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02646; Sat, 11 Oct 86 03:02:16 PDT
	id AA02646; Sat, 11 Oct 86 03:02:16 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 86 03:02:16 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610111002.AA02646@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #10

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 11 Oct 86 03:02:16 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #10

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 10

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Al Globus, L5 Society
			 Solid versus Liquid
		 Re: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program)
		 Re: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program)
			 Re: Seed the Stars ?
			  Re: JEP statements
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 86 08:16:29 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...It is more likely you need a
> high tolerence for LIBERTARIAN shuck and jive. (The society has no
> particular political stand, but there are enough of us flaming
> libertarians around to give it a certain flavor if you get into
> rambling conversations with a group of us)

Bingo!! This is a very apt description.

I, too, dabbled in libertarian philosophies for a short time a few years
back. I still support many of the purely "civil libertarian" aspects, as
do many people who are not "libertarians" per se.  However, I kept
running into a fundamental contradiction.  On the one hand, libertarians
believe in an utterly laissez-faire economy.  On the other, I believe
that the ONLY way a number of very worthwhile activities will ever get
funded is for the government to do it through taxation: free public
education, basic scientific research and, yes, SPACE EXPLORATION.  How
do you reconcile this with libertarianism, where some even go so far as
to suggest that "free enterprise" can and should replace government
courts of law!

In the end, I concluded that libertarianism is a very simplistic and
naive approach to an economy that is and must be a hybrid of public and
private activities.

To be fair, a popular rallying cry in L-5 is "get government out of the
way of private enterprise in space".  This argument is certainly
consistent with libertarian philosophy.  There's nothing wrong with it
as such, except that it's a red herring.  The real barriers to
commercial space development have far more to do with technological and
economic facts of life than with government red tape, but the latter
makes a convenient scapegoat.  After all, who could possibly FAVOR "red
tape" or oppose motherhood and apple pie?

I wonder, though, how many of those same "libertarian L-5'ers" wrote
letters and telegrams to their Congresspeople urging them to exact money
under penalty of law from (i.e., tax) every American in order to pay for
the Space Station, the 5th (now 4th) orbiter, and other nifty space
toys.

You can't have it both ways.  TRUE libertarians would demand that NASA
be shut down.

Phil

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

Date: 3 Oct 1986 16:10:44-EDT
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Solid versus Liquid
Apparently-To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc

Solid rockets versus liquid rockets:

1) Solids are cheaper to develop.
2) High thrust solids are easier to develop.
3) Solids have a much lower specific impulse.
4) Solids can only be throttled in a fixed manner, and can't be restarted.
5) Solids give a much rougher ride.
6) Solids are harder to reuse.
7) Solids have a dirty exhaust.

H2-O2 liquids have the highest specific impulse, but are the most
difficult to get high thrust from, and the most expensive to develop.
Kerosene-O2 liquids have an intermediate specific impule and higher
thrust, due to the much higher density of kerosene.

Solid fuel rockets like the SRBs are much like Estes rockets.  They are
sort of like rubber erasers consisting of I think ammonium perchlorate
(oxidizer), aluminum powder (fuel), a little iron powder (mystery
ingredient), and plastic binder.

H2-O2 flame is clear or pale blue, and then the water vapor condenses.
You can't see the excess hydrogen.  I recall from childhood than
kerosene-O2 is rather yellow, and then you get water vapor condensation
and invisible CO2, and random car-like pollutants.  I assume SRC exhaust
is mostly aluminum oxide powder and other random junk and is white, just
like an Estes rocket.

Liquid rockets are nice because they are smooth, and can be throttled or
stopped.  Remember, if only one SRB ignites on the launch pad, you're
dead, since the hold-down clamps won't hold.  Not so with the SSMEs, as
has already been shown with the shuttle, and also one of the Gemini
missions.

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

Date: 3 Oct 86 15:11:20 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <610@athena.UUCP>, grahamb@athena.UUCP (Graham Bromley) writes:
> There's an interesting article in this month's National Geographic 
> describing the USSR Space Program.
> 			...
>                                    A shuttle was photographed atop a 
> Bison bomber which had skidded off a runway while a US satellite was 
> overhead. It will carry a larger payload than the US shuttle due to 
> better design (no rocket engines on orbiter).

I read that too, but I don't understand how "no rocket engines on
orbiter" can be an advantage.  The engines have to carry the vehicle to
orbit (or darn near it), so what difference does it make (as far as
payload is concerned) whether they are attached to the orbiter or the
external tank?  National Geographic says that having them on the tank
raises payload, but I just can't see it.  Furthermore, mounting them on
the orbiter allows them to be brought down intact for the next flight.

			David Smith

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

Date: 6 Oct 86 19:43:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: U.S. Space Muddle (i.e. Program)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

To understand why the Soviet "Shuttle" concept is superior to ours, you
have to look at that capabilities the Soviets have in space, and what
additional capabilities a Shuttle gives them.  In particular, they
already have cheap, routine access to space.  Both the SL-series
(manned) and Proton (unmanned) boosters are stamped out like beer cans.
These will soon be joined by a heavy-lift (Saturn V class) expendable
booster which will be capable of orbiting entire space factories.  So
they already have the ability to put people, satellites and habitats
into space reliably and at low cost.  So what does a Shuttle offer them
that they don't have?  Reusability? I doubt that this matters.  Their
program has so far been based on the idea of cheap, mass produced
expendables, and I don't think the US experience with reusable boosters
has done much to change their minds.  Besides, the Soviet Shuttle is
probably going to be a payload on their heavy-lift expendable, which
greatly diminishes any advantages of reusability.  What a Shuttle
(especially one without engines) does offer is a very large
payload-return capsule.  It's hard to bring something the size of a
Shuttle cargo bay down in a ballistic capsule, and harder still to get
it to survive a parachute landing.  A Shuttle-like vehicle provides a
much more comfortable ride.  So what are they going to bring back?
Beats me, but if I had to guess I'd say that they've decided (after a
lot more firsthand experience than we have) that in-space repair of
space habitats is a pain in the butt, and that it's easier to just bring
the things back to the ground for repairs.  After repair, the space
habitat modules (remember, Mir is a "modular" station) can be returned
to orbit with the heavy-lift vehicle, or maybe even with the Proton.

Note that in the Soviet program, the shuttle plays a much more limited
role than it does in the US program; I don't really expect to see that
many Soviet shuttle flights after the initial development is completed.
So anyway, in the limited role of large payload-return capsule, the best
Shuttle design is one which has the biggest cargo bay and the lowest
weight.  Leaving the engines off makes a great deal of sense.

		Dan Starr

One more prediction about the Soviet Shuttle: It will be launched
unmanned.  The crew will be launched separately aboard a Soyuz (possible
many weeks earlier, to do some work aboard Mir), and will board the
Shuttle for the return flight.  This avoids the potentially expensive
process of man-rating the heavy-lift booster.

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

Date: 3 Oct 86 02:06:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


[janw@inmet.UUCP ]
>Perhaps combined probes/seeders could be designed that would  get
>destroyed  in any atmosphere, thus selecting only airless worlds?

>Is there any objection to  immediately  seeding  some  places  on
>lifeless worlds like the Moon and Mars ? 

Perhaps it is unclear what I meant by seeding airless worlds like the
Moon. My idea was that a combination of organisms could be found or
manufactured that, given some initial artificial en- vironment, could
function under the surface of the planet and ex- tract water and other
stuff from some materials there. In case of worlds with *ice*, it is
probably possible. As for the Moon, I doubt it now. And yet, the first
Apollo missions guarded against organisms *indigenous* to the Moon -
this would be even less likely than survival of specially prepared
imported flora!

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

Date: 2 Oct 86 18:29:06 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: JEP statements
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>> However, I think even the Planetary Society has come around to a
>> compromise position that we will FIRST build the infrastructure and
>> lunar base, and THEN go for Mars...
>
In article <7141@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Unfortunately, the emphasis in the politicking is still on "Mars" and
>not on "infrastructure".  Most everybody agrees that the Mars mission
>*should* be done by infrastructure-building, but we all know where the
>road paved with good intentions leads...
> ...
>I'm afraid the Mars-mission people, with the best of intentions, are
>setting us up for a repetition of this.  We need a *commitment* to
>infrastructure-building, not just good intentions.  .. . 

What we need is to develop the technology of fusion to do really
significant things beyond LEO.  DoE has demonstrated it can't make a
workable commercial fusion power generator, and it certainly doesn't
have the incentive or the resources, if the last twenty years of their
effort can be used in evidence.  The DoE is primarily funding twenty
five year old concepts and has an internal policy not to do even
exploratory work on new ones.

NASA would have an advantage, since it is mission oriented it could
apply mission related engineering criteria to these concepts and
immediately dismiss them as not usable.  The DoE's OFE only applies
"physics" criteria. Then once work starts on the innovative concept that
fits the mold, prototype fusion engines could be operating just after
three years.  These engines if based on PLASMAK(TM) technology, would
burn hydrogen(protium) boron (eleven) which generates pure helium(four)
and no radiation.

Otherwise, no matter which way the Mars mission is set up, it will take
many times too much out of us to be able to solve the fusion, farm and
any other crisis that should arise.  Fusion is so much cheaper and so
much quicker on the time frame envisioned for the Mars mission.
Unfortunately, for the gutless bureaucracy, it is too unpredictable, so
they would prefer spending twenty to one hundred times as much and
taking another ten to twenty years.  Too bad, because it can be fun, and
one engine could lift 1.5 million pounds payload into orbit from a level
takeoff.

Besides, who in hell wants to be a fuel transport jockey.

Paul M. Koloc {umcp-cs | seismo}!prometheus!pmk

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #10
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06133; Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:02:11 PDT
	id AA06133; Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:02:11 PDT
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610121002.AA06133@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #11

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:02:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #11

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 11

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
			Revive the Saturn V ?
		      Re: Revive the Saturn V ?
	  Chariots for Apollo #3 - adventure or Moon-Doggle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Oct 86 14:44:46 GMT
From: magic!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Dale Skran wrote: 
>   [Sagan's proposed Mars] mission would almost certainly be a one
>   shot political stunt that would result in little more
>   infrastructure in space that an old space station and four used
>   up shuttles.  The Mars expedition described in the National
>   Commission on Space report is that way to go - after a lunar
>   mining base and numerous space stations have been established
>   [...] We must focus solidly on building an industrial future in
>   space, not on glitzy space adventures that finally are nothing
>   but an insult to the underclass of America.  

Funny how people can have so diametrally opposite ways of lookng at the
same things. I would rather say that the economic prospects of space
industrialization are just a glitzy dream, and the way they have been
exaggerated by NASA and the pro-space groups is nothing less than an
attempt to defraud the public.

I do believe that one day we will have space colonies and moon bases,
and that we will be mining the asteroids and manufacturing goods in
space for use in space.  However, I believe that even with wildly
optimistic assumptions about funding and politics, this will take much,
much more time than all the man-in-space enthusiasts believe (or want us
to believe).

Let us first consider the development of a COMMERCIAL space industry,
that is, mining and manufacturing in space of goods for consumption on
Earth.  This is generally cited by space enthusiasts as the main reason
why the man-in-space program should get all the money it needs. There
are other reasons, of course, but I will leave them for a future flame.
I will also ignore for the moment the INFORMATION industry
(communications, remote sensing, etc.), and consider only the production
of material goods.

I claim that a program to establish mining or manufacturing operations
in space WILL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE for at least thirty years.  In fact, I
believe that shipping material goods from space to Earth is probably
NEVER going to make any economic sense.

For the next thirty years or more, I believe the following will be true:

  1.  Factories in space and on the Moon cannot be expected to
  manufacture sophisticated products.  High-tech products like
  computers, jet engines and automobiles require much more equipment,
  manpower and infrastructure than what we will be able to launch in the
  foreseeable future.  Therefore, space industries will be limited to
  either low-tech products and bulk materials, or to a few intermediate
  steps of Earth-based manufacturing processes.

  2.  Right now there is no mineral resource on the Moon that would be
  worth mining.  Some metals like titanium and chromium seem to be more
  abundant there, but they are fairly abundant on Earth, too.  Those
  metals are relatively cheap now, and will continue to be so for a
  while.  For example, titanium metal (powder, 99.7% pure) costs about
  $7/lb, according to the Rubber Bible.  In fact, the price and demand
  for several metals (copper, aluminum) has been dropping of late.

  3.  From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we can
  expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on Earth.
  Most of our commercial ore deposits can be traced to hydrological and
  hydrothermal processes, which as far as we know never existed on the
  Moon.

  4.  The Moon is very poor in many important elements, notably
  hydrogen.  That means we cannot count on using the Moon as a fueling
  station; quite on the contrary, rocket fuel for traveling on and out
  of the Moon will have to be brought from the Earth.  Also, if the
  manufacturing or smelting processes use water or hydrogen in any form
  (or chlorine, or nitrogen, or...), extra equipment and energy will be
  necessary to recover those precious elements from the waste products.

  5.  Even ignoring transportation costs, manufacturing anything in
  space is bound to be substantially more expensive than manufacturing
  the same product (or a functionally equivalent one) on Earth.  Labor,
  materials and equipment for space manufacturing are more sophisticated
  than their Earth equivalents.

  6.  In spite of all the hype, it is still highly unlikely that those
  few resources that are unique to space (such as microgravity and
  abundant high vacuum) will ever find significant industrial
  applications.  Zero-g alloys MAY turn out to have unique properties,
  but `unique' doesn't necessarily mean `desirable', much less
  `extremely valuable'.  There still is no bio-industrial process that
  would be significantly easier in zero g, and there are good reasons to
  doubt such thing will ever be discovered (Note that the growing of big
  protein crystals is pure science, not industry).

  7.  Someone mentioned crystal-growing for the semiconductor
  industry.  The processes used by the semiconductor industry on Earth
  are the result of some 20 years of intensive development, and are
  still being improved.  It will take a long while for radically new
  space-based processes to reach the same level of perfection.  How long
  (and how much) will it take for a space-based company to learn how to
  make 3"x2' silicon monocrystals better than those we can buy right now
  on Earth?

  8.  In fact, the lack of gravity and a limited air supply are a
  serious problem for many industrial processes.  Traditional chemical
  methods such as GAMT, ESGM, TIMEX-V and HPVLQ (and many more) do are
  much harder or impossible to perform in zero g.  A LOCA that would be
  of no consequence on Earth may seriously harm a space station and/or
  its crew.  Even p-GaLiAs becomes an extremely hazardous substance in
  zero g.  (Two p-GaLiAs containers which flew on one of the last
  Shuttle flights had to be specially designed, and cost more than
  $100,000 a piece.  In contrast, a standard p-GaLiAs container for use
  on Earth costs less than 60 cents).
  
  9.  To the basic cost of doing something in space, we must add the
  costs of designing, building, and launching the factory.  The smallest
  space factory or lunar mine is going to cost billions of dollars more
  than a comparable facility on Earth.  If such a factory is going to
  make 100,000 somethings a year for ten years, it would have to charge
  its customers THOUSANDS of dollars more per unit just to pay the extra
  fixed costs.

  10.  Orbiting factories will have to get all their raw materials
  from Earth.  Lunar factories may be able to get some materials from
  the Moon itself, but will need a steady stream of `space trucks' to
  lift the product out to space.  In both cases, transportation alone is
  going to cost several hundred dollars per pound of product.
  
  11.  A space factory or moon base is going to take some five to ten
  years to build; during that period, demand for its product may easily
  evaporate.  This is much more true true for high-tech
  spacial-purpose products such as advanced alloys and biologicals
  (In fact, this is happening right now to McDonnell's electrophoresis
  separation project).  Thus, there is a very serious risk of such a
  plant becoming hopelessly obsolete and useless even before it is
  finished.

  12. Most of these problems apply also to the mining of asteroids.
  Except that some (like transportation costs) will be a lot worse.
  Besides, we still don't know for sure what the asteroids are made of.
  Before we embark in a multibillion, multi-decade asteroid mining
  program, perhaps we should send a couple of cheap unmanned probes to
  check whether there is something there worth digging, no?
    

All these problems may be solved in time, but hardly within the next
thirty years, no matter what we do or how much money we spend.  NASA and
the space societies are trying to sell the space station and the lunar
base for its industrial prospects; this may work for a while, but will
be disastrous in the long run.  Sooner or later the paying public will
realize that those projects will only bring multibillion-dollar losses
to the economy, year after year for the foreseeable future.  If you
think that the post-Apollo debacle was bad, wait until this one.

Of course, we may be lucky. NASA may discover a new marvelous process
that can be carried out ONLY in space, and which allows a
multibillion-dollar industry to save $1000 per pound of processed
material (product + wastes). Man-in-space enthusiasts may be ready to
bet many billion dollars on this, but I am not sure those who will end
up paying the bet would like the dea.

Pournelle's statement against the Mars project can be easily turned
around and fired against hs own pet dreams: If we go ahead and devote
all the space budget to the establishment of space stations and lunar
bases, then after thirty years we will have no profitable space
industry, no planetary exploration, no space science --- only a bunch of
obsolete "infrastructure", that costs billions a year to maintain, and
serves no discernible purpose.  Sorry, folks: the commercial development
of space may be inevitable, but we are not ready for it yet.

(Stay tuned --- I will return after these messages)

Glossary
--------

GAMT = Gravity-Assisted Mass Transfer (a.k.a. "pouring")
ESGM = Elasto-Static Gravimetry ("weighting")
TIMEX-V = Thermally Induced Molecular EXcitation and Vaporization ("boiling")
HPVLQ = High Precision Vertical Liquid Quantification ("pipetting")
LOCA = Loss Of Containment Accident ("spill")
p-GaLiAs = pressurized Gas-Liquid Assemblage ("coke", or "pepsi")

ARPA: stolfi@src.dec.com
UUCP: ..{..decvax,ucbvax,allegra}!decwrl!stolfi

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

Date: 3 Oct 86 13:05:42 GMT
From: cbosgd!ian@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Neil Kirby)
Subject: Revive the Saturn V ?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

	To all of you who work in the space industry:

	What would it take to build another Saturn V?  Since the shuttle
can't lift really huge payloads (like space station parts) and the
Saturn can, why not launch the bigger chunks (if not the whole deal in
one shot) on a *few* Saturn V's?  As I recall, not all of the third
stage is used to get to orbit, leaving alot of space or extra mass to
play with.
	So: How expensive to build is a Saturn V?  How expensive to
launch?  Could modern technology make it any better (as opposed to
building one exactly the same as the others)?
	And: How expensive is a single shuttle launch?  How many
launches would it take to put the station up?
	As I understand it, the Saturn can lift a station much heavier
than a Soviet Saluyt or Mir station.  Why not the US?  We have the
technology....

			Neil Kirby
			...cbosgd!ian

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

Date: 3 Oct 86 20:43:53 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Revive the Saturn V ?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 	To all of you who work in the space industry:
> 
> 	What would it take to build another Saturn V?  Since the shuttle can't
> lift really huge payloads (like space station parts) and the Saturn can, why
> not launch the bigger chunks (if not the whole deal in one shot) on a *few*
> Saturn V's?  As I recall, not all of the third stage is used to get to orbit,
> leaving alot of space or extra mass to play with.
> 	So: How expensive to build is a Saturn V?  How expensive to launch?

In 1969, an Apollo/Saturn moon shot cost $360M.  With inflation, it
would probably be about twice that.  On the other hand, a significant
portion of the cost of the moon shot was the Apollo spacecraft.  Also,
for orbiting large payloads such as a space station, the third stage is
not required (Skylab was built in the third stage fuel tank; the second
stage went up into orbit with it).  Both of these could reduce the
1986-dollar cost of a Saturn V Earth orbit mission to somewhere in the
general neighborhood of $4-500M plus payload.

> Could modern technology make it any better (as opposed to building one exactly
> the same as the others)?   

The Saturn series was designed to meet a tight schedule; there are
probably many cost reductions possible, such as some way of re-using the
first stage.

> 	And: How expensive is a single shuttle launch?  How many launches would
> it take to put the station up?

I don't know this one for sure, but I seem to recall having seen the
figure of $50M per shot.  This would mean that the Shuttle would become
cheaper than expendable Saturn V's *on the basis of number of launches,
not payload* after eight to ten flights.  If one figures that the
Saturn's payload capacity is about four times the Shuttle's, then you
have to fly each Shuttle successfully 32-40 times before it's cheaper.
And I tend to suspect that by the time you'd launched 40 of them, you
could have cost-reduced the hell out of the Saturn.

> 	As I understand it, the Saturn can lift a station much heavier than 
> a Soviet Saluyt or Mir station.  Why not the US?  We have the 
> technology....

The problem is that we don't have the technology any more.  The Saturn V
"assembly line" is gone; it's not sitting in some warehouse waiting to
be restarted.  The launch pads would have to be changed back from their
current Shuttle configuration.  The technical expertise and knowledge
gained during Saturn development would have to be rediscovered, and a
lot of it would have to be redeveloped.

For an example of how to keep the technology alive, see the article on
the Soviet space program in the October National Geographic.  Note that
the SL-6 rocket that carries their crews up to Mir is the same basic
booster that put up Sputnik.  With thirty years and hundreds if not
thousands of launches on this one vehicle, they must be stamping them
out for pennies and laughing hysterically at us by now...

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

Date: 3 Oct 86 23:15:36 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Chariots for Apollo #3 - adventure or Moon-Doggle?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


	In June 1964, the minerology and petrology planning team
underscored these hopes by drawing an analogy between the lunar voyage
and another historic event:

	Some time before the year 1492, a group of workmen were
	standing in a shipyard looking at a half-constructed craft.  One
	of them said "It won't float"; another said "If the sea monsters
	don't get it first, it will fall off the edge"; a third, more
	reflective than the others, said "What do they want to go for,
	anyway?"

	The Apollo Project is primarily a glorious adventure in
	which man will for the first time tread upon the surface of
	another celestial body.  It will be a magnificent feat, amd a
	milestone in the history of the human race.  No other purpose or
	justification is necessary.

	Important scientific knowledge will result from the
	landing.  First among the scientific objectives of the Apollo
	mission will be the return of samples of the lunar surface
	materials.  The study of such samples will tell us of the
	thermodynamic conditions under which they were formed; whether
	the moon is a differentiated body or not; and perhaps where it
	was captured by the Earth or was formed from it in the distant
	past.
...

	Shortly after Headquarters reorganized for improved management
of Apollo and Mueller made his changes to enhance the chances for
meeting schedules, the whole nation was wracked by a series of traumatic
events.  President Kennedy was assasinated, and his alleged killer was
murdered while the country watched.  No one who had access to a
television set can ever forget those days.  In the soul-searching that
followed, national goals and social priorities were questioned.
Periodicals such as Science were soon attacking what they called NASA's
misplaced priorities, and books like The Moon-Doggle were expressing
disillusionment with Apollo.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA
SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #11
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09727; Mon, 13 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT
	id AA09727; Mon, 13 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610131002.AA09727@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #12

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #12

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 12

Today's Topics:
		      Tentative call for papers
		  Re: The State of the Space Program
	     Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
		       Shuttle and other things
		       Viewing a shuttle launch
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  4 Oct 1986 14:17-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "/usr/amon/Email.space" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Tentative call for papers

We are having a technical track at the next Space Development Conference
and are interested in papers on the subject of innovative space systems,
with a particular emphasis on propulsion and CELSS. If you might be
interested in attending the conference and giving a paper on Friday
March 27, 1987 at the Pittsburgh Hilton, please send me your name,
address, phone and a rough idea of the subject you would be interested
doing your paper on.

I will pass the information on to Dr. David Webb, who is running the
track.  Please contact before next Wednesday if at all possible.

I would also appreciate it if you pass this note on to people who do not
have net access, and send me their info if they are interested.

This is tentative and should not be construed as a full committment on
either your part or our part. The existance of this track will depend on
the quantity and the quality of the responses we recieve.

					Thank you,
					Dale Amon
			Chairman, 6th Space Development Conference

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

Date: 3 Oct 86 17:48:02 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The State of the Space Program
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Everyone needs cheaper access to space.  The commercial prospects for
> space development will be far clearer with reliable launchers available
> on dependable timetables at sensible prices.

There is a move afoot to do something to encourage development of
cheaper access to space.  The Citizens' Advisory Council on National
Space Policy recently issued a report which has been mentioned
previously in this newsgroup: "America: A Spacefaring Nation Again".
(It's available from L5 for something like $10, and well worth reading,
even though you probably won't agree with everything in it [I certainly
didn't].)  Apart from some short-term measures, such as a strong
recommendation to begin flying the shuttle again IMMEDIATELY, it
contains what may be a very significant thing: draft legislation
entitled the "Commercial Space Incentive Act".

What the proposed bill essentially says is that the US government will
pay $500/lb for any payload placed into orbit by a US commercial launch
company, subject to one or two restrictions.  *Any* payload --
satellites, materials, water, sand, anything.  Minimum payload size is
10,000 pounds.  The offer is good for a maximum of one million pounds
per year and lasts ten years.  There is a 50% bonus if the payload is
manned.  The government gets a chance to use the launch for its
payloads, at that price; failing that, the price gets paid no matter
what gets launched.  If some other customer has bought the launch and
has paid less than $500/lb, the government makes up the difference so
the launch company still gets $500/lb.  The launch company has to meet
launch-safety requirements, but there is no other restriction on
payloads or launch methods.

The numbers are not random.  10,000 pounds is enough to launch a lot of
useful things in one piece.  $500/lb is about one-tenth of the current
real costs of flying the shuttle or shuttle-competitive expendables.
One million pounds per year is roughly the current Soviet launch rate.

Note that this is not particularly expensive, at worst half a billion a
year plus administrative costs.  It provides the thing that is most
needed to justify the development of *new* commercial launch services
(not just more production of expensive 20-year-old expendables): a
guaranteed market.  At least three companies have indicated intent to
proceed with such development if something along these lines is done.
Apparently there is already significant support in Congress for the
idea.

This might just be what's needed to make the US a true spacefaring
nation.  ("Spacefaring", by analogy to "seafaring", means widespread and
affordable access for large numbers of people and many different
purposes.  Despite the title of the report, the US is not now and has
never been a spacefaring nation, John F. Kennedy's 1962 pledge to make
it one notwithstanding.)  It would certainly make an enormous
difference.  Now may be a bit early to start seriously lobbying for
it... but it sure wouldn't hurt to tell your Congresscritter about it
and ask him to support it. 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Oct 86 20:14:16 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> >> Or ask the satellite operators who are faced with safety requirements
> >> orders of magnitude more stringent than anything they had to deal with
> >> on expendables because of the "man-rated" factor.
> 
> > This is a real problem, but it has much more to do with overconservative
> > management brought on by severe budget pressure and a ridiculously tiny
> > orbiter fleet than with any inherent requirement of manned spaceflight.
> 
> Overconservative management? Where have you been since January?? Do you
> seriously believe that the safety requirements for shuttle payloads are
> actually going to get *easier* in the future?

I stand by my statement.  51L was not caused by a payload failure.  It
is most unlikely that any Shuttle crash will ever be caused by a failing
payload, since the requirements are so harsh.  NASA's sloppiness about
its own systems (the SRBs, and for that matter Shuttle/Centaur) does not
extend to places where other people foot the bill for compliance with
regulations.  I agree that the situation is not going to ease off, but
then why would you think it would?  51L is going to make NASA management
*more* conservative, not less.  This does not imply that it inherently
has to be that way.

> We've been over this issue many times before. Manned vehicles, particularly
> expensive, reusable Shuttles, put far more at risk on each mission than
> unmanned expendables.

Consider the Hercules.  It's a modest military cargo aircraft, vaguely
the same size as the Shuttle.  Like the Shuttle, it flies a wide variety
of missions carrying a wide variety of payloads.  It is about two orders
of magnitude less expensive than the Shuttle, but then its production
run has been two orders of magnitude larger, so this is hardly a
surprise.  Its payloads have to meet much the same requirement as those
for the Shuttle: they must not endanger the aircraft.  This means,
mostly, that they must be securely tied down and must not explode or do
anything else unpleasant.  Landing loads etc. are similar.  The Shuttle
does impose more longitudinal acceleration, but 3 G is hardly
bone-breaking.  Both expose their payloads to noise and vibration, much
more intense for the Shuttle but much more prolonged for the Hercules
(Hercules passengers get handed earmuff-type hearing protectors as they
board).  Apart from the longitudinal acceleration, the big difference in
payload environment is that Shuttle payloads are exposed to space once
in orbit, and Hercules payloads are not.  This does complicate matters,
but it's not hopelessly bad if you don't insist on gold-plating
everything; for a very minor case in point, the "Canada" and the flag on
the Canadarm were ordinary hardware-store paint rather than the
$XXX/pint stuff NASA would have preferred, and this has caused no
problems.  (In any case, the problems in question are Shuttle-launch
qualification, not space qualification.)  So the Shuttle environment is
more severe, but it's not orders of magnitude more severe.  Now compare
the paperwork needed to fly something on the Shuttle vs on the Hercules.
Now *there* we have an orders-of-magnitude difference.  Why?

Is it because the Shuttle is reusable?  No -- so is the Hercules.  Is it
because the Shuttle is manned?  No -- so is the Hercules.  Is it because
the Shuttle is run by NASA?  Well, maybe to some small extent, but a lot
of Hercules are run by the USAF, which hasn't got a reputation as a
great cost-cutter either.  Is it because the Shuttle carries other
payloads which must be protected?  No, multiple payloads are common on
both the Hercules and the expendable boosters.  Is it because the
Shuttle uses very costly launch facilities which cannot be risked?  To
some extent, but this does not explain why the Shuttle is so much worse
than something like a Titan, which also uses scarce and expensive launch
facilities.  However, we're starting to get warm.

The reason why it is so much easier to fly a space-qualified payload on
a Hercules than on a Shuttle is that a single Hercules crash does not
drastically reduce the capacity of the fleet, ground all the others for
two years, and create a political uproar that endangers the whole
program.  The result is that Hercules crashes are treated as undesirable
misfortunes that will happen occasionally despite all reasonable
precautions.  But a Shuttle crash is such a major disaster that the word
"reasonable" vanishes from the phrase, since crashes cannot be allowed.
(Although we all know that the probability is nevertheless non-zero, and
will remain so.)  Since there is no such thing as perfect safety, and
the Shuttle part of NASA is not footing the bill for meeting the safety
rules, there is no inherent limit to the harshness of the precautions
that are imposed.  Oh, eventually there won't be any customers if it
gets too bad... but there are enough benign payloads with owners who
will tolerate monumental paperwork to keep things going.  So the
equilibrium point is reached near the upper extreme of regulation and
restriction, where anything even vaguely hazardous is utterly forbidden,
and everything else is groaning under the weight of paperwork needed to
certify compliance with draconian restrictions.  Better to abandon the
Shuttle's original objective -- routine access to space -- than to take
even the slightest risk of a crash.

But this obsession with safety to the exclusion of utility is not an
inherent characteristic of manned reusable vehicles.  It is the result
of a tiny orbiter fleet with very tenuous political support, run by a
bureaucracy which is not held firmly to any long-term goals and hence
concentrates solely on short-term survival.

It's true that the Shuttle puts more at risk with each launch than an
expendable.  The Hercules puts more at risk than an unmanned one-shot
cargo carrier would.  But Lockheed builds the Hercules by the hundreds
and doesn't bother with unmanned one-shot cargo carriers.  The risk of
using a manned reusable Hercules is seen as manageably small, to the
point where developing an alternative isn't worthwhile.  There are
Hercules crashes every year; so what?

> There's just *no way* that the safety requirements for
> the Shuttle can ever be made equal to or less stringent than those for
> expendables...

It suffices to make them, say, only twice as bad as flying on a
Hercules.  There is no intrinsic reason why this cannot be done.  And if
it can be done, it doesn't *matter* that they are somewhat worse than on
expendables.

> ... Given that the shuttle orbit by itself is pretty much useless
> for many (if not most) space applications, you'll always need to carry extra
> propulsion to get into a useful orbit.

Can you say "Space Tug"?  Sure you can.  The Shuttle orbit was known
from the beginning to be pretty much useless, and there was a plan for
dealing with it in the Shuttle system design.  The Shuttle can hardly be
blamed for not doing something that it was never supposed to have to do.

> And propulsion is generally considered a "hazardous system"...

Hazardous systems, including a lot of weaponry that is *designed* to be
hazardous on request, fly routinely in the Hercules.  It does take a bit
more in the way of approvals, I would suspect, than more benign loads.

> Curiously enough, though, many people justified the shuttle because it would
> somehow make payloads cheaper to build...

The potential was (and is, given that the orbiter production line is
still [barely] open) there.  It is unlikely to be realized by the
current Shuttle, or indeed any new launch system built and run under
similar constraints.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date:     Sat,  4 Oct 86 18:52:26 CDT
From: Carl Rosene <animal@rice.edu>
Subject:  Shuttle and other things
To: space%s1-b%csnet-relay.arpa@csnet-relay.arpa

(Sorry guys, couldn't get Dave directly...)

So sorry to take so long to reply:

1) I remember the article about costs. It was posted by Paul Dietz. He
quoted extensively (in fact, exclusively) from an article in Discover.
The article was very slanted. Where its numbers were right, their
interpretation was wrong. An important thing to remember is that there
is a BIG difference between fixed, marginal, short term, and long term
costs.  It is not completely fair to compare the Saturn V with Shuttle.
One of the reasons is that the Saturn V doesn't give you the freebies
that come with a manned flight. Another is that the costs for the Saturn
V were short term marginal costs. These though were compared with long
term costs of the shuttle that include fixed costs not included in the
costs of the Saturn V.

2) I think you are confusing number of flights of an orbiter with the
number of an engine. Orbiters are still expected to last 150 to 200
flights each. You are correct that the present engines have an expected
lifetime of 25 years. But, this is down from only 30-not 100. Meanwhile,
a research program is under way to change that. There is no reason not
to believe they will be successful. One of the advantages of running the
current system is that you can concentrate on a few bugs not a whole
mess of new ones. Anyway, the Shuttle does still come out cheaper.

3) You say you would have liked to something like the (HL-10?).
   Well, the HL-10 and the rest of the lifting body research craft
(X-21, X-22...) DID become a vehicle. That is, the information
discovered from the research vehicle was used to design a craft. That
craft is the Shuttle Orbiter. That is the most that can be achieved by a
research craft. They are designed to find out something about a new
region of flight. They are not designed to be useful for doing anything
but getting measurements.
   Which brings me to a comment about the TAV. The TAV being considered
by the Air Force is also a research vehicle. The lag between the lifting
bodies and Shuttle was about ten years. Give another ten years for the
TAV itself and you get 20 years before anything useful for space
exploration or transportation comes out of it.
   Which is another reason I support the Single Stage to Orbit Concept
as a follow on to Shuttle. It will require no such time consuming
intermediate step. Nor is it the technological risk that the TAV would
be.

End of Soap Box,

Carl Rosene

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

Return-Path: <taw@gaston>
Date: Sat, 4 Oct 86 21:38:35 PDT
From: Tom Wadlow <spar!taw@decwrl.dec.com>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Viewing a shuttle launch

I can also testify that the press area is a wonderful place from which
to see a shuttle launch.  I saw the first Atlantis lauch from there, and
I can tell you that what you see on TV is to an actual lauch what a
tin-can phone is to a CD player.  Unfortunately, that launch was a
classified military mission, so there was essentially no information to
be had until T-9 minutes.  But NASA made up for it by sending all the PR
types home at 5pm the day before leaving me free to wander between the
press center and the VAB and the cafeteria.  With Atlantis on the pad,
Columbia, Challenger, and Discovery in the VAB and Enterprise sitting in
the parking lot by the Saturn V, it was clearly worth the trip (and the
mosquitoes, which routinely kill housepets and carry off children).

Alas, you may find it difficult to get in nowadays (as may I).  A friend
at NASA Houston tells me that the press dept. is drastically cutting
down on the press list as a result of the vast number of "space
groupies" that are abusing the system.  It's not so much the people that
go in to watch a launch, it's people like one lady in the mid-west who
somehow got herself listed as a library, and then subscribed to all the
free NASA publications and videos that a library is entitled to (a
staggering amount).  She was making a nice living selling the materials
by mail.  He also claimed that NASA brass was alarmed at the dropping
ratio of "real" press to "amateur" press at the launches and landings.
  --Tom

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #12
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13877; Tue, 14 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT
	id AA13877; Tue, 14 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610141002.AA13877@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #13

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #13

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 13

Today's Topics:
	      Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission
	    Re: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission
		     space news from Sept 1 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu 9 Oct 86 13:55:28-PDT
From: Matt Heffron <BEC.HEFFRON@usc-ecl.arpa>
Subject: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Address: Beckman Instruments, 2500 Harbor X-11
Address: Fullerton, CA. 92634
Phone: (714) 961-3728

As part of the Earnest C. Watson lecture series:

  Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Laureate and the Richard Chace Tolman Professor of
			Theoretical Physics
on
  "My Experiences on the Challenger Commission"

October 15, 1986  8:00 pm
Beckman Auditorium
California Institute of Technology
1201 E. California Boulevard
Pasadena, Ca 91125

Open to the public without charge.

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

Date: 10 Oct 86 04:56:29 GMT
From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu
Subject: Re: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

    The referenced posting mentioned	Feynman's Watson Lecture at
Caltech next week.  Feynman is in the hospital again, so this lecture is
quite likely cancelled or delayed. Call the Caltech	Ticket	Office
(818-356-4652) for information on this and other Caltech events.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date: 7 Oct 86 22:21:41 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Sept 1 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

(For those who are interested: the subscription address for Aviation
Leak is Aviation Week & Space Technology, PO Box 1505, Neptune NJ 07754.
You should write for a "qualification card", since if they like what you
put on the card, you get a lower subscription rate.  Not cheap either
way, maybe $50+/year [don't have US rates handy].)

Galileo may be too heavy for launch on the shuttle using a solid upper
stage.  The old idea of sending the probe and orbiter separately is
being explored again.  They would launch on missions about a year apart.
One possibility is to fly the probe on the engineering model of the
spacecraft.

USAF issues request for proposals for Phase 2 (development and launch)
of its new medium-expendable competition.

NASA Marshall, plus contractor yet to be selected, will study an add-on
gadget for the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle that would permit retrieving
tumbling objects.

Insurance underwriters have sold Palapa B2 (one of the satellites
retrieved by the Shuttle a while ago) to Sattel Technologies, a designer
of satellite networks and builder of ground hardware.  The company plans
to resell it.

Challenger debris recovery has been terminated.  The SRB recovery ships
have been doing most of the work of late, and they have finally been
called off it.  Some 122 tons have been recovered; one major piece that
will not be recovered is the left wing, found almost intact on the ocean
floor.  NASA wants to dispose of the recovered debris in a secure area,
probably in a couple of abandoned Minuteman silos on the Cape.

Repairs to the Titan pads damaged by the Titan 34D explosion in April
are almost complete.  Repairs were easier than originally thought.
Titan launches probably will not resume until about February, although
the pads will be ready much earlier.

NASA teams will review the design and work assignments for the space
station, assessing the problems that made Fletcher put a hold on station
changes in July.  The Space Station Configuration Critical Evaluation
Task Force will look at the design and related matters like EVA
requirements, launch needs, and assembly sequence.  The Executive
Technical Committee will oversee the task force and will assess the
impact on NASA centers and contractors.

The White House is studying [so what else is new? -- HS] a new national
space policy, since so many of the old policy directives are now clearly
inappropriate.  ETA for a new policy is about a year.  A more specific
recovery strategy, aimed at short-term needs, is about to be signed;
this orders the Challenger replacement, the phase-out of use of the
Shuttle for routine commercial satellite launches, and a general policy
of trying to maintain both the Shuttle and expendables, and trying to
make critical payloads compatible with both.

The previous directives that are expected to be re-evaluated in the new
space policy are:

- NSDD-44, the 1982 overall policy, which strongly pushed use of the
shuttle, called for closer management ties between civil and military
space plans, endorsed moving shuttle operational management away from
NASA once the program matured (this policy is no longer considered
viable), and mumbled about encouraging private investment (this is now
given greater weight).

- NSDD-50, which outlined policy on international activities.  Now seen
as needing attention due to the desire to fit key international payloads
into a more limited shuttle manifest.

- NSDD-80, which directed production of orbiter structural spares.
These spares are going to be very important in building the replacement
orbiter; when it nears completion, questions will again come up about
maintaining production capabilities and building another set of spares.

- NSDD-94, endorsing commercialization of expendables.  This will
presumably be strengthened.

- NSDD-144 and others, outlining implementation decisions like the goal
of a fully operational shuttle program by 1988.  Obviously needs
revision.

- NSDD-164, calling for dual (shuttle/expendable) launch capability for
important payloads.  The original made the shuttle the primary launcher
while sanctioning Titan 4 as a backup; the revised version will probably
put them on a more equal footing.

- NSDD-181, setting shuttle pricing policy based on full cost-recovery
starting late in 1988.

The NASA budget will also be an issue, of course.

AIAA report says that current NASA budget plans are insufficient to
maintain US leadership in space.  "The current no-growth budget policy
will ensure that the US becomes and remains a second-class power in
space."  It emphasizes the need for new policy with clear long-term
objectives, and says that the current policy-setting structure is
inadequate to produce national policies independent of parochial agency
interests.

Rockwell plans to start preliminary work on a replacement orbiter, for
delivery in July 1990.  This will be mostly long-lead work, and will not
(for the moment) include construction of engines.  There will be some
design changes, notably carbon brakes, improved fuel cells, a better
auxiliary power unit, and updated computers.  Other areas being studied
are single-point-failure areas in electronics, the 17-inch propellant
disconnect valves (identified by the Rogers Commission as a major danger
area), the addition of burn-through sensors for the shuttle's thrusters
and orbital-maneuvering engines, and wheel rims that would give a
roll-on-flat capability in the event of tire blowout.

Aries sounding rocket destroyed by range safety at White Sands after an
apparent guidance malfunction.  Preliminary investigation suggests human
error in guidance-system assembly.  Payload was an X-ray telescope.

First test of SRB joints using a new test rig at Morton Thiokol.  The
test setup is essentially a shortened SRB built out of fewer segments.
Initial tests will use the old joint design for calibration, then new
features will be tested.  Tests on this rig should finish next summer.
These tests, plus full SRM firings to begin in December this year, will
lead to flight qualification of an improved design.  Delivery of first
flight-cleared motor near end of 1987.

Bad News Of The Month Award: NASA will cancel 15-18 Spacelab missions
planned to fly in the next five years, greatly reducing opportunities
for man-tended space-science experiments in the near future.  NASA is
likely to fly only three more Spacelab missions this decade, notably the
Astro UV telescope, a life-sciences module in 1989, and a microgravity
payload.  The UV telescope and the microgravity experiment will not use
the pressurized module.  SDI wants to use the pressurized module twice
in the next few years for laser-tracking experiments.  Cancelled
missions include a wide range of flights, mostly microgravity,
astronomy, and life sciences.  They may be restarted in the 1990s, but
there is thought to be no point in continuing work now when flight
opportunities are so far away.  The impact on space science is expected
to be severe, since most of these users have no money to buy
expendables.  Astronomy and life sciences are particularly hard hit; the
microgravity people can continue to do limited work using ground-based
and airborne facilities.

Spacelab may be in even deeper trouble if shuttle landing-weight limits
are tightened due to greater safety paranoia.  Previous Spacelab
missions have routinely flown with cargo-weight safety waivers, which
are expected to be harder to get.  Shuttle weight increases caused by
safety-related changes will also eat into the permissible payload
weight.  Spacelab planning will be difficult for the near future, since
firm weight limits will not be known for a couple of years.

Two Spacelab missions which were being readied at the time of 51L --
Astro 1 and Life Sciences 1 -- continue to be worked on, although flight
dates are uncertain.  Several Earth-observation missions are among the
cancelled or delayed missions; part of the first one was owed to ESA in
payment for the Spacelab 1 launch delays that reduced data yields for
some ESA experiments.  There is discussion of combining as many Earth-
observation payloads as possible into a single high-priority mission.

Nobody is sure whether the civil Spacelabs or the SDI Spacelabs will get
higher priority.  Other Spacelab customers include Japan and West
Germany.  The West Germans don't expect Spacelab D2 to fly until the
early 1990s, even though it is one of the 15 high-priority commercial
flights on NASA's list.

Several photos of the Tyuratam launch facilities for the Soviet shuttle
and Saturn-V-class booster, taken by the Spot Earth-resources satellite.

NASA completing agreements with General Dynamics and Space Services Inc.
for private launches at Cape Canaveral and Wallops Island.  Subject to
approval by Congress.

Jean-Loup Chretien named primary French crewman for a French/Soviet
mission on the Mir space station late in 1988.

Dutch government considers major increases in space spending.

Spacehab Inc. is preparing for construction of three middeck
augmentation modules for the Shuttle.  These vaguely resemble very short
Spacelab modules, and are intended to function as extensions of the
Shuttle mid-deck work area and locker space.  (Historically, mid-deck
space is at a premium and there is intense demand for it.)

Ariane management emphasizing quality control heavily, since they need
to establish a good reliability record to compensate for recent
failures, while making the transition from prototypes to mass-produced
hardware.  Ariane flights may resume early in 1987, probably with a more
powerful igniter system for the troublesome third-stage engine.  An
ongoing program to monitor the third-stage engine will also be
established, partly because it is seen as the launcher's weakest link
and partly because, as Europe's first major oxyhydrogen engine, it is a
major stepping stone to the much bigger oxyhydrogen engines under
development for Ariane 5.

NRC panel, at Congressional request, to review shuttle launch rates,
distribution of payloads between shuttle and expendables, and relative
costs.

FCC licenses Geostar Corp., MCCA American Radiodetermination Corp and
McCaw Space Technologies Inc. to launch and operate satellites for
precision location of mobile transceivers.  Geostar has determined that
the receivers in its package aboard GTE Spacenet's GStar 2 failed due to
shorts in power wiring, possibly the result of hydrazine spillage during
launch preparations.  The Geostar packages scheduled for GStar 3 and 4
will incorporate better fusing and tighter seals at places where wire
harnesses enter the package.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #13
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16722; Wed, 15 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT
	id AA16722; Wed, 15 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610151002.AA16722@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #14

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 03:02:25 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #14

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 14

Today's Topics:
		      space news in Sept 8 AW&ST
	    Draft of letter to Congress and the President
		      Long term stability of GSO
			shuttle launch viewing
		      Re: Al Globus, L5 Society
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Oct 86 18:39:05 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news in Sept 8 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Surprise Of The Month: Fletcher claims NASA needs a fifth orbiter to
meet launch demands in the 1990s, and will consider private funding for
it.  NASA's office of commercial programs has prepared an RFP for a
privately funded orbiter, but has not been given the go-ahead to release
it; it does not specifically identify whether a fourth or fifth orbiter
is intended, although Fletcher has said that the fourth orbiter will not
be privately funded.

The NASA task force reviewing the space station design is working like
mad trying to finish before Congress adjourns for the elections,
although the official line is that they will miss the deadline rather
than compromise quality.  Missing the deadline would imply delaying
release of RFPs for detailed design and development until early next
year.

Congress tax committee considering softening the impact on satellite
firms from the tax-reform bill; the specific intent is to go easy on
companies whose launch plans are on hold due to the Challenger disaster.

Latest models of Hotol show some redesign.  The forward canards are
gone, tests having shown that the forward vertical fin provides enough
control.  And the under-fuselage engine intake is a bit farther forward
now.

Arianespace issues tentative manifest for resumption of Ariane flights,
listing 7 missions in 1987, 8 in 1988, 9 in 1989.  Feb 1987 is target
for the next flight, V19, an Ariane 3 carrying an ESA/Eutelsat ECS-4
plus either Aussat 3 or GTE Spacenet's GStar 3.  After that is V20,
Ariane 2 carrying the West German TVSat 1, scheduled for April.  The
first Ariane 4 will be V21, carrying ESA's Meteosat P2 weather
satellite, Panamsat, and an Amsat amateur radio satellite.  The new
manifest is tentative and depends on both tests of the third-stage
engine and the results of an overall review.  The precise V19 launch
date will be set in November, after the test review.

New payload on the new Ariane manifest is the Geostar spacecraft,
pencilled in for V37 in May 1989.  This would not be a custom-built
satellite; Geostar apparently is negotiating for a lease on Arabsat 3,
currently in ground storage as a spare.  The intent would be to launch
it into Geostar's orbital slot and use it there until Arabsat needs it,
at which time it would be shifted to a new orbital position.

Martin Marietta outlines their plan for commercial Titan 3.  Low-orbit
payload is 31,900 lb.  Payload fairing, probably the Contraves fairing
already in use for Ariane, will hold a payload 47 ft long by 13 ft dia.
First launch planned for spring 1989.  Initial launches will be into low
orbit rather than geosynchronous transfer orbit, because MM sees the
initial market as primarily ex-Shuttle payloads which are equipped to
boost themselves out of low orbit.  Direct injection into transfer orbit
is possible for later Titan launches.  MM says Ariane will be the tough
competition.  They also say that the offering of commercial Titan is not
dependent on MM winning the USAF medium-expendable competition.

Federal Express signs with Martin Marietta for a commercial Titan launch
in 1989, also an option for another.

CNES, the French space agency, has proposed merging the production
programs for Helios (French military spysat) and the advanced versions
of Spot (the semi-commercial Earth resources satellite).  CNES already
runs Spot, and Helios will use the same spacecraft bus with different
sensors.  France hasn't yet settled what role CNES will play in military
space programs such as Helios.

KSC contractor workforce will be reduced by 1100.  A shuttle pad and
mobile platform will be closed temporarily to reflect the shuttle
standdown.  The reduced need for external tanks, and the lack of storage
space for them, will mean 700-800 layoffs at Martin Marietta's Michoud
facility.  Lockheed Space Operations will cut its Vandenberg staff of
2400 in half, 250 at once.

Weather satellite launch from Vandenberg delayed until Sept 17 at
earliest due to a LOX leak.

NASA recommends Shuttle/IUS as best replacement for Shuttle/Centaur in
launching Galileo, Ulysses, and Magellan.  NASA will probably place a
sole-source order on the grounds that nothing else comparable will be
available in time.  Magellan will launch in April 1989, making one orbit
around the Sun before reaching Venus in July 1990.  The long trajectory
is not so much to save fuel as to move Magellan's launch window away
from the crowded period in fall when Galileo and Ulysses must launch.
Galileo would launch in November 1989, making a Venus flyby and two
Earth flybys to reach Jupiter without needing a more powerful upper
stage.  Galileo will need sunshades to keep it cool near Venus.  Arrival
at Jupiter would be in 1995, 11 years behind the original 1984 target
date.  Ulysses could launch in late 1989 or late 1990, depending on how
long it takes to put together an IUS and a PAM, both of which will be
needed.  Arrival in the solar polar region will be 1994-6.

Although NASA is making plans for launching Galileo on Shuttle/IUS, the
possibility of putting it on a Titan 4 has not been ruled out.  At least
one military Titan 4 payload is shuttle-compatible, and NASA would like
to arrange a swap.  It's not clear that DoD will go for this.

NASA is considering delaying launch of Mars Observer from 1990 to 1992.

The glut of comsat capacity is starting to drop off, although it's still
substantial.  Idle transponders are now at 12%, versus as high as 43% a
few years ago.

Orbiter Atlantis to go to pad 39B in mid-September for fit checks on a
new weather-protection system that gives an on-pad shuttle more
shielding against rain and hail.  Other tests will include strain gauges
on the joints of one SRB, to measure stresses associated with movement
to the pad, and a changeout of a fuel cell to demonstrate that it can be
done on the pad.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: Sun, 5 Oct 86 10:47:03 pdt
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Draft of letter to Congress and the President
Cc: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

I am drafting a letter to be sent to my representatives in Congress and
the President expressing, in general terms, my concerns over the goals
(or lack thereof) of the space program.  Your comments would be welcome.


[Gentlemen:]

I am writing to you to express my concern over the lack of direction
present in our nation's space program.  It is apparent to me, based on
reports in the popular media and other sources, that our national space
program's projects have been of an ad hoc and narrow focus nature. Many
members of Congress and the Administration have stated the need for a
strategic plan to guide NASA and other space related public agencies and
private organizations; yet a strategic planning process and strategic
plan have not materialized.  Instead, more single focus projects and
quick fixes have been proposed.

I cannot suggest a particular plan; you are in a much better position
than I to initiate a strategic planning process and ensure the necessary
long term funding. You have access to the suggestions of concerned
citizen's groups, agency reports and proposals, and your knowledge of
the needs of this country.  Further, it is your responsibility as a
representative and leader of our nation to assess the purposes, goals,
and values of our nation, and establish the objectives of our space
program.

					Sincerely,
					  Eric Hildum

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

Date:     Sun, 5 Oct 86 20:50 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa
Subject:  Long term stability of GSO
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.arpa",IN%"ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa",DIETZ       

In response to a question about the long term stability of objects in
geostationary orbit, Phil Karn wrote:

>It's hard to project such things out so far into the future, but it
>seems safe to say that geostationary satellites will not eventually
>decay due to atmospheric drag. A much more significant set of forces
>acting on them involve perturbations due to the sun, moon, and
>non-spherical shape of the earth.  These tend to be "conservative"
>forces, in that they do not change the amount of (kinetic + potential)
>energy in the satellite, they simply move the orbit plane around.  But
>who knows what will happen in 8 million years?

A significant nonconservative force is light pressure.  During the
sunward part of the orbit the object will experience a slightly larger
force (due to the Doppler shift) than during the other half of the
orbit.  Also, sunlight reflected from the object or reradiated by the
object will be slightly blue shifted in the direction of motion; this
also will rob energy from the orbit (the Poynting-Robertson effect).

How fast will the orbit decay?  Light pressure at earth orbit is about
4.5E-6 newtons per square meter.  An object in GSO travels at about 3
km/sec, or about 1E-5 of the speed of light.  I'll assume the object
experiences a drag force of about 4.5E-11 N/m**2.  This force will kill
the entire orbital velocity (of 3 km/sec) in 2E6 M / A years, where M is
the mass of the object in kilograms and A the cross section in square
meters.  Of course, the object will spiral closer to the Earth as the
orbit decays and pick up additional energy, but it will also travel
faster, increasing the photon drag.

It may only be necessary for the object's orbit to decay until the
orbital frequency is some integer multiple of the Moon's (or, some
rational multiple, where the ratio has a small denominator).  In the
asteroid belt such resonances have been found to propel asteroids into
chaotic orbits.

Interactions with the solar wind and the earth's magnetic field might
also dissipate energy, but I can't calculate the magnitude of the
effects.

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

Date:  Mon, 6 Oct 86 19:47 EDT
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
Subject:  shuttle launch viewing
To: space@s1-b.arpa

There's been a lot of discussion about the best place to see a shuttle
launch.  Given, however, that you'll after wait over a year, may I offer
an alternative?  Find an IMAX theatre and watch "The Dream is Alive."
This seems almost as good as the real thing (altho I've never seen the
real thing, so I could be wrong).  At one point, it seems to me, someone
made a list of all the IMAX theatres showing the film.  Maybe someone
could repost that?

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

Date: 6 Oct 86 05:06:00 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh@caip.rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>I, too, dabbled in libertarian philosophies for a short time a few
>years back. I still support many of the purely "civil libertarian"
>aspects, as do many people who are not "libertarians" per se.  However,
>I kept running into a fundamental contradiction.  On the one hand,
>libertarians believe in an utterly laissez-faire economy.  On the
>other, I believe that the ONLY way a number of very worthwhile
>activities will ever get funded is for the government to do it through
>taxation: free public education, basic scientific research and, yes,
>SPACE EXPLORATION.  How do you reconcile this with libertarianism,
>where some even go so far as to suggest that "free enterprise" can and
>should replace government courts of law!

Phil, There are people with (by me) good libertarian credentials who
believe the government should exist to take care of a fairly restricted
range of functions.  Some of these "minarchists" include space
exploration on their "little lists" because it's arguably an economic
externality.  I don't happen to agree, but I don't doubt that their
hearts are in the right place.

I've talked with a man named Hudson, who's a private citizen trying to
get the air force to get NASA out of the way so he can get USAF booking
(in the form of launch sales) for his privately-designed-and-run launch
vehicle.  He thinks it's silly to think that only governments can go
into space, but points out that while NASA is there, it's unlikely that
anyone else will be allowed or able to get into space, for two reasons.

	1. Artificially tough competition: I can't remember the exact
figures Hudson cited, but it works out like this: Hudson can put up a
satellite for about half the cost that NASA incurs putting up the same
satellite, but NASA, supported by taxes, charges less than Hudson's
cost, exclusive of profit, for doing so.  In other words, as taxpayers,
we're helping NASA to smother competition.

	2. Artificially nasty regulation.  Hudson didn't talk so much
about this two years ago (although it was certainly mentioned) but the
subject has now become a very hot one.  Take a look at G. Harry Stine's
"The Space Beat: The Other Shoe Drops" in Far Frontiers, Fall 1986.  As
he puts it, "We've been had.  Badly".  Very briefly, the government, in
the form of an agency called OCSI, has given itself (via insertion into
the Federal Register) the right to stop any launch that it decides is
not "in the national interest".  They also have unlimited inspection
rights, so if you want to send up a really private cargo, you're out of
luck.  Reasonable? Maybe.  I suggest you read Stine's article if you
think so.

It wasn't the Spanish Armada that discovered America for Spain, but a
(relatively) private citizen with some back-door government backing.
With this new regulation, space belongs only to whatever the government
feels like allowing up there.

This may or may not include a private space industry -- but the problems
with the private space launching have little to do with technical
issues: the real issues are issues of power and politics.

>In the end, I concluded that libertarianism is a very simplistic and
>naive approach to an economy that is and must be a hybrid of public and
>private activities.

One hears this complexity argument often, but it is nonsensical: which
activity is more complex: that of traders of the stock market pit or
that of the same number of regimented troops?  How about the economy of
the US and that of the USSR?  If things are too complex, it typically
means that you CANNOT run them by authority from above -- you need a
distributed scheme to handle the complexity.  (Von Mises took this to
the extreme, demonstrating that a purely socialist economy cannot
function because it cannot set prices correctly without a capitalist
economy to "ape")

Now that we've each had our say on that -- let's move further
non-space-related libertarian topics to talk.politics.misc, hokay?

>To be fair, a popular rallying cry in L-5 is "get government out of the
>way of private enterprise in space".  This argument is certainly
>consistent with libertarian philosophy.  There's nothing wrong with it
>as such, except that it's a red herring.  The real barriers to
>commercial space development have far more to do with technological and
>economic facts of life than with government red tape, but the latter
>makes a convenient scapegoat.  After all, who could possibly FAVOR "red
>tape" or oppose motherhood and apple pie?

Okay -- let's have NASA charge full cost for launches, and have the
government allow anyone to compete, with minimal intrusion.  As I
understand it, that's all Hudson is asking.  He offers to save the
taxpayer a bundle.  Any takers?  No?  Well why not?  I think your "red
herring" argument is a "red herring".

>I wonder, though, how many of those same "libertarian L-5'ers" wrote
>letters and telegrams to their Congresspeople urging them to exact
>money under penalty of law from (i.e., tax) every American in order to
>pay for the Space Station, the 5th (now 4th) orbiter, and other nifty
>space toys.
>
>You can't have it both ways.  TRUE libertarians would demand that NASA
>be shut down.

And some do.  There was an article called "Scuttle the Shuttle" in the
June, 1986 issue of Reason, and another one (which I can't find) called
"NASA's War on Private Space" or some such, a few months earlier.

From "Scuttle the Shuttle":

	It's easy to understand why the space lobby wants
	another shuttle--it's simply more business for them.  It's the
	other space lobby -- individuals who join the L-5 society and
	the Planetary Society and who have The Dream of going into space
	themselves -- whose members should take a second look before
	cranking up a lobbying campaign.  They have to recognize that
	although the shuttle is a technical marvel, it's not the
	solution but part of the problem.  It's not the road to space
	but a choke point on the road to space.

	The clue is the reaction of the administration and Congress to
	the idea of another shuttle.  They say that in a time of
	$200-billion deficits and of Gramm-Rudman-Hollings
	deficit-reduction measures we can't afford to spend several
	billion on a replacement for the Challenger.  Clearly, to
	Congress and the administration, the shuttle is a money-loser,
	not a money maker.  If it were making revenue they'd be
	jumping at the chance to "enhance revenue" by building another
	one.

	No one knows how much money is lost on each shuttle flight.
	Revenues for a full shuttle bay come to about $80 million per
	flight.  Estimates of the cost of a flight run as high as $200
	million.  Different economists, making different assumptions,
	reach different results.  But the exact numbers aren't
	important.  What is important is that each shuttle flight
	represents a loss to the taxpayers of something like $100
	million. 

	The result is that the amount of traffic to orbit via the
	shuttle will be limited by the amount of money the government
	is willing to lose. The loss of the Challenger hasn't changed
	that reality.  It has only made it more visible.  

Has anyone read "I, Claudius"?  In it, the emperor Tiberius, faced with
someone proposing a project he didn't like (as I recall, it was a
memorial to his hated mother Livia), offered to fund it, and then (after
a great many delays) didn't actually come up with the money.  You might
say he killed the project with kindness.  It is awfully "kind" of the
government to offer to send payloads up, don't you think?

Needless to say, nothing I say here should be taken as a reflection on
the opinions of my employers or associates.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #14
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02220; Thu, 16 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT
	id AA02220; Thu, 16 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610161002.AA02220@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #15

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 86 03:02:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #15

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 15

Today's Topics:
		  Re: And one more flame against L-5
		    Re: Tentative call for papers
		       How do you abort an SRB?
			   Space Telescope
			 Re: Lagrange points
    Space travel without Science and the signal-to-noise ratio of
		      Re: shuttle launch viewing
	 Re: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
		  HOTOL: Complicated turbocompressor
			 L-5 Society, More on
		       Re: Bootstrap Starships
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Oct 86 22:07:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!chinet!aicchi!ignatz@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ihnat)
Subject: Re: And one more flame against L-5
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>	....Why invest all that effort and energy to lob stuff up from
>	the moon to a Lagrangian point for making a colony when it would
>	be vastly simpler and cheaper to merely bore tunnels into the
>	moon's crust and make enormous underground colonies.

I really don't want to get involved in how crazy or not crazy the L-5
society is.  However, I would like to point out the fact that there's a
lot to be said for constructing facilities outside the gravity well of a
planet.  You can turn on or off your 'gravity' at selected points in
your environment, for research, health, manufacturing, or recreation;
and it doesn't cost as much to get around once you're there.  The latter
point is a big win, as far as getting to the asteroid belts.  I'm not
sure I ever really bought their idea of getting to the moon, then
building the mass launcher; you're right about the fact that, once
you've spent that much time there, the lunar colony would be fairly
extensive in its own right.  But the idea of free-space colonies isn't
all that whacky in and of itself.
	Dave Ihnat
	Analysts International Corporation
	(312) 882-4673
	ihnp4!aicchi!ignatz || ihnp4!homebru!ignatz

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

Date: 6 Oct 86 19:55:36 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Tentative call for papers
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I seem to be stupid today.  What is CELSS?


david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 86 09:52:18 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: How do you abort an SRB?

James Van Artsdalen in his 28 Sept. raised the issue of aborting an SRB
while it's still burning.  The shuttle astronauts **can** detach from
the SRBs while they are still burning, but to do so would be an act of
suicidal desperation.  The SRBs use aluminum dust as its propellant with
ammonium perchlorate as the oxydizer.  I have been told that the rocket
plume from the SRB is like a sand blaster except instead of sand you
have burning aluminum flakes.  The ET (external tank) has aluminum walls
that are made as thin as possible to save weight.  While it is true that
the ET is thermally insulated, this insulation is against aerodynamic
heating and would not stand up against the SRB's plume.  The alternative
of the Orbit Vehicle (OV) separating from the SRB/ET stack is also
unviable.  I'm not certain of my numbers but I think the OV can only
withstand about 1.5 g in a lateral direction.  I know from Aviation Week
that it was aerodynamic forces and **not** the force of the ET explosion
that brokeup the OV.  There is one last possible fix and that is to put
a linear charge on the pressure dome on the end of each SRB.  If the
SRBs misbehave, one could blow the ends off and the thrust goes to zero
almost at once.  This is the usual method of range safety with solid
fueled ICBMs.  The SRB **does** have a linear charge that goes down the
length of it.  This works great from a range safety standpoint (and was
actually used), but can't be used if the SRB is still mated to the ET
and OV.  Probably the reason why one can't simply blow off the pressure
domes of the SRB is that a rocket plume would proceed in front of the
shuttles trajectory which would eventually impinge and destroy the ET.
I guess the real answer is that you just make sure your SRB design is
good enough that it doesn't fail.
			   Gary Allen

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

Date: 4 Oct 86 18:52:49 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!raybed2!rayssdb!rxb@ll-xn.arpa  (Richard A. Brooks)
Subject: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Is there anyone out there that knows details on the Space Telescope
(ST)? My questions are :

(1)  Will the transmissions from the ST be PUBLIC DOMAIN? (free to
     be recieved by anyone with the satellite equipment to pick them up)

(2)  Will the transmissions be scrambled or encrypted in any way to
     prevent interception? (other than encoding necessary to send the
     video data to earth)

(3)  What Image Processing equipment would be required to obtain a
     suitable input to a PC or VCR.

(4)  If the answers to the above are favorable, does anyone have
     projects in the works to do this?

I would be extremely grateful for any help. The ST is about the only
thing going up that would make it worth getting a satellite reciever,
Who needs HBO when you can watch the STARS!!!


Richard Brooks      {allegra, gatech, ihnp4, linus, raybed2}!rayssd!rayssdb!rxb
Raytheon 
Submarine Signal Division
Portsmouth, Rhode Island

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

Date: 4 Oct 86 04:40:49 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!axiom!linus!alliant!spain@talcott.harvard.edu  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: Lagrange points
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <7153@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Can someone show how to derive the positions of L4 and L5?  Last time
>> I tried, I made too many simplifying assumptions...
>
>I've never seen a simple and intuitive explanation of the L4/5 points;
>it's not a trivial result.

In fact to make matters worse, you have to take into account the Sun's
interaction along with the Earth/Moon/you setup if you wish to use the
Lagrange points for something on a long-term basis, like a space colony.

Although I can't cite you an explicit reference, I know I've read that
because of the interaction between the 4 bodies (Sun, Earth, Moon and
you) an object at L4 or L5 would actually transcribe a small orbit
around the "points" depicted in the 3 body case (Earth/Moon/You only).
Thus for something like a space colony, even though it may be quite near
these points, it is still traversing an orbit and a small number of
station-keeping adjustments would be needed from time-to-time.
Particularly, if it is to remain there for long periods of time.

If memory serves correctly, I believe I first saw this explanation in a
NASA publication. It was a book form of a summary report by a summer
study group at Stanford (circa 1976 perhaps?), that was among the first
in-depth studies done on the feasibility of putting up a Space Colony.
The names of the book and the study group escape me, the book was
borrowed from a friend, but I'm sure there are plenty of netfolk out
there that can fill in the blanks, as this was a major undertaking.
[Didn't many of the results of this study provide the back- round for
O'Neil's famous book? Or do I have the order of events wrong?]

Anyway, one of the topics covered was an overview of the orbital
mechanics involved in placing a colony at L4 or L5, but not to the depth
you are probably looking for.

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

Date: Mon, 06 Oct 86 09:05:29 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Space travel without Science and the signal-to-noise ratio of
  Space Digest

There have recently been a series of postings concerning "space travel
without science" or "space travel without mathematics" in Space Digest.
These postings raise two interesting points.  The first is what sort of
guidelines should there be to keep the signal-to-noise ratio for Space
Digest above a reasonable level.  The second point is where does one
draw the line between valid topics about aerospace engineering versus
those concerning science fiction.  The concept of "space travel without
mathematics" can be with some confidence, assigned to the category of
science fiction.  I would like to encourage the moderator of Space
Digest to direct discussions of this sort to other ARPANET newsgroups
such as SF-LOVERS where there is a receptive audience.  I might add in
passing that I am seriously thinking of DEsubscribing from SF-LOVERS
because the signal-to-noise ratio in that newsgroup is so ridiculously
low.  It would be sad if a similar fate was in store for Space Digest.
The second point on science fiction versus valid engineering notions
is a prickly issue.  In 1949, travelling to the moon was widely regarded
as science fiction.  If people had clung to that notion, we would have
never embarked on the Apollo program.  The Daedalus project by the
British Interplanetary Society was a paper study directed towards
examining the feasibility of an unmanned interstellar probe to Bernard's
Star.  One problem this study has always had is that people just
implicitly assume that interstellar travel is impossible and science
fiction.  However, I believe that the study showed the feasibility for
unmanned interstellar travel.  Therefore, the problem in essense is how
does one keep the discussion sufficiently free to discuss a wide range
of ideas (including crazy ones like interstellar travel), without having
the discussion forum being swamped with nonsense like "space travel
without science"?
                         Gary Allen

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

Date: 7 Oct 86 08:20:39 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: shuttle launch viewing
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

To be perfectly honest, "The Dream is Alive" is in many ways BETTER than
seeing the real thing. Though you *should* go down there at least once
if you can.

Phil

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

Date: 7 Oct 86 01:12:58 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ... space travel far too expensive (by many orders of magnitude) for
> "moving life off the planet"; that's just not realistic with present
> technology. (By "present technology" I don't mean just the Shuttle; I
> mean "chemical rockets").

Not so.

Apparently most of the weight of the shuttle stack is oxygen (does
anyone know the actual numbers?).  Therefor, the aerospace plane, if
successful, should give us a very large reduction in launch cost.
Possibly good enough for moving fragile (living) cargoes off the planet
in fairly large quantities.  For bulk materials an electromagnetic
launcher (also more of less current technology) should work fine.
Needless to say, in place resources (e.g., the moon and asteroids) must
supply the bulk of the material needed to develop a large society in
orbit.

New concepts in physics do not appear to be necessary to develop a large
presence in orbit, although they might help.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 10:59:43 PDT
From: Murray.pa@xerox.com
Subject: HOTOL: Complicated turbocompressor
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Murray.pa@xerox.com

From scanning the ads in AW+ST, the jet engine business looks pretty
rough to me. There must be a lot of smart people working hard to build
better ones. I could easily believe that it would be better, faster, or
cheaper to take advantage of that technology curve rather than starting
over.

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

Date: Tue, 7 Oct 86 11:41:39 PDT
From: crash!pnet01!mhughes@nosc.arpa (Mari Hughes)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: L-5 Society, More on

Recently there have been a number of postings to this digest on the
nature of the L-5 society compared to that of the Planetary Society.  I
found these postings to be both confusing and misleading.

Perhaps Jerry Pournelle and other famous members of the L-5 society are
right-wing and SDI lovers, but Jerry is NOT the L-5 society!  This group
is a grass roots group and if you get involved on a local level, you
will find that most members don't know or could care less what a few of
the famous think.  I resisted joining L-5 for years because of my
impression that they were a bunch of liberals/radicals who were unable
to be sane when it came to the idea of the military in space.  When I
read all these postings about L-5 society being a bunch of right-wing,
rabid supporters of SDI, I felt like I had entered the Twilight Zone!

My main complaint with the group, is that most members I have come into
contact with are rabid supporters of NASA and feel that to critize NASA
is to critize the idea of the space program (i.e., if you don't like
NASA you are anti-space).  It didn't take the Challenger tragedy to make
me realize that NASA is an agency riddled with internal problems, but I
was rarely able to convince those members of the L-5 society I came into
contact with that NASA could do wrong.

As far as the Planetary Society is concerned, I don't see that it is
immune from all those critisisms leveled at the L-5 Society!

In the future, I would hope that you refrain from coming down on an
entire organization for the comments/opinions of a few members with a
high profile

Mari Hughes
[P-Net: mhughes]

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

Date: 7 Oct 86 10:58:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihopa!riccb!jmc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeff McQuinn )
Subject: Re: Bootstrap Starships
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Here are a couple of ideas for engines for interstellar travel.
> 
> In the first design, a collector is used to generate energy from
> passing interstellar gas.  I assume the vehicle is travelling at a
> good clip (.1 c, say) before this engine is turned on.  The generator
> is a thin foil a few atoms thick.  On either side of the foil I place
> a sparse grid negatively charged with respect to the foil.
> Interstellar hydrogen atoms will hit the foil and be ionized.  Their
> nuclei will pass unhindered through the trailing grid.  The electrons,
> which are much less energetic, will oscillate between the grids,
> losing energy in the foil, eventually stopping there.  Electrons can
> be drawn off the foil to do useful work, like driving an ion engine.
> The electrons are eventually ejected out the back to neutralize the
> gas atom nuclei.

I've often wondered how ideas like these can work.  I know I must be missing
something but won't the mass you collect at the front end cause drag which
will be equal and opposite to the acceleration provided by ejecting the
same material out the back as reaction mass?  (This all assumes that you
have not brought a fuel source with you to raise the energy levels of the
collected mass else why are you collecting material to begin with)

If this question is to mundane for general discussion respond by e-mail 
otherwise I just love free-for-alls!

					Jeff McQuinn just VAXing around

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #15
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04990; Fri, 17 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT
	id AA04990; Fri, 17 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610171002.AA04990@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #16

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 03:02:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #16

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 16

Today's Topics:
			    fusion rockets
		  net.columbia saved; voting closed
		       Re: Bootstrap Starships
			 bootstrap starships
		       Re: Bootstrap Starships
		       Re: Bootstrap Starships
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: space
From: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa
Sender: ota
Subject: fusion rockets
Date: 7 Oct 86 22:59:00 EDT
Reply-To: <bouldin@ceee-sed.ARPA>

Many years ago (1976) I seem to remember seeing some articles on the
idea of fusion 'pulse-rockets' based on small (very small) laser
inititated fusion explosion. Sort of a pure fusion version of Orion.
Anyone have any refs. to this? Hopefully, more recent than my distant
memories??

Also, anyone have any info on NASA's intermittent experiments with
spin-polarized hydrogen as a fuel for attitude jets on satellites?

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

Date: 7 Oct 86 19:12:18 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!msb@seismo.css.gov  (Mark Brader)
Subject: net.columbia saved; voting closed
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The proposal to rmgroup net.columbia (or not create sci.space.shuttle)
and consolidate with net.space (sci.space) is DEFEATED.  The voters are
enumerated below.  I offer a gentle razzberry in the direction of those
who thought the first posting was for someone ELSE to respond to, so
that the voting ended up dragging out over about 6 weeks; and great
thanks to everyone for voting by mail and not clogging the net with
this.

While I would, of course, have preferred to see the groups consolidated,
I thought the next best thing would be to start a Shuttle mailing list
on the Arpanet and have it gatewayed to and from net.columbia; this
would probably go a long way toward getting the Shuttle traffic out of
net.space.

Erik Fair, keeper of the Berkeley gateway, said that he was willing to
set up such a gateway.  However, Ted Anderson, moderator for the Arpanet
side of net.space, said:

> I don't think I'd be interested if there is any significant chance of
> getting multiple copies of things.  I think probably be best idea for
> the Arpanet side of things is for me to send the interesting
> net.columbia submissions to the Space Digest by hand.  I now have
> access to the unix news groups and since there isn't much traffic that
> shouldn't be too hard.

This seems infeasible to me, because "the interesting submissions" in
net.columbia would then end up in net.space also, put there
automatically by the Berkeley gateway; even if Message-ID tracking can
keep track of them and prevent this, followups to them (from the Arpa
side) would.  Thus this would make things worse and not better...
unless, of course, there was someone moderating the Arpanet-to-Usenet
gateway.

It still seems to me that, lacking moderation at that point, the best
way to resolve things is for the Arpanet side to mimic the Usenet side
and have two lists.  If the same person moderates both, they could
eliminate duplication.  But I am in no position to make such a thing
happen, only to suggest, and at this point I drop out of the discussion.

Mark Brader	
utzoo!dciem!msb	

There were, in the end, 47 No or qualified No votes.  I deleted one
voter's name (the one who said "I agree with Karl Heuer") before I
decided I should include qualified votes.  The remaining ones are listed
here, alphabetically by surname or, if none, userid.

	styx!mcb		(Michael C. Berch)
	epimass!jbuck		(Joe Buck)
	saber!msc		(Mark Callow)
	cmcl2!chenj		(James M.C. Chen)
	omepd!davec		(Dave Cobbley)
	amd!tc			(Tom Crawford)
	amdahl!kim		(Kim DeVaughn)
	lpi!jeff		(Jeff Diewald)
	hou2f!5113dcd		(Doug Donohoe)
	topaz!friedman		(-Gadi)
	hound!55jcf		(Jim Frauenthal)
	randvax!jim		(Jim Gillogly)
	watnot!rdgreenall	(Richard Greenall)
	cuae2.ATT.COM!heiby	(Ron Heiby)
	haddock!karl		(Karl Heuer)
	cad.dec.com!insinga	(Aron Insinga)
	alice!jj
	ll1!cej			(Llewellyn Jones)
	faron!jnk		(John N. Kemeny)
	tomk@leia.GWD.TEK.COM	(Tom Kloos)
	tekecs!andrew		(Andrew Klossner)
	netxcom!rkolker		(Rick Kolker)
	alex@xios.XIOS.UUCP	(Alex B Laney)
	northstar!glee		(Godfrey Lee)
	mtgzy!ecl		(EveLyn C. Leeper)
	felix!bytebug		(Roger L. Long)
	epicen!kreg		(Kreg Martin)
	ut-ngp!osmigo1		(Ron Morgan)
	wudma!oldroyd		(L. A. Oldroyd)
	alice!mat		(Mat Pirz)
	fluke!johnr		(John Redfield)
	whuts!brt		(Ben Reytblat)
	elroy!david		(David Robinson)
	beowulf.UCSD.EDU!rose	(Dan Rose)
	cornell!jts		(Jim Sasaki)
	unicus!cks		(Chris Siebenmann)
	ethos!gary		(Gary J. Smith)
	topaz!steiner		(Dave Steiner)
	newton!clt		(Carrick Talmadge)
	unicus!sat 		(Scott A. Thurlow)
	wldrdg!tony
	netxcom!ewiles		(Edwin Wiles)
	hpfcda!woof		(Steve Wolf)
	vax4.dec.com!wood	(John F. Wood)
	hao!woods		(Greg Woods)
	nike!yee		(Peter Yee)

And the 33 YES votes:
	s1-b.arpa!ota		(Ted Anderson)
	infinet!barnes		(Jim Barnes)
	bogstad@BRL.ARPA
	lznv!psc		(Paul S. R. Chisholm)
	osu-eddie!jac		(James Clausing)
	oddjob!matt		(Matt Crawford)
	rochester!crowl		(Lawrence Crowl)
	usc-oberon!demke	(Christopher Demke)
	mtuxo!tee		(Tim Ebersole)
	unicus!rae		(Reid Ellis)
	ucbvax!fair		(Erik E. Fair)
	tekcbi!jeffg		(Jeff Glover)
	watmath!sahayman	(Steve Hayman)
	drivax!holloway		(Bruce Holloway)
	masscomp!carlton	(Carl Hommel)
	allegra!karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn)
	gilbbs!mc68020		(Tom Keller)
	uiucdcs!kenny		(Kevin Kenny)
	druhi!tml		(Tim Larison)
	amdahl!jon		(Jonathan Leech)
	van-bc!sl		(Stuart Lynne)
	wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA	(Will Martin)
	amdahl!gam		(Gordon A. Moffett)
	csustan!smdev		(Scott Hazen Mueller)
	MCC!PITTS		(Greg Pitts)
	skatter!greg		(Greg Retzlaff)
	mtgzz!dls		(Dale Skran)
	gatech!spaf		(Gene Spafford)
	utzoo!henry		(Henry Spencer)
	watvlsi!ksbszabo	(Kevin Szabo)
	mks!tj			(T. J. Thompson)
	dadla!dant		(Dan Tilque)
	cfa!willner

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

Date: 8 Oct 86 06:52:20 GMT
From: voder!aitnet!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Bootstrap Starships
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

$ Here are a couple of ideas for engines for interstellar travel.
$ 
$ In the first design, a collector is used to generate energy from
$ passing interstellar gas....
$ Interstellar hydrogen atoms will hit the foil and be ionized.
$ Their nuclei will pass unhindered through the trailing grid.
$ The electrons, which are much less energetic, will oscillate
$ between the grids, losing energy in the foil, eventually stopping
$ there.  Electrons can be drawn off the foil to do useful work...
$ 
$ A second design is for ultrarelativistic flight.  It interacts with
$ the cosmic background radiation.  At high speeds the spacecraft
$ perceives a temperature gradient: the radiation is hotter in front
$ than behind.  This gradient can be used to drive a heat engine...

TANSTAFFL. Both schemes ignore the momentum of the particles you are
extracting energy from.  Both electrons and photons deposit their
momentum in the spacecraft they strike the collection surface.  The
energy extracted is really coming from the spacecraft velocity as it
slows downdue to "equal and opposite" reaction to the impinging
particles.

Ed Post   {hplabs,voder,pyramid}!lewey!evp
American Information Technology
10201 Torre Ave. Cupertino CA 95014
(408)252-8713

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

Date:         Fri, 10 Oct 86 10:40:32 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: Paul Dietz <dietz%slb-doll.csnet@relay.cs.net>,
        space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: bootstrap starships

Concept one: ionize the interstellar hydrogen, keep the electrons
but not the protons, and use the energy so collected to drive the
ship.
    Problem: where does the energy to ionize the hydrogen come from?
answer: it comes from drag on the collectors.  In other words,
you are extracting the energy from the ship`s motion to power the
ship.  No go.

Design 2: make a heat engine from the fact that the cosmic background
in front of the ship is doppler shifted relative to that behind the
ship.
comment: a neat way to get around the third law of thermodynamics.
If it worked, you could dispense with the starship--just put your
heat engine on a centrifuge.
question; where does the energy come from?
answer: it comes from the doppler shift of the radiation.  The photons
incoming from the front of the ship are higher energy than those
rejected to the rear.  But this means they have higher momentum.
So you lose momentum to the background radiation.  Once more, you
are extracting energy from the drag on the ship.

     If you think about it for a moment, you will realize that neither
of these schemes will work.  You are re-inventing the old
"put a windmill at the front of the ship, and use the energy to drive
a propellar!" concept; ie., the energy you are extracting out of
the interstellar medium and/or radiation field is the energy lost
to drag.  At best you can break even (unless the medium itself is
moving with respect to your destination)
            --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University
              Reply to: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

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

Date: 6 Oct 86 19:11:52 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Bootstrap Starships
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...  The generator is a thin foil a few atoms thick.  On either side
> of the foil I place a sparse grid negatively charged with respect to
> the foil.  Interstellar hydrogen atoms will hit the foil and be
> ionized.  Their nuclei will pass unhindered through the trailing grid.
> The electrons, which are much less energetic, will oscillate between
> the grids, losing energy in the foil, eventually stopping there.
> Electrons can be drawn off the foil to do useful work, like driving an
> ion engine...

Uh, Paul, where does the energy *come from* in this system?

At first glance, what is happening is that you are transforming the
kinetic energy of the vehicle into electric power.  Splitting an atom
into nucleus and electron takes energy; with the electron bound to the
vehicle and the nucleus leaving rearward, the nucleus will be dragged
along to some extent by the attraction between it and the electron.
Actually it will be worse than that, it will be dragged along quite a
bit by all that negative charge on the whole assembly.  The net result
is that your vehicle will lose kinetic energy at the same time as it
gains electrical energy.  A useful braking system, yes, but not
otherwise enormously interesting.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: Mon, 13 Oct 86 16:04:23 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Bootstrap Starships

In Vol. 7, No. 9 of Space Digest, Paul Dietz proposed some "Bootstrap
Starship" ideas.  I am very reluctant to criticize this sort of article
because this is **exactly** the sort of thing I like to see in Space
Digest.  I compliment Paul for using his head.  However I don't think
his idea will work.  My embarassing question about his design is "where
does the energy come from?".  Paul's obvious answer would be that it is
coming from the surrounding interstellar medium.  I shall focus on his
second design since it's easiest to criticize.  You have a vehicle going
at about 10 psol (percent speed of light).  The front is interacting
with the interstellar medium (hydrogen at about 0.1 particles per cubic
centimeter).  The front will heat up.  In Project Daedalus it was
assumned that the front of the vehicle would have a temperature of
around 200 deg. Kelvin.  We could assume that the rear would be at
almost 0 deg. Kelvin.  In theory the Carnot efficiency would be near
perfect.  However all of your energy would actually be coming from
original kinetic energy lost due to drag.  We can calculate power by
assuming a disc of 55 meters radius travelling at 10 psol (relativistic
effects are insignificant), and assume an interstellar medium as
originally described.  From the vehicle's frame it sees particles
streaming in at 10 psol.  The mass of intersellar medium impacted on the
forward shield of the vehicle for one second would be 1.118e-8 grams.
From this we may estimate the energy available in one second based on
KE=(1/2)*M*(V**2).  This calculates to be 5.355 kilowatts.  This would
be very useful for powering such on board systems as a navigation
computer.  However it is insignificant in terms of the vehicle's total
kinetic energy.  This is extremely **fortunate** by the way, for if drag
was significant then intersteller travel would indeed be impossible.  A
side point is **if** the 1.118e-8 grams/sec. could be converted entirely
into energy by some magic way then you would have approximately one
megawatt of power, or 1350 horse power, which is remarkably little.  You
might use this to push out a reaction mass but then you have the
embarassing question of where do you get the reaction mass from?  It was
a good attempt Paul, but you'll have to try again.
                       Gary Allen

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #16
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA03720; Sat, 18 Oct 86 03:02:10 PDT
	id AA03720; Sat, 18 Oct 86 03:02:10 PDT
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 86 03:02:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610181002.AA03720@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #17

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 18 Oct 86 03:02:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #17

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 17

Today's Topics:
			 bootstrap starships
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 Re: Space Telescope
		      Lunar vs. Orbital Colonies
	       slight misconception about "beanstalks"
	       Recent articles: Planets of binary stars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 13 Oct 86 08:52 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  bootstrap starships

Geoffrey,

  You seem to be missing the basic point here.  Let me explain.

  I can generate arbitrary impulse (that is, momentum change) for a
given amount of energy by ejecting the reaction mass *slowly*.  For
example, if I eject 1 kilogram of mass at 1000 km/sec, I generate 1E6
newton-seconds of impulse, and must expend 5E11 joules of energy.  If I
eject 10,000 kg at 10 km/sec, I still expend 5E11 joules of energy but
produce 1E8 newton-seconds of impulse.  Clearly, by increasing the mass
and decreasing the velocity of the exhaust, the ratio of thrust (impulse
per time) to power (energy per time) can be made arbitrarily high.  Note
that this only works if I was carrying the reaction mass with me;
external reaction mass must be expelled at greater than its incoming
speed.

Since thrust/power ratio can be made arbitrarily high, it can be made
higher than the drag/power induced by the generator.  Please crank
through the numbers, ok?

A variant of the rocket equation can be set up to decide what the
optimal exhaust velocity should be (in order to minimize reaction mass
consumption).

Specific criticisms:

(1) Ionizing incoming interstellar gas.  Ionizing an atom takes, at
most, a few tens of electron volts.  Travelling at 10% of the speed of
light a hydrogen atom has ~5 *million* electron volts of energy.
Ionization losses are insignificant.

(2) Cosmic background radiation generator.  Yes, radiation pressure drag
would be produced.  However, if the exhaust velocity is low enough
(remember, this is reaction mass we were already carrying) the thrust
will exceed drag.  And yes, it *will* work in principle on a centrifuge!

Paul Dietz

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

Date: 9 Oct 86 00:25:11 GMT
From: jwp@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1322@rayssdb.UUCP> rxb@rayssdb.UUCP (Richard A. Brooks) writes:
>	(1)  Will the transmissions from the ST be PUBLIC DOMAIN?
>	(2)  Will the transmissions be scrambled or encrypted
>	(3)  What Image Processing equipment would be required
>	(4)  Does anyone have projects in the works to do this? 

The HST will transmit its data at one of 2 rates (4 kbits/sec and 1
Mbit/sec) to a TDRS satellite, which will forward the data to White
Sands.  Thence they go to the east coast via DomSat, to be recieved at
the data capture facility at Goddard.  Processing is done there, as well
as sending the signal via microwave link to the Science Institute in
Baltimore.  Before leaving the HST, the data have Reed-Solomon encoding
performed on them, and then whatever blocking is required for the NASCOM
transmission process.

I don't know much more in the way of details, but it seems to me that it
would require a bunch of effort to eavesdrop.  We had a thermal vacuum
test at Lockheed this summer, with the HST at times being commanded
remotely from Goddard, and I know that at times, even *they* were quite
pleased to get some data.

	Jeff Percival ...!uwvax!uwmacc!sal70!jwp or ...!uwmacc!jwp

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

Date: 9 Oct 86 17:45:03 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 	(1)  Will the transmissions from the ST be PUBLIC
> 	     DOMAIN? (free to be recieved by anyone with
> 	     the satellite equipment to pick them up)

My understanding is that they are technically private.  Space Telescope
data is the property of the investigator for some relatively short
period (six months?  two years?) and then becomes public domain.  This
is intended to protect things like publication rights while making sure
that the results eventually become available to everyone.  Eavesdropping
on the ST should thus fall under the general rule that radio
transmissions not intended for public broadcast may be listened to but
may not be passed on to others.  (Note that various bits of legislation
like local anti-scanner laws and the recent obnoxious anti-interception
bill in Congress may modify this.)

> 	(2)  Will the transmissions be scrambled or encrypted
> 	     in any way to prevent interception? (other than
> 	     encoding necessary to send the video data to
> 	     earth)

The transmission encoding probably isn't going to be trivial, but I
don't think there is any plan to deliberately encrypt.

> 	(3)  What Image Processing equipment would be required
> 	     to obtain a suitable input to a PC or VCR.

Basically you'd need something to capture the digital data coming down
-- I think the ST transmissions will be all-digital -- into memory or a
storage medium.  After that, output onto a screen should be trivial, and
onto a VCR will involve no more than the normal problems of transferring
a computer-generated image to a VCR.  The hard part will be deciphering
the transmission in the first place, since the ST people probably
haven't worried much about being compatible with existing standards.
I'd also be surprised if they were using commercial-satellite
frequencies, although the relay from White Sands to Goddard may.

>	...Who needs HBO when you can watch the STARS!!!

Bear in mind that most of the ST data is going to be exceptionally dull
except to the astronomer who's waiting for it.  Pictures of random star
fields will pall quickly.  It may be difficult to get sufficiently
detailed advance information to pick interesting observing times.  I
believe the ST's slew rate is rather slow, also, so it will be "in
transit" from one viewing direction to another quite a bit.  Finally,
note that only two of the five sensors aboard the ST are cameras; data
from the others is going to be *really* uninteresting to the casual
observer.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 10 Oct 86 16:59:36 GMT
From: jwp@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Here's another complication.  The ST's High Speed Photometer can sample
the intensity of incoming light in several ways: a 12-bit a/d conversion
of a photocurrent, and a readout of a photon counting device with either
8, 16, or 24 bit word size.  What's more, we can alternate between 2
internal detectors.  Our data stream can be quite complex: detector 1
"analog", detector 1 "digital", then repeat for detector 2, back to
detector 1, and so on.  And the information describing the interleaving
is not part of the downlinked data.  You'd have to try and figure it out
on a case by case basis by staring at the numbers.  Whew!

	Jeff Percival ...!uwvax!uwmacc!sal70!jwp or ...!uwmacc!jwp

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

Date: 10 Oct 86 18:04:17 GMT
From: fritz@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Fritz Benedict)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> except to the astronomer who's waiting for it.  Pictures of random
> star fields will pall quickly.  It may be difficult to get
> sufficiently detailed advance information to pick interesting
> observing times.  I believe the ST's slew rate is rather slow, also,
> so it will be "in transit" from one viewing direction to another quite
> a bit.

We hope to be obtaining science photons 35% of each day. During the
months just after launch, this may rarely exceed 10%.

> Finally, note that only two of the five sensors aboard the ST are
> cameras; data from the others is going to be *really* uninteresting to
> the casual observer.
>                          Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>                          {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

In addition to the 5 always discussed scientific instruments, HST has
three Fine Guidance Sensors, one of which we will use for very precise
(0.002 arcsecond) measurements of the positions of stars. So there are
really six scientific instruments on board. What kind of science can
come from precise measurements of the positions of stars? How about
absolute geometric distances to stars, detection of extrasolar planetary
systems, a much better test of relativity (stars deflections due to
gravity) ....  Oh, and dull fails miserably to describe the
yawn-producing unprocessed bit stream from HST. 8-)

Fritz Benedict  (512)471-4461x448
HST Astrometry Science Team
uucp: {...noao,decvax,ut-sally}!astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU!fritz
arpa: fritz@ut-ngp
snail: Astronomy, U of Texas, Austin, TX  78712

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

Date: 12 Oct 86 20:43:51 GMT
From: rutgers!husc6!news@ames-titan.arpa  (USENET News System)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The data from ST observations will be the property of the astronomer
(Principal Investigator) for ONE YEAR. At that time it all becomes
public-domain info.
From: mmiller@husc4.harvard.edu (Martin Miller)
Path: husc4!mmiller

As others have said, it will all be unbelievably dull, except in its
final, published form.

If anyone is interested, there are rumors afoot of an Amateur Space
Telescope, I believe a 24 inch to be launched in the 1990s, which will
actually transmit its data on ham radio frequencies. I'd tell you more
about it except that I threw the brochure away.

Tony Lazar
STScI, Baltimore

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

Date:     Tue, 7 Oct 86 18:25 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:  Lunar vs. Orbital Colonies

I sent a response to Gary Allen's anti-L5 message.  Gary asked me to
resubmit it to the mailing list so he could respond publicly.  Here's a
rephrasing of my message:

Gary criticized the fixation on orbital colonies by pointing out that
lunar underground colonies will likely be cheaper.  I responded by
saying that there is a plausible economic rationale for orbital colonies
-- powersat construction -- but there doesn't appear to be an
economically justifiable reason for putting *large* numbers of colonists
on the moon.  If one simply wants to warehouse people somewhere, one
should use some of the unoccupied spots on this planet (if we're talking
about underground living there's lots of room).

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

Date: 8 Oct 86 18:16:02 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: slight misconception about "beanstalks"
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk)

> 6) Just step into the elevator and ride up to orbit on a `beanstalk'.
>    If we can find a material strong enough, we can attach one end to
>    the ground near the equator and the other to a station at
>    geosynchonous orbit.  Then your elevator climbs the cable using
>    electric power generated from solar power satellites.

Somewhat misleading.  It is fairly easy to show that this wouldn't be
very workable without a ballast beyond GEO.  What I presume is meant is

    If we can find a material strong enough, we can attach one end to
    the ground near the equator and the other to a ballast somewhere
    *beyond* geosynchronous orbit.

Note that the center of mass of the beanstalk/ballast system should be
just at (or very slightly beyond) geosynchronous orbit.  There ought
indeed to be a station just *at* GEO... at that station, just stepping
off the elevator places one in orbit.

(Unless, of course, you are talking about a beanstalk which rests its
weight on the earth's surface and depends upon compressional strength to
stand, rather than the more usual type which is (in effect) in free fall
and depends upon tensional strength. I have my doubts about the first
notion ever being practical, since the second one is so much easier...)

Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

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

Date:         Thu, 09 Oct 86 10:53:56 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Recent articles: Planets of binary stars
              Update on Lunacrete

An article by W.D. Kelly in _Journal of Astronautical Science_ (34:2,
April-June 1986, p.209) studied the stability of planets in binary star
systems by numerical integration.  He assumed that a planet existed at a
position such that the surface temperature would be roughly the same as
Earth's, and then looked at what happens to the orbit as a function of
time.  What he discovered is that, when the two stars have eccentric
orbits (and the average eccentricity of binary star orbits is ^0.3),
that when the outer star reaches periastron (ie., closest approach) the
planet's orbit takes a jump in eccentricity.  In particular, he did this
for planets of Alpha Centauri and Procyon (two prominent binary stars
relatively similar in type to the sun) and found that neither one had
orbits in roughly the Earth's position likely to be stable for
geological time periods.  (Alas).  He also showed one nifty simulated
orbit where the planet circling one star was gradually perturbed by, and
then captured into an orbit around the other star.
    (Such numerical simulations always have to be taken with some degree
of skepticism.  Integrating 1/r2 potentials for the three-body problem
with non-circular orbits is always subject to finite step error, and it
is not always clear how much of the results you see are due to the error
accumulating (anybody remember trying to orbit the "star" in the
original version of "SPACE WAR"?) He didn't discuss procedure enough for
me to tell what he did to limit such error.)
    On a related subject, somebody asked earlier whether air drag at
geosynchronous altitude would limit the lifetime of synchronous
satellites.  The quick answer is, there isn't drag at synchronous
altitude.  The Earth's atmosphere is corotational with the earth, so the
air isn't moving with respect to the satellite.  However, perturbations
due to the Moon, Sun, and non-spherical mass distribution of the Earth
will destroy orbits in times that are short compared to millions of
years.  Geosynch satellites need to use thrusters to stay on station
(typically nitrogen gas jets).
     I remember reading a study once on lunar orbiters, which concluded
that about two months was the longest time you could keep something in
orbit around the moon before perturbations made the orbit intersect the
surface.  I'm not sure whether the major perturbation is due to the
Earth, or to masscons on the moon, but I think the latter.

     UPDATE ON LUNACRETE:
    The June-July 1986 issue of _NASA Activities_ had a report on the
results of an experiment to make concrete from lunar soil (discussed in
this digest about eight months ago.)  They gave 1/3 cup of actual lunar
soil sampled from Apollo to T.D. Lin to make concrete with.  The result
was a concrete with 10,800 PSI strength, which is 5% better than
terrestrial high-strength concrete, and twice the specification for
structural concrete.  The increased strength may be due to the absence
of organics, which are considered an undesirable contaminant in
concrete.

            --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #17
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06455; Sun, 19 Oct 86 03:02:07 PDT
	id AA06455; Sun, 19 Oct 86 03:02:07 PDT
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 86 03:02:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610191002.AA06455@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #18

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 19 Oct 86 03:02:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #18

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 18

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Solid versus Liquid
		       Re: Solid versus Liquid
		       Re: Solid versus Liquid
		       Re: Solid versus Liquid
		       Re: Solid versus Liquid
		       Re: Solid versus Liquid
	     Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Oct 86 22:13:28 GMT
From: nsc!amdahl!apple!ems@hplabs.hp.com  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I brought up this point some many months ago, and it didn't prompt
much debate.  Being an incurable optomist, I'm going to try again ...

In all the discussions of srb design we get a 'solids vs liquids' debate
going.  All or nothing.  Black or white.  With us or 'agin us.  There is
another way, a middle ground ...  Solid fuel with liquid oxidizer.  (one
would assume solid oxidizer with liquid fuel would work also ...) 

These are usually made by having a rubber like fuel pellet, ala srb
solids, but having an oxidizer injector near the top.  One can throttle
the engines, like liquids, while having a basic engine much like a
solid.  But there are problems ...  evenly burning the fuel pellet can
be tough as the oxidizer is not evenly spread down the center of the
pellet, you have all the pain of handling liquid oxidizer and yet still
need to have the entire engine casing withstand thrust presures.  etc.

Even if the ability to throtle/shutdown/restart is limited it beats the 
pants off of no ability at all.  Seems to me that we should be able to 
design a hybrid rocket that was not too much different in size from the
existing srb's, could be handled by much of the same equipment, and yet
provided an abort during boost capability.

(Then again, I have *NO* expertise in rocketry other than building a 
 few models that (mostly) worked ...  Maybe the hybrid is a real turkey
 when it comes to performance.)

Anyone on the net know about hybrids and why they seem to be dead? 

E. Michael Smith  ...!sun!apple!ems

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

Date: 10 Oct 86 07:29:07 GMT
From: husc6!husc2!chiaraviglio@rsch.wisc.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

	I've heard of the concept of hybrid rockets before, but never
heard of it being tried.  It seems that it wouldn't work very well
because the reactants would be brought together from opposite sides, and
thus the liquid fuel or oxidizer would tend to be mostly blown out in
the exhaust.  This would become even more so as the solid reactant
retreated as it burned away.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis!lucius

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

Date: 12 Oct 86 01:17:49 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Anyone on the net know about hybrids and why they seem to be dead? 

The best comment I've heard on hybrids was from Gary Hudson (admittedly
not an unbiased source): "Hybrids combine all the advantages of solid
and liquid rockets, and all their disadvantages too."

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 14 Oct 86 01:48:19 GMT
From: pyramid!gould9!telesoft!roger@lll-lcc.arpa  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...
> Anyone on the net know about hybrids and why they seem to be dead? 
> 

What I can recall about hybrids, off the top of my head, is this:

1) They were being developed and promoted by a private company,
   whose name, I believe, was "Star Struck".  I could be wrong 
   about the name; I may be confusing them with another group;

2) The company that was developing them was a serious outfit.  My
   impression is that it had a number of young, idealistic employees,
   but they were bright and competent.  The largest investor was one
   of the principals in Apple Computers, though I don't recall who.
   Anyway, they conducted a number of successful static test firings
   and pretty well proved that the concept was feasible.  They even
   got to the point of making a test launch of the first stage of the
   orbital rocket that they were trying to develop.  The test launch
   was largely successful; it was marred slightly, as I recall, by a
   malfunction in the guidance system midway through the test, but the
   hybrid rocket itself performed well.

3) Unfortuanately, it took them about twice as long and cost three
   times as much to get to the point of that successful test launch 
   as they had originally planned.  On that basis, their financial
   backer(s?) concluded that they would not have the resources to carry
   the development through to the point of a marketable launch vehicle.
   So they threw a big party, updated their resumes, and went off to
   seek greener pastures with the established aerospace companies.  
   

Or at least that's how I heard it.  If anyone out there has better
info, I'd be interested in hearing about it.

As to the technical merits of hybrids, I think it's pretty safe to say
that their strong point is safety.  They really can't blow up, even if
they rupture a casing, and they can be shut down or throttled.  They
should even be restartable.

Hybrids should also be cheaper than solids, and perform slightly
better.  The rubber-like fuel cores they employ are cheaper to make 
than solid rocket fuel cores, and don't require expensive safety
precautions for handling.  Liquid oxygen is very cheap, and provides
substantially more energy per pound than the oxidizers encorporated 
into solid rocket fuels.  

Unfortunately, hybrids still requires the same heavy, high pressure
casings that solid rockets require, and their performance alone is not
sufficiently better than solids to send anyone like NASA scrambling 
off to develop them.  It's also possible that there are technical
problems with uneven fuel burning that I didn't hear about, but that 
would make them unusable for something as large as a Shuttle SRB.  
Again, if anyone out there in net land has more info, by all means,
don't keep it to yourself.

- Roger Arnold

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

Date: 15 Oct 86 14:48:09 GMT
From: hplabsc!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

There is a company in Menlo Park, CA called American Rocket Co. which
is headed by George Koopman which is developing a hybrid solid fuel/
liquid oxydizer rocket. They have already tested a basic engine module
at Edwards Air Force Base, and plan on strapping together 19 of them
for a rocket capable of lifting 3,000-4,000 lb. into a 135 mile orbit.
Their projected launch date is Jan. 1988. The Airforce and GE's Space
Division have expressed interest, and GE has signed a $5 million
letter of agreement with Koopman to launch their Space Recovery Vehicle
on Koopman's rocket. Koopman is currently trying to raise $35 million.
He claims he can launch something for $5-$8 million per launch.

		Jim Kempf		hplabs!kempf

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

Date: 15 Oct 86 20:44:45 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Solid versus Liquid
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <755@hplabsc.UUCP>, kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf) writes:
> There is a company in Menlo Park, CA called American Rocket Co. which
> is headed by George Koopman which is developing a hybrid solid fuel/
> liquid oxydizer rocket....

The San Jose Mercury News printed an article on this on Monday, Oct. 13,
which is where I presume Jim got his information.  Jim did a good job
of distilling the article into one paragraph, but the whole article is
worth reading.

			David Smith

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

Date: 9 Oct 86 08:19:44 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Sorry about the length, but it is hard to condense some of this without
the risk of altering the meaning. My editting is in []'s.

In article <1288@magic.DEC.COM>, Jorge Stolfi writes a fairly length
article :
> [...]
>
> I do believe that one day we will have space colonies and moon bases,
> and that we will be mining the asteroids and manufacturing goods in
> space for use in space.  However, I believe that even with wildly
> optimistic assumptions about funding and politics, this will take
> much, much more time than all the man-in-space enthusiasts believe (or
> want us to believe).
>
> Let us first consider the development of a COMMERCIAL space industry,
> that is, mining and manufacturing in space of goods for consumption on
> Earth. [Ignoring information services]
>
> I claim that a program to establish mining or manufacturing operations
> in space WILL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE for at least thirty years.  In fact,
> I believe that shipping material goods from space to Earth is probably
> NEVER going to make any economic sense.

NEVER?? I find it hard to believe that someone would say that, given the
current rate of technological change.  I agree that in thirty years 
the chances of any space-to-Earth commerce are pretty small, but in 
one hundred? Two hundred? A thousand?  Never is a long, long time. 

A second point, which has been echoed in this group more than once: it
will be economical to manufacture items for use *in space* long before
it is economical to ship them back to Earth. There is one product which
will be economical before any others : electricity.  You forgot to
mention powersats, which could, with an admittedly large investment,
(10% of the DOD budget) turn into a multi-billion dollar a year industry
by 2016. You also seem to have picked on the least promising part of the
whole space-based industry idea : manufacturing in space for consumption
on Earth.  Sure, this will not be profitable for a long time, but
meanwhile, you are ignoring information services, some of which are
already making money, and manufacturing in space for use in space, which
has the greatest potential of all.

> For the next thirty years or more, I believe the following will be
> true:
> 
>   1.  Factories in space and on the Moon cannot be expected to
>   manufacture sophisticated products.
>  
>   2.  Right now there is no mineral resource on the Moon that would be
>   worth mining.

Agreed, though eventually a point will be reached where the amount of
raw materials needed in orbit will make the cost of lauching it from
Earth prohibitive, and a handy alternative source is the Moon.
  
>   3.  From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we can
>   expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on Earth.

Sure, but so what?  The energy to smelt the stuff is free, and the
supply of raw materials is basically limitless.  Who cares if your
efficiency is only 10%?
  
>   4.  The Moon is very poor in many important elements, notably
>   hydrogen.  That means we cannot count on using the Moon as a fueling
>   station; quite on the contrary, rocket fuel for traveling on and out
>   of the Moon will have to be brought from the Earth.  Also, if the
>   manufacturing or smelting processes use water or hydrogen in any
>   form (or chlorine, or nitrogen, or...), extra equipment and energy
>   will be necessary to recover those precious elements from the waste
>   products.

Agreed, the lack of volatile elements will be a problem. All the more
reason for asteroid mining.  Carbonaceous chondrites are *known* to 
consist of organics, and getting 10E5-10E7 tons of the stuff at once
sure beats the hell out of shipping it from Earth. You are also assuming
that the primary fuel for the next thirty years will be H & O, probably
correctly. There have, however, been studies which use lunar soil to
produce an aluminum-based solid rocket fuel. If you don't like this, 
there is always mass drivers.

>   5.  Even ignoring transportation costs, manufacturing anything in
>   space is bound to be substantially more expensive than manufacturing
>   the same product (or a functionally equivalent one) on Earth.
>   Labor, materials and equipment for space manufacturing are more
>   sophisticated than their Earth equivalents.

Again, this is true as far as it goes.  There are some highly complex
pieces of equipment which are cheaper to construct here on Earth
and then send into orbit, only because the demand for items of this
type will be relatively low and the manufacturing infrastructure needed
to produce it expensive.  These are not the kinds of products that 
will be produced in space, though.
  
>   6. [Generally negative comments on the usefulness of microgravity
	and high vacuum - "...  it is still highly unlikely that those
	few resources that are unique to space will ever find
	significant industrial applications." - w.r.t. metallurgy,
	bio-industry]

>  7.  [Semi-conductor crystal growing is out of consideration due to
	the state of the art here on Earth.]

Sure, for the next thirty years, this is true.  However, you have to
remember that the amount of research in this area is still incredibly
small.  We will never find out if any useful alloys or biological
products can be produced until we actually try it.  We don't know enough
about zero-g manufacturing at this point to say that nothing useful
will ever be discovered because we really haven't looked yet. 

>   8.  In fact, the lack of gravity and a limited air supply are a
>   serious problem for many industrial processes. [Uselessness of
>   standard techniques of chemistry etc.]

Again, we are just starting to explore the territory of zero-g 
manufacturing.  It is obvious that new techniques will have to be
developed.  Some processes cannot be converted to zero-g.  We have
yet to be sure, but there must be a few that are simpler in zero-g.
We need someone from SSI here to say a few words about low- and zero-g
smelting.
  
>   9.  To the basic cost of doing something in space, we must add the
>   costs of designing, building, and launching the factory.  The
>   smallest space factory or lunar mine is going to cost billions of
>   dollars more than a comparable facility on Earth.  If such a factory
>   is going to make 100,000 somethings a year for ten years, it would
>   have to charge its customers THOUSANDS of dollars more per unit just
>   to pay the extra fixed costs.

It all depends on what you make.  Sure, you can send up a factory to
stamp out zero-g Chevy front quarter panels, but that does not make
economic sense.  Noone is going to spend billions to manufacture a
product in space which can be made cheaper here on Earth. For the
foreseeable future, the only things which it makes *any* sense to
manufacture in space are things which are going to *stay* there : simple
but bulky construction materials, for example.  We don't know enough
about any exotic products to be able to say whether or not they can be
produced economically.

>   10.  Orbiting factories will have to get all their raw materials
>   from Earth.  Lunar factories may be able to get some materials from
>   the Moon itself, but will need a steady stream of `space trucks' to
>   lift the product out to space.  In both cases, transportation alone
>   is going to cost several hundred dollars per pound of product.

Agreed, but this high price also means that no high-quantity production
will be going on.  For the period of time we are discussing, the primary
activity will be research, so the transportation costs of raw materials
and finished products are not important. 
   
>  11. [Long lead time to construct a space factory - "during that
	period, demand for its product may easily evaporate".]

See point #9.
 
>   10. Most of these problems apply also to the mining of asteroids.
>   Except that some (like transportation costs) will be a lot worse.
>   Besides, we still don't know for sure what the asteroids are made
>   of.  Before we embark in a multibillion, multi-decade asteroid
>   mining program, perhaps we should send a couple of cheap unmanned
>   probes to check whether there is something there worth digging, no?

Actually, we have a fairly good idea of what they are made out of.
Analysis of meteorites (iron, stony, and carbonaceous) indicate that
there is just about all the raw materials we need : nickel, iron,
hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, silicon, add titanium and aluminum from lunar
soil, and you can almost be self-sufficient.  NASA has had an
asteriod-rendevous project on the back burner for years.
 
> All these problems may be solved in time, but hardly within the next
> thirty years, no matter what we do or how much money we spend.

I would *love* to be able to prove this wrong.  What could NASA do with
one hundred billion dollars a year for the next 30 years? (What could
Gerard O'Neill & Harry Stein do with it?)

> NASA and the space societies are trying to sell the space station and
> the lunar base for its industrial prospects; this may work for a
> while, but will be disastrous in the long run.  Sooner or later the
> paying public will realize that those projects will only bring
> multibillion-dollar losses to the economy, year after year for the
> foreseeable future.  If you think that the post-Apollo debacle was
> bad, wait until this one.

Oops, I just saw a fallacy : "multibillion-dollar losses to the
ecomony"???  What do you think they do with all the money that they use
to build the shuttle? Take it up into orbit with them and dump it?  NO!!
It gets used to pay the people who run the program and build the
hardware, who use it to buy groceries, and cars, and VCR's and personal
computers so they can argue with each other at long distance!  I don't
have the reference, but I remember reading that every dollar spent on
the space program (Apollo?)  was recirculated in the economy seven
times, one of the highest of any US government program.  I won't even
discuss the budgets of the Departments of Defense or the crowd who runs
the social programs ("Uh, yea, the DOD spends NASA's entire budget every
14 days").  Face it : NASA's budget is a drop in the bucket.

> [...]

> Pournelle's statement against the Mars project can be easily turned
> around and fired against hs own pet dreams: If we go ahead and devote
> all the space budget to the establishment of space stations and lunar
> bases, then after thirty years we will have no profitable space
> industry, no planetary exploration, no space science --- only a bunch
> of obsolete "infrastructure", that costs billions a year to maintain,
> and serves no discernible purpose.  Sorry, folks: the commercial
> development of space may be inevitable, but we are not ready for it
> yet.

No, not yet, but only because we have just started.  Once that
infrastructure is set up, it will be considerably easier to do anything
in space, including sending complex planetary probes, doing space
science, whatever.  I know you are ignoring the information industries
in this discussion, but consider the comsats which could be orbited :
100m dishes, 1E6 separate channels, . . .  The Dick Tracy wrist radio
becomes a reality, and with it another quantum leap in the information
industry. The applications for search & rescue and location-finding
alone almost makes the infrastructure worth it.  Powersats could, with a
few years investment, be a paying proposition, but only by making
maximal use of extraterrestrial materials - there's that infrastructure
again.  I really don't want to mention this, but just about any
space-based components of SDI would benefit from the existance of a
permanent presence in space.

In conclusion, you are basically correct : space based manufacturing
will not be economical for at least the next thirty years.  But the
thirty after that, watch out!

Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #18
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09935; Mon, 20 Oct 86 03:02:55 PDT
	id AA09935; Mon, 20 Oct 86 03:02:55 PDT
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 03:02:55 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610201002.AA09935@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #19

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 86 03:02:55 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #19

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 19

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Seed the Stars ?
			 HOTOL (last comment)
      Does anyone know the story about L-5 and the Moon Treaty?
	 Space colonies, and a recommendation for the British
	       Rebuttal to Gary Allen on Space Colonies
	Space Colonies -- Pro Mars colonies, Con Free Floaters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Oct 86 19:31:00 GMT
From: decvax!cca!mirror!datacube!adrienne@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

  This sounds like an interesting idea, but several drawbacks come to
mind.  Supposing the "spores" arrived safely at planet already inhabited
with life forms.Could the spores prove deadly to the inhabitants? Not by
attacking but by being biologically dangerous? Also, could the spores be
adversly affected by space travel and perhaps mutate?I am not a
scientist but I do find this theory fascinating. Perhaps one day we will
need a celestial Noah's ark!
                
             _Adrienne@Datacube

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

Date:     Tue, 7 Oct 86 18:38 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  HOTOL (last comment)

Gary's right, this does border on a theological debate, so I'll lay
off until early next year.  They're supposed to unwrap the details
of the RB545 engine in January or February.

Gary misquoted one part of my statement: I don't think the HOTOL
liquifies air using turbomachinery.  I don't think the air becomes
liquid at all.  Rather, some combination of coolers and compressors
is used to make high density, high pressure air at a temperature
above the freezing point of water.  The air is fed directly into
the rockets.

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

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 14:20:35 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Does anyone know the story about L-5 and the Moon Treaty?

I once heard this story about the Moon Treaty and L-5 which I believe is
gossip.  However I'd like to hear the truth about it if someone knows
it.  The story I heard was President Carter in one of the stupidest
moves of his administration negotiated the Moon Treaty which would have
strangled space industrialization in the cradle.  The Moon Treaty
basicly gave away most of the rights to space industrialization to the
undeveloped world and was couched in such language that only a
socialistic state could have legally functioned in space (this is the
vague recollection that I have over this).  The L-5 leadership  wanted
to intervene in stoping this stupid treaty from being ratified by the
Senate but its membership wouldn't go along.  The L-5 leadership then
independently siphoned off much of L-5's cash and bought a high powered
lobbyist.  This single lobbyist was able to block the treaty because
the Senate didn't take the Moon Treaty seriously, (the treaty
had no special interest group supporting it).  Thus the future of space
industrialization was saved for the time being.  I don't want to debate
the merits of the Moon Treaty because this is old scandal.  However I
would be interested to hear if this bit of gossip was true.

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

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 10:51:36 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Space colonies, and a recommendation for the British
  Interplanetary Society

Dale Skran engaged in a long counter-flame to my original flame against
L-5.  I could provide a point-by-point response, but to do so would only
bore the readership of Space Digest and serve no useful purpose.
However I should say that my experiences concerning space activist
groups are based on my two year tenure as chairman of the Stanford AIAA.
The main insight that I gained from this two year exercise was that
there is currently only one space activist group that is worth
supporting and being a member of and this is the British Interplanetary
Society.  They are without question the best of the various space
activist groups.  Also in my remarks, I unintentionaly implied that Carl
Sagan was an advocate of space industrialization.  The assertion is more
a reflection of bad english than a real belief.  It is my understanding
that Sagan is against space industrialization and sees space as only a
scientist's play ground without commercial value.  Dale referenced the
NASA book "Space Settlements - A Design Study", NASA SP-413.  An even
better book is "Space Resources and Space Settlements", NASA SP-428.  I
will on occasion browse through my copies and engage in wistful sighing.
Libration point colonies are sort of like Bussard ram scoops in that
they appear to be a great idea at first glance but fail to hold up under
detailed examination.  In my reply to why libration point colonies won't
work, I am responding to Paul Dietz's reply as well as Dale's counter
flame.  The main problem with totally contructed colonies in space is
radiation shielding.  Cosmic rays have hellish energies.  A stone shield
of a few inches thick will actually **increase** radiation exposure due
to secondary particles generated in the shield.  The shielding required
for a libration point colony is on the order of 30 megatons of lunar
stone.  When I read that number I knew it was all over for this approach
towards space colonization.  This is only the first order difficulty.
The second order difficulty is that human beings require gravity for
their bodies to stay healthy.  No problem, you just spin the colony.
However if your colony weighs 30 megatons then there will be no way of
supporting the structure under the centripital force.  Again, no
problem, you just put the spinning section inside a stationary section.
However then the spinning section has to be mounted on bearings that
will pass all colony life support.  The bearings would have to
be able to withstand megatons of force and be 100% reliable for a design
life of a century.  As an engineer, I find this approach utterly absurd.
It's like permanently supporting the Brooklyn Bridge with helicopters.
In contrast, here is how you make a life support cavity on the moon.
First you assemble a large drilling rig that will bore a two meter
diameter hole to about five hundred feet below the lunar (or martian)
surface.  At the bottom of this hole you place a "clean" thermonuclear
explosive.  You blow a big cavity in the lunar or martian crust.  There
would be a certain amount of cave in that would cover the stone that was
activated by the explosion.  You then line the interior of this cavity
with bricks and seal the whole thing with a ceramic liner.  Then you
just pump in the air and you've got a radiation proof, meteroite proof
habitat.  This approach would use old, tried and true technology already
developed for testing nuclear weapons.  It could be used not only on the
moon and Mars but also for hollowing out asteroids.  I should also
mention that Mars is more appropriate for colonization than the moon.
The moon is almost devoid of nitrogen.  This element is
essential for ammonium fertilizers that would support plant life in the
colony.  Mars has **all** of the elements necessary for life and is rich
in metals.  The moon is mainly a big ball of basalt and not much more.
However a small nongrowing colony on the moon would be useful for
supporting industrial activity at geosynchronis orbit or scientific work
on the moon itself.  The L-5 premise of supporting space colonies
through Powersats is a loser.  The Powersat idea has repeatedly been
shot down in various energy studies.  Long before Powersats would be
cost effective we could go to deep methane gas, thorium breeder
reactors, nuclear fusion, and the list goes on.  Besides Powersats are
very hostile to the environment.  The microwaves would do injury to the
ozone layer and side lobes from the main beam would play havoc with
communications and health.  Bottom line is that the L-5 space colony is
a ***dumb*** idea.  However the idea of a colony in the martian or
lunar crust holds alot of promise, provided the economics can be
sorted out.  And there is the rub.
                                            Gary Allen

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

Date:     Mon, 13 Oct 86 17:22 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space-incoming@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Rebuttal to Gary Allen on Space Colonies

Reply to Gary Allen's criticism of space colonies:

Gary claims a space colony will require 30 million tons of shielding.
Where he gets this number from, I don't understand.  Perhaps he is
discussing a very large space colony?

Since Gary wants to build a colony on the moon, I guess he is assuming
that lunar gravity is sufficient for human health.  Let's say the colony
spins at 2 revolutions per minute.  To produce lunar gravity, the colony
has a radius of about forty meters.  Assume the colony is a cylinder
forty meters long.  It has a surface area of about 2E8 cm**2.  Earth's
atmosphere provides 1 kg/cm**2 of shielding, so I'll assume that's
sufficient to stop most cosmic rays.  The shielding mass comes to
200,000 tons -- 150 times less than Gary's 30 megatons.  Gary's example
colony must be on the order of 1000 meters across!  His shield would
enclose a volume of about .4 cubic kilometers.  I ask Gary to compare
the difficulty of building a 30 megaton shell in space (probably with
asteroidal materials) to that of excavating cavities with a total volume
of .4 cubic kilometers in the lunar crust (those lunar cavities will
contain over a billion tons of rock).

Gary poo-poos the idea of mounting a spinning space colony inside a
stationary shield.  He states that the colony would have to rest on a
bearing that would have to withstand megatons of force.  Why?
Centripetal force is supplied by structural members in the rotating
section, not by the bearings.  The bearings need only compensate for
residual forces, such as tides or jolts from departing spacecraft.  I
assume we don't torque the colony to track the sun but allow it to
remain pointed in a fixed direction, but even that force would not be
large if the colony precesses once per year.

Gary suggests using "clean" nuclear weapons to dig holes in the lunar
crust to build colonies.  Wouldn't such a hole be structurally unsound?
After all, the blast wouldn't destroy the rock's atoms, it would just
force them violently outward.  Rock would be fractured and deformed for
a considerable distance.  The result on Earth is that the resulting
cavity (which isn't very large) collapses quickly.  I'll add that lunar
regolith isn't terribly strong, and that on Mars one is likely to
encounter permafrost, which could make living deep underground
difficult.

Gary states that the powersat idea has been repeatedly shot down by
various studies.  As I understand it, those studies assumed construction
from terrestrial materials, and are near-term anyway.  Gary states that
powersats are "very hostile to the environment".  I challenge Gary to
substantiate this assertion.  Sidelobes from microwave transmission
would die off exponentially as the square of the distance from the
rectenna center, and would pose no health danger.  Indeed, the power
level at the edge of the rectenna would be below US health limits, and
the rectenna would be surrounded by unoccupied land.  Little of the
energy will be absorbed in the atmosphere (if it were, it would not be
useful for power transmission).  Certainly much less energy will be
absorbed than sunlight already deposits.  Communications satellites at
the same frequency as the powersat beam (or at some harmonics) would be
rendered useless, but powersats require very little bandwidth, and if we
have gigawatts of power in GSO we can afford to make more powerful
comsats anyway.

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

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 11:40:54 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Space Colonies -- Pro Mars colonies, Con Free Floaters

In an earlier posting, I attacked the idea of a free floating space
colony and suggested an alternative space colony through construction of
cavities in the Lunar or Martian crust.  Paul Dietz provided the best
counter attack and I shall respond to his arguments.  He raised the
first point:

=====================================================================
Gary claims a space colony will require 30 million tons of shielding.
Where he gets this number from, I don't understand.  Perhaps he is
discussing a very large space colony?
=====================================================================

I got this number from "Space Settlements - A Design Study",
NASA SP-413, page 44, Table 4-1.  The shielding mass ranged from
9.9 megatons to 46.7 megatons, with populations ranging from
10,000 to 820,000 people.  The designs considered are among those that
L-5 and other groups have advocated.  Paul's analysis on shielding
based on the Earth's atmosphere is faulty.  I recommend that he
review the literature on space colonies where the calculations on
habitat shielding are done in detail.  Paul's second point considers
the colony's bearings between it's rotating pressure vessel and its
stationary 30 megaton radiation shield:

=====================================================================
Gary poo-poos the idea of mounting a spinning space colony inside
a stationary shield.  He states that the colony would have to rest on a
bearing that would have to withstand megatons of force.  Why?
=====================================================================

There's no such thing as a frictionless bearing.  Even a magnetic
levitation system has "friction" due to eddy currects.
Also there is the question of starting the system into rotation
with the colony being initially out-of-round.  In addition with
such an enormous structure you would find that the structure would
be quite elastic. The action of starting or of the colony being hit
by a large meteorite would cause the structure to oscillate.  This
oscillation would likely couple into the rotation causing large
lateral loads on the bearing.  The bearing would have to be designed to
take this into account, and I strongly suspect that such a bearing is
impossible due to strength of materials considerations.  Paul then took
the offensive and attacked my idea of constructing a Lunar colony:

=====================================================================
Gary suggests using "clean" nuclear weapons to dig holes in the lunar
crust to build colonies.  Wouldn't such a hole be structurally
unsound?  After all, the blast wouldn't destroy the rock's atoms,
it would just force them violently outward.  Rock would be fractured
and deformed for a considerable distance.  The result on Earth
is that the resulting cavity (which isn't very large) collapses
quickly.  I'll add that lunar regolith isn't terribly strong,
and that on Mars one is likely to encounter permafrost, which could
make living deep underground difficult.
=====================================================================

The cavities made in the Nevada desert from nuclear tests are enormous.
The cavity I suggested would be even bigger because it would be made
in the soft lunar stone and the 6 meter diameter bore hole would be
left unblock when the nuclear explosive (not weapon) was detonated.
I wouldn't care to be anywhere near the mouth of that bore hole
when a jet of megatons of vaporized lunar stone came blasting by.
However it would leave a nice cavity afterwards.  An additional
thought just popped into my head that this would be a very good way
of propelling an asteroid into a new orbit.  Structural instability
would be a problem afterwards, which is why I suggested bricking the
interior and using a ceramic liner.  Paul then went on to try and
defend the idea of Powersats.  This is a concept that has been beat to
death.  There are probably hundreds of reports in various Energy and
Aerospace publications showing the infeasibility of this idea.  It's
absolutely dead-as-a-doornail.  I will not weary the readers by
repeating these arguments.  Just go to your local library and pull
aerospace journals made around 1980 and you'll find articles about this
thing.  Before finishing up, I should reemphasize that I am **for**
Martian colonization.  Mars is the place in terms of gravity,
atmosphere, and availablitiy of all of the elements for life and
industrial activity.  It would be difficult to find a world **better**
suited for space industrialization than Mars.  It has an atmosphere
thick enough for aerobraking and winged vehicles but thin enough to not
be a major bother for launch into orbit.  Its 1/2 G gravity is stong
enough for the health of the colony, but weak enough for cheap launches
into space.  Phobos and Demios are ideal for forming the nucleus of
orbital stations.  While I see the moon as a dead end for space
colonization and free floating colonies as a pipe dream, I find Mars
very exciting indeed.  However the big question as alway is:  How are we
going to economicly justify this Martian colony?
                            Gary Allen

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #19
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13815; Tue, 21 Oct 86 03:02:21 PDT
	id AA13815; Tue, 21 Oct 86 03:02:21 PDT
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 86 03:02:21 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610211002.AA13815@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #20

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 21 Oct 86 03:02:21 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #20

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 20

Today's Topics:
		      L5 vs the 'stay at homes"
			   Specific Impulse
			   Specific Impulse
			 Re: Specific Impulse
			 Re: Specific Impulse
			Re: What are L-points?
			 Re: Lagrange points
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Oct 86 14:34:48 cdt
From: Hubert Daugherty <hd@rice.edu>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  L5 vs the 'stay at homes"


After reading the past few weeks of comments on the L5 Society I find my
pride in membership growing again.  When I first joined L5 the focus was
on Space Colonies, Solar Power Satellites, asteroidal exploitation, and
Human factors in space.  There were "experts" who felt we would be lucky
to see any progress within our lifetime on any of these goals.  There
were "dreamers" who wanted a manned Venus mission by 1985.  And there
were "folks" who wanted to make sure we kept doing SOMETHING in space.
There was no shuttle at the time.  The shuttle was being touted as the
"DC3 of the Space Age" and the hope, at the time, was only that it work.

The continued success of the Space Transportation System changed
everyones view of the possibilities.  The L5 Society, as an activist
organization, became recognized as a responsible forum for critics and
proponents of the new options available.  And L5 broadened its base to
include discussion of space development while retaining its "man in
space" focus.  Solar Power Satellites were evolving into an idea which,
while technically feasible, would never fly in the political arena.
Asteroids were interesting but required an established 'on orbit'
infrastructure.  Human factors are still being studied.  All in all,
L5's focus softened from a 'Space Colonies NOW' organization to a 'Lets
keep America pushing forward with manned programs' organization.

The comments in this forum continue to attack the differences between L5
and other space organizations.  So be it.  If their goals were the same
then there wouldn't be different organizations, period, end of sentence!
I would rather see arguments, pro and con, on why men should presume to
join the gods on their own turf.  After all, we don't, as a species,
HAVE to go anywhere to retain our spot in the evolutionary chain.  But,
for myself, I WANT TO GO and I dream that my wants will be realized.  If
I wanted to know the gas chemistry of Jupiter my views would be
different.  If I wanted to blast the Soviets with my ray gun my views
would be different.  The frontier is waiting for me.

Hubert Daugherty
Former Director, L5 Society

Note:  The name of the organization was originally The High Frontier
       Society.  The originator of the phrase decided, at the last
       minute, to deny its use.  The name "L5 Society" is actually
       penned in over the marked out "High Frontier Society" in the
       official charter with the State of Arizona.

Ad Astera, Per Perspera

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

Date:         Fri, 10 Oct 86 10:22:46 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Specific Impulse

(David Smith) >Specific impulse has dimensions of
>impulse/mass = force*time/mass = velocity.  It is often given in
>seconds because of improper cancellation of force and mass.

     Specific impulse (Isp) is DEFINED as Isp = I /(g*m) where I is
total impulse (thrust times time), g is the standard gravity and m is
the mass of fuel expended.  The units are quite properly seconds

The quantity g*Isp, with units of velocity, is correctly known as
"exhaust velocity" (and correctly called such in the following table.)


>> Exhaust velocity for exhaust of a given molecular weight is dependant
>> on temperature,
     Right, E = 3/2 kT and E=1/2 mv**2, so v = SQRT (3kT/m)
>> velocity for exhaust of a given temperature is inversely dependant on
>> molecular weight (for exhaust ejected by thermal expansion)
    Square root of m
>>specific impulse is to a significant degree inversely dependant on the
>>molecular weight of your exhaust
     momentum p = mv, so momentum transfer (ie., thrust) per unit mass
is exhaust velocity (and g times that Specific impulse).  For a
fixed temperature reaction, specific impulse is proportional to
the inverse square root of the molecular weight.

> Ion drives are also dependent on the exhaust particle weight because
>velocity depends on net charge/particle mass.
     Yes, but with an ion drive, one is typically more concerned
about getting the most performance out of the ENERGY source, which
is usually the limiting factor instead of the reaction mass.
A fixed voltage ion drive will give a fixed energy per unit charge, E.
E=1/2 mv**2, so momentum transfer (mv) is SQRT (2mE).
To optimize this per unit reaction mass, we want the smallest molecular
weight possible.  To optimize this per unit ENERGY, we want the
HIGHEST molecular weight possible.  That's why mercury or cesium is
typically used.
> heavier atoms ... require less energy to knock one [electron] off.
     Mostly irrelevant.  The energy to ionize the atom is typically one
or two electron volts, very small compared to the acceleration
energies.  However, easily-ionized ions make the source easier to
make.

            --Geoffrey A. Landis, Brown University

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

Date:           Sun, 12 Oct 86 17:07:55 PDT
From: Todd Johnson <lcc.todd@locus.ucla.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:        Specific Impulse

Some people have just recently misstated the quantization of specific
impulse. This is a frequent occurence on this net so I would like to
help people a little bit by quoting from "Rocket Propulsion And
Spaceflight Dynamics" by J. W. Cornelisse et al., pub: Pitman Publishers
Ltd., 1979.  I refer interested people to pages 114-116, although I
shall place for your edification equations 6.2-4 from page 115.

Equation 6.2-4 states:

I   = m V   / m g     =  V     /  g
 sp      e        o         e       o


Where:

I     is the specific impulse, in SECONDS (Get this everybody)
 sp

V    is the exhaust velocity of the burning propellant
 e

g    is standard surface gravity.
 o

m    is the mass of propellant burnt.

Specific Impulse is not a measure of velocity. It is best described as
showing how much impulse can be obtained from a unit WEIGHT of 
propellant.

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

Date: 13 Oct 86 21:30:19 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Specific Impulse
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Some people have just recently misstated the quantization of specific 
> impulse.  ... 

There's no quarreling with a definition.  That's just what it is,
period.  And in the first part of my posting I gave this definition in
words (the amount of time a pound of propellant will produce a pound of
thrust).  But why is it defined with that silly g-naught in the
denominator?  (all together now!)

	    TO JUSTIFY MEASURING IT IN SECONDS!

(Ignoring air drag and all that jazz,) burnout velocity is exhaust
velocity times the log of the mass ratio.  This is independent of what
g-naught happens to be.  Out in space, a rocket doesn't care what
Earth's surface gravity is.

			David Smith

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

Date: 14 Oct 86 21:55:06 GMT
From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Specific Impulse
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <748@hplabsc.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
>> 
>> I   = m V   / m g     =  V     /  g
>>  sp      e        o         e       o
>
>But why is it defined with that silly g-naught in the denominator?
>(all together now!)
>
>	    TO JUSTIFY MEASURING IT IN SECONDS!

   David Smith is clearly right.  The *only* possible justification for
introducing a factor of g0 -- a completely arbitrary constant from the
point of view of, say, a lunar lander! -- is to make things simpler for
those who use the English system and don't know enough to distinguish
between pounds and pounds-mass (or slugs).
   That it has always been done that way is no excuse.  The misunder-
standings of the past are no justification for continuing a source of
confusion in the future.

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 8 Oct 86 16:28:07 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!faron!wdh@ll-xn.arpa  (Dale Hall)
Subject: Re: What are L-points?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <187@csustan.UUCP> smdev@csustan.UUCP (Scott Hazen Mueller) writes:
>In article <2016@sequent.UUCP> brian@sequent.UUCP (Brian Godfrey) writes:
>>...
>>these L points. As I recall they were named for someone whose name
>>began with L and they are the points at which the earth's and moon's
>>gravity cancel each other.
>> 			(...)
>
>Everyone who reads net.space is probably going to answer this, so I'll keep
 ^^^^^^^^
>my comments short.  L = Lagrange, an astronomer. 
				      ^^^^^^^^^^
	Including me, but only to plead for a proper remembrance
	of J.L. "Joltin' Joe" Lagrange (1736-1813), correctly 
	identified as a mathematician (OK, so I'm biased). 

	Of course, it could be that he was astromically inclined
	(I'm sure there's a real knee-slapper in there somewhere),
	but it would be due to the fact that every educated
	person knew where the sky was located in those days.
	I think Dylan put it best: "you don't need an astronomer
	to know where the sky goes".

	No real content here, I just wanted to have the mathematicians
	remembered properly. There's more than enough glory to go
	around, guys, and we mathematicians deserve our share. In fact,
	we deserve all of it. But we aren't piggish, we'll settle for
	the things that we wrote our names on. Like Lagrange points,
	Lagrange multipliers, e (for Euler), pi (for Pete, a guy I know
	who invented it), and Gaussian elimination (imagine that! in the
	days before gentle, yet effective laxatives).

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

Date: 9 Oct 86 22:40:22 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Lagrange points
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Although I can't cite you an explicit reference, I know I've read that
> because of the interaction between the 4 bodies (Sun, Earth, Moon and
> you) an object at L4 or L5 would actually transcribe a small orbit
> around the "points" depicted in the 3 body case (Earth/Moon/You only).
> Thus for something like a space colony, even though it may be quite
> near these points, it is still traversing an orbit and a small number
> of station-keeping adjustments would be needed from time-to-time.
> Particularly, if it is to remain there for long periods of time.
> 
> If memory serves correctly, I believe I first saw this explanation in
> a NASA publication. It was a book form of a summary report by a summer
> study group at Stanford (circa 1976 perhaps?), that was among the
> first in-depth studies done on the feasibility of putting up a Space
> Colony. The names of the book and the study group escape me, the book
> was borrowed from a friend, but I'm sure there are plenty of netfolk
> out there that can fill in the blanks, as this was a major
> undertaking. [Didn't many of the results of this study provide the
> back- round for O'Neil's famous book? Or do I have the order of events
> wrong?]

From "Space Settlements - A Design Study", NASA SP-413:

There are other shapings of space by gravity more subtle than the deep
wells surrounding each planetary object.  For example, in the Earth-Moon
system there are shallow valleys around what are known as the Lagrangian
libration points (refs 1&2).  There are five of these points .. andthey
arise from a balancing of the gravitational attractions of the Earth and
Moon with the centrifugal force that an observer in the rotating
coordinate system of the Earth and Moon would feel.  The principal
feature of these locations in space is that a material body placed there
will maintain a fixed relation with respect to the Earth and Moon as the
entire system revolves about the Sun.

The points called L1, L2 and L3 are saddle-shaped valleys such that if a
body is displaced perpendicularly to the Earth-Moon axis it slides back
toward the axis, but if it is displaced along the axis it moves away
from the libration point indefinitely.  For this reason these are known
as points of unstable equilibrium.  L4 and L5 on the other hand
represent bowl-shaped valleys, and a body displaced in any direction
returns toward the point.  Hence, these are known as points of stable
equilibrium.  They are located on the Moon's orbit at equal distances
from both the Earth and Moon.

There do exist, however, large orbits around L4 and L5.  These have been
shown to be stable (refs 3&4).  A colony in either of these orbits would
be reasonably accessible from both the Earth and Moon.

Refs.
1. La Grange, J.L.: Oeuvres, vol. 6, pp. 262-292, Serror and Darbaux,
   Paris, 1873, "Essai Sur Le Proleme bese Trois Corps" (L'Academie
   Royale de Sciences de Paris, vol. 9, 1772).

2. Szebehely, V.G.: Theory of Orbits, the Restricted Problems of
   Three Bodies, Academic Press, New York, 1967, and Analytical and
   Numerical Methods of Celestial Mechanics, American Elsevier Publ.
   Co., N.Y., 1967, pp 227,229.

3. Kamel, A.A.: Perturbation Theory based on Life Transforms and Its
   Application to the Stability of Motion near Sun-perturbed Earth-Moon
   Triangular Libration Points, SUDAAR-391, NASA Contractor Report
   CR-1622, Aug. 1970.

4. Breakwell, J.V., Kamel, A.A., and Ratner, M.J.: Station-keeping
   for a Translunar Communication Station, Celestial Mechanics 10, Nov.
   1974, pp 357-373.

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #20
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA17870; Wed, 22 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT
	id AA17870; Wed, 22 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610221002.AA17870@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #21

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 22 Oct 86 03:02:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #21

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 21

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission
		     Tombaugh Observatory Funds!
		      Article posted to net.jobs
	    Chariots for Apollo #4 - behind the eight-ball
		       re: USSR shuttle design
		      Re: Revive the Saturn V ?
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 Re: Space Telescope
		      Re: shuttle launch viewing
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 86 12:24:21 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (Rick Kolker)
Subject: Re: Lecture: Feynman on Challenger Commission
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <12245499078.12.BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA> BEC.HEFFRON@USC-ECL.ARPA (Matt Heffron) writes:
>  Richard P. Feynman, Nobel Laureate and the Richard Chace Tolman Professor of
>			Theoretical Physics
>on
>  "My Experiences on the Challenger Commission"


Can highlights of this be posted.  More important, will transcrpts,
audio or videotapes be available?

If so I want.

rich

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

Date: 10 Oct 86 22:13:15 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Tombaugh Observatory Funds!
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

You Can Help Honor Pluto's Discoverer!

Dr. Clyde Tombaugh, astronomy professor Emeritus at New Mexico State
University, discovered Pluto in 1930.  You now have a chance to show
your appreciation and donate funds for the Tombaugh Observatory to be
operated in New Mexico by several institutions and universities.

A more nearly complete discussion will follow when I have time to digest
the Alumni Newsletter info and post it.  (I knew Dr. Tombaugh in the
halycon days at NMSU, lo so many years ago, and he is a nice and gentle
person as well as a great mind, and it is a pleasure to advertise a
memorial to him while he is still alive to appreciate it!)

In the meantime, if you can't wait, make out checks to the "Tombaugh
Observatory Fund" and send them to the same name at New Mexico State
University, University Park, NM 88002.

More to follow.

--arlan andrews

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

Date: 11 Oct 86 00:28:05 GMT
From: pixar!malin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Malin)
Subject: Article posted to net.jobs
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

A camera is being designed and built at Caltech for the next Mars
mission.  An engineer to lead the development of the camera's flight
software is needed.  See the job description in net.jobs under "Want to
go to Mars?"

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

Date: 10 Oct 86 22:39:42 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Chariots for Apollo #4 - behind the eight-ball
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The astronauts were an essential `subsystem' on the lunar module, and
they were very much in evidence at Bethpage, as well as Downey, where
they helped in the design of the command module.  Scott Carpenter,
Charles Conrad and Donn F. Eisle drew the lunar module as their special
assignment, and William F. Rector, the lunar module project officer,
frequently called upon them for help.  He also urged other astronauts to
take part in the periodic mockup reviews and significant design
decisions: "They should be part of it," Rector said.  "They're going to
fly it."  This was not an unusual arrangement; astronauts, being both
engineers and test pilots, have played an active role in the design and
development of every manned American space vehicle.*

* An interesting example of pilot preference influencing spacecraft
design revolved around including an `eight-ball' (an artificial-horizon
instrument used for attitude reference) in the lunar module.  Grummand
had proposed an eight-ball, assuming tha astronauts would want it.
Arnold Whitaker recalled, "The first thing NASA did was to say that
there's no operational requirement for it - take it out.  So we took it
out.  Then the astronauts came along and said, `That's ridiculous.  We
must have it.` So we put it back in.  By this time, we're late.  Dr.
Shea had a program review and said, `What's holding you up?` And we
said, `This is one of those things...` And he said, `Take it out.  I'll
accept the responsibility for it.` The astronauts found out about it and
said, `We won't fly a vehicle until you put it in.` And NASA put it in,
this time with a kit [for easy removal later]."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA
SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0.

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: 10 Oct 86 22:23:06 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!athena!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: re: USSR shuttle design
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Recently I posted some comments concerning the USSR shuttle, which is
expected to fly in 88 according to Aviation Leak.  The key difference
between the two designs is that the USSR shuttle has no engines on the
orbiter vehicle itself (apart from the usual small thrusters). The
orbiter is powered by strap-on boosters, four I think, and these are all
liquid fuel powered. Presumably the orbiter will be powered all the way
to orbit insertion by these boosters.

Someone asked, why is this design superior to the U.S. shuttle?  Well,
it might not be if the U.S. shuttle main engines (those on the orbiter)
were more economical to operate.  True, they are reused, but also
require a complete strip-down and overhaul after every flight. There's a
Catch-22 here - because the engines are on the orbiter, they must be
light and small yet still generate adequate power - i.e. they must be
very highly stressed. It's dubious whether the resulting high cost of
operation really saves anything in the long run.  The Soviet boosters
will be thrown away, but can be cruder in design because they will not
be not part of the orbiter.  Production of these more simple engines by
the hundred will also reduce the cost per flight.

The orbiter is of course much lighter without three SSME's bolted on to
it, all else being equal. This means that you can return a larger
payload from orbit. There have also been rumors that the orbiter may
carry one or two turbojets to give the orbiter genuine flight capability
on its descent.  This would certainly make a landing much easier; the
return from orbit need only position the vehicle within flying distance
from its base. The descent of the U.S. orbiter is much more tightly
constrained.

I'd guess that the Soviets designed their shuttle this way because:

1.	They don't want to undertake development of liquid fueled
	SSME's on the orbiter ifself, which they have seen NASA have a
	lot of trouble with.

2.	Their avionics technology can't be trusted to land an
	orbiter safely by itself; a powered descent would allow much
	cruder avionics to do the job.

In addition, the liquid boosters for the Soviet shuttle will be used in
other configurations to loft other payloads to orbit. One U.S. company
has similar plans for the U.S. shuttle solid boosters; the idea is to
attach a single SSME to the bottom of a shuttle tank, attach two solid
boosters to the tank as usual and place the payload in the nose cone of
the tank.  Sounds like a good idea.

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

Date: 6 Oct 86 16:47:37 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Revive the Saturn V ?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Apart from the (considerable) difficulties involved in reviving the
Saturn production line and the Saturn technical crews, there is a major
obstacle in that a lot of Saturn support hardware -- pads, launchers,
service towers, the VAB itself -- was extensively modified for the
Shuttle.  It would not be sufficient to modify it back, since the
Shuttle needs launch facilities too.  One would have to design dual-mode
hardware.  This would *not* be simple; the difference in tower
locations, for example, would be very hard to reconcile.  It would
probably have been easier if retention of Saturn launch capability had
been a constraint from the beginning, but that idea was rejected in (I
think) 1976.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Oct 86 01:04:54 GMT
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!niland@hplabs.hp.com  ( Bob Niland )
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

re:    "Is there anyone out there that knows details on
	the Space Telescope (ST)? My questions are :"

You neglected to ask a question that is no doubt of intense interest to
national security paranoids world-wide, namely

              Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth?

Regards,                                          Hewlett-Packard
Bob "I have no answers" Niland                    3404 East Harmony Road
[ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn                         Fort Collins CO  80525

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

Date: 9 Oct 86 18:19:40 GMT
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@hplabs.hp.com  (Alan Silverstein)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth?

Certainly possible, but it would constitute a gross defeat of free
scientific endeavor.  It would mean stealing precious time from the
astronomers lined up to use the scope.  (Time on big scopes is very hard
to come by, I hear.  It would be like all software engineers having to
share time on only a handful of big, batch-job processors.)

I bet you couldn't do it and keep it secret.  Too many people would know
about the time theft or notice the pointing direction.

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

Date: 12 Oct 86 22:52:52 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> You neglected to ask a question that is no doubt of intense interest
> to national security paranoids world-wide, namely
> 
>               Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth?

It has been remarked (I don't remember where) that the Space Telescope
is basically an unclassified, civilian version of the KH-11 spysat.  Of
course, the instrumentation is probably quite different, and I suspect
that it would fry instantly if pointed at the earth.

Phil

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

Date: 14 Oct 86 22:00:33 GMT
From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <180@ka9q.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:
>
>It has been remarked (I don't remember where) that the Space Telescope
>is basically an unclassified, civilian version of the KH-11 spysat.  Of
>course, the instrumentation is probably quite different, and I suspect
>that it would fry instantly if pointed at the earth.

   I can well imagine why the source of such an absurd statement would
try to remain anonymous.  About the only technology that I can imagine
that would be applicable to both is the pointing instrumentation.  In
every other respect the objectives and technologies are completely
different.

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 8 Oct 86 18:57:09 GMT
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcla!ajs@hplabs.hp.com  (Alan Silverstein)
Subject: Re: shuttle launch viewing
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ..."The Dream is Alive." ... almost as good as the real thing...

The first, close-up shuttle launch sequence is MUCH BETTER than the real
thing (from miles away).  The screen's big enough and the noise is loud
enough that you lose the limited feeling of watching a movie.  And you'd
never get that close in real life.

Of course, in real life you get to fight traffic jams, wait out delays,
risk postponements, fight off mosquitos, squint into the sun, hold
binoculars steady, and fight traffic jams.  Nothing like the real
thing...

Alan Silverstein

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #21
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02380; Thu, 23 Oct 86 03:02:20 PDT
	id AA02380; Thu, 23 Oct 86 03:02:20 PDT
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 86 03:02:20 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610231002.AA02380@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #22

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 86 03:02:20 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #22

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 22

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Question about getting to orbit
		      Re: Al Globus, L5 Society
		     Re: How do you abort an SRB?
   recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas
		     Fool me twice, shame on you
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Oct 86 22:20:10 GMT
From: pyramid!gould9!telesoft!roger@hplabs.hp.com  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: Question about getting to orbit
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

From Kendall Auel in referenced posting:
> ...
> I guess the real question is: how much fuel is spent fighting aero-
> dynamic drag, and how much is used to actually get into orbit? Also,
> the fuel that is burning to overcome this drag had to be accelerated,
> so the extra fuel needed to do that must be included.

Several responders have indicated that they didn't think getting out of
the atmosphere was a significant performance factor.  Well, it is and it
isn't; for a multi-stage vehicle, it isn't much of a factor, but for a
single stage to orbit (SSTO) design, it's a controlling factor.

The best way to quantify the cost of climbing through the atmosphere
is in terms of the delta vee needed to reach orbit.  If the earth were
devoid of atmosphere, the delta vee needed to reach orbit would be
roughly 8000 meters per second; with the atmosphere, the minimum is
slightly more than 9000 mps.  That's a more significant difference than
it may at first appear--particularly for SSTO vehicles.

The mass ratio needed for a rocket to achieve a given delta vee is an
exponential function of the delta vee divided by the exhaust velocity.
Specifically:

	 R = exp [Delta_Vee / V_Exhaust]

where R is the ratio of initial to final mass for the rocket.  Initial
mass includes the structural mass of the rocket, its payload, and its
fuel load.  Final mass is just the first two (assuming that all the fuel
is expended).  For a high performance liquid hydrogen/liquid oxygen
egine (e.g., an SSME), the exhaust velocity is about 4500 mps.  For a
delta vee of 8000 mps, that implies a mass ratio of about 6.2, vs. a
ratio of 7.4 for a delta vee of 9000 mps.

It's barely possible to build a single stage vehicle that can carry 10
times its own weight in liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen, if you don't
have to worry about luxuries like wings and reentry shielding.  If you
only needed a mass ratio of 6.2, that would allow you about .9 pounds of
payload for every pound of structural mass--a pretty respectable ratio.
But at a mass ratio of 7.4, you'd be down to .5 pounds of paylad for
every pound of structural mass.  That extra 1000 mps of delta vee you
need because of the atmosphere has cost you almost half your payload
capacity.

The real situation is even worse, for two reasons.  First, the 9000 mps
figure that I used is actually optimistic; 9300, I believe, is closer to
what you'd really end up needing.  Second, if you want the vehicle to be
reusable, then most all of what you thought you had available for
payload is going to have to go for wings and reentry shielding.

The extra delta vee required to climb out of the atmosphere ends up
making the difference between feasibility and non-feasibility of an SSTO
rocket propelled vehicle.  That's why several early proposals for the
TAV involved launching the vehicle from atop a 747 carrier.  (That was
before the supersonic combustion ramjet was settled on as the propulsion
system of choice for the TAV).  There's also a fellow, whose name I've
misplaced, who has for some time been promoting designs for what he
calls a "space van", that would be launched from the back of a 747, or
747-like aircraft.

For any of you wondering why launching from an airplane at high altitude
can reduce delta vee to orbit by over 1000 mps, when the airplane is
flying at less than 300 mps, the answer is somewhat complicated.  Air
resistance is only one factor in what you lose climbing out of the
atmosphere.  Another factor is losses due to fighting gravity during
verticle climb.  For a variety of reasons, the liftoff acceleration for
a liquid fueled rocket is only about 1.2 gees.  That means only .2 gees
of net acceleration over gravity, for 1.2 gees worth of thrust, or an
efficiency ratio of 1/6.  The gravity losses would be less if the
initial acceleration were higher, but that would result in going
trannsonic at a lower altitude, where the shock wave pressures would be
too intense to handle.

- Roger Arnold

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

Date: 9 Oct 86 17:47:47 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Al Globus, L5 Society
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...government, in the form of an agency called OCSI, has given itself
> (via insertion into the Federal Register) the right to stop any launch
> that it decides is not "in the national interest".  They also have
> unlimited inspection rights, so if you want to send up a really
> private cargo, you're out of luck...

Something I should have mentioned in my posting about the proposed
Commercial Space Incentive Act is that one clause of the Act exempts
launchers under it from all OCSI regulation except the launch-safety
aspects.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Oct 86 18:06:06 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: How do you abort an SRB?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> James Van Artsdalen in his 28 Sept. raised the issue of aborting an
> SRB while it's still burning.  The shuttle astronauts **can** detach
> from the SRBs while they are still burning, but to do so would be an
> act of suicidal desperation...

Can you cite a reference for the existence of a separation system that
will separate the SRBs while they are burning?  The Rogers Commission
report doesn't even mention this as a future possibility, let alone a
present reality.

> ... The alternative of the Orbit Vehicle (OV) separating from the
> SRB/ET stack is also unviable.  I'm not certain of my numbers but I
> think the OV can only withstand about 1.5 g in a lateral direction...

There is a "fast separation" procedure intended to separate the orbiter
from the tank (after SRB jettison) quickly, but analysis of doing this
while the SRBs were still burning indicated that the orbiter would hang
up on its aft attach points and be destroyed.  (ref: Rogers Commission)

> ... There is one last possible fix and that is to put a linear charge
> on the pressure dome on the end of each SRB.  If the SRBs misbehave,
> one could blow the ends off and the thrust goes to zero almost at
> once...
> ... Probably the reason why one can't simply blow off the pressure
> domes of the SRB is that a rocket plume would proceed in front of the
> shuttles trajectory which would eventually impinge and destroy the ET.

According to the Rogers Commission report, the real problem is that one
cannot reduce thrust to zero that quickly without putting unsurvivable
stresses on the orbiter.  NASA looked at "thrust termination" systems
and concluded that anything which would terminate SRB thrust quickly
would require extensive structural reinforcement, adding prohibitive
amounts of weight.  Terminating thrust slowly does not appear to be
practical.  The Commission did suggest further investigation of thrust
termination, since it appears to be critical to providing any sort of
abort capability while the SRBs are burning, but did not hold out much
hope of success.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 1986 October 12 06:39:04 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "hogg%csri.toronto.edu"@relay.cs.net
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas

JH> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 86 12:08:26 edt
JH> From: John Hogg <hogg%csri.toronto.edu@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
JH> Subject: Of foams and strings

JH> They propose de-orbiting cones with an optional silicon "glaze" to
JH> avoid ablation of the delivered metal; these cones would be 1-10
JH> tonnes in mass.  They would be expected to bury *less* than 10m,
JH> which makes remining fairly simple.

Sounds nice, a tradeoff that avoids having to manufacture my foam yet
avoids embedding deep in Earth. Still, you have to transport from the
Sahara, it would be nice to be able to deliver to some point on Earth
not near Libya, hence eventually foams may be useful so you can drop the
payload near a populated area where the shock of the silica cone hitting
Earth wouldn't be acceptable but a gentle foam would be ok.

JH> Unless specifically requested, I won't comment further on your foam
JH> proposals after this message, because I'm getting a bit pedantic and
JH> off-topic.  But once again, I have to throw a wet blanket over
JH> lighter-than-air foams.  The problem is not one of size, since by
JH> the nature of the problem, bigger reduces complexity and in no way
JH> makes manufacturing more complicated.  The underlying brick wall is
JH> not your recursive step, but the base case of trying to build
JH> *anything* as an initial building block that is lighter than air yet
JH> made out of iron.  If the smallest unit is heavier than air, then
JH> the larger units must span more space than they physically occupy,
JH> and here we run into familiar difficulties.

That's why you make vacuum pseudo-foam, the iron or whatever is heavier
than air, so you include a lot of vacuum to increase volume without
increasing weight. "Familar difficulties" must refer to holding back air
that is trying to crush the contraption. So you need some airproof shell
on the outside together with cross-members that resist compression
(cross-members take the place of a gas filling the baloon).

JH> I don't understand Fuller's recursive pull-only structures that
JH> involve virtual push.  However, I do know that somewhere in the
JH> whole assembly, there must be members in compression both from the
JH> external pressure and whatever internal tensions are required.

Right. But instead of one long member that tends to bend when you press
the ends together, you have a lot of short members that don't hardly
bend at all when you press them. Try an experiment, get a piece of coppe
wire about an inch long and hold it endwise between your finger and
thumb. Squeeze and watch it easily bend. Now straighten it back out and
cut off a piece only one 8th of an inch long and put that little piece
endwise between your finger and thumb and squeeze and watch it puncture
your finger and draw blood instead of bending. The cross section of the
short piece is the same as the long piece, but the long one bends and
the short one doesn't hardly bend at all. Now think of a whole bunch of
short pieces end to end to make the original long piece.  When you press
the ends none of the pieces bend, but the joints between the pieces fly
to the side. If you could hold all those joints laterally into correct
position, you could puncture your skin just the same as when you had
just one short piece. See more below...

JH> Compressive loads require a structure which grows more than linearly
JH> with length.

No. If you can break up a structure into lots of short pieces (or just
think of a long continuous structure as being composed of short pieces),
and support the junctures between pieces (or support the continuous
structure at lots of different points) against swaying to the side, then
you can have an arbitrarily long piece with compressive strength
determined solely by its cross-section, not growing weaker as it gets
longer for a given cross-section.

JH> The only way out is to use a structure that is truly in tension,
JH> which is done by compressing the internal fluid.

Almost correct. The basic structure can still be compressive, like lots
and lots of little pieces end to end, but the resistance to lateral
bending/swaying/bowing can be tension. That's how Bucky Fuller made his
recursive tension-mostly structures. The basic member is lots of little
compressive units end to end, the anti-bow member is lots of
tension-only units.

Here's a simple way to get a compressive object that is also stable. The
goal is to create a member that connects two points and resists
compression better than a simple member of the same length and
cross-section. -- Suppose you want to span length 2*l with something of
cross-section 3*c. You make 6 pieces, each of length l and cross-section
c, put 3 of them into a skinny pyramid with triangular base, fasten the
base together with string (lightweight tensile object), form other three
into another skinny pyramid and put it upside-downunder the first
pyramid linking the 3 points together. Now if you press against the top
of the first pyramid and bottom of second (upside-down) pyramid, you get
nearly three times the strength of a single length-l cross-section-c
member, i.e. nearly what'd you'd get from a single length-l
cross-section-3*c member, which is much better than if you simply took a
length-2*l cross-section-3*c member because the latter would bow whereas
the double-pyramid would merely stretch the tensile members instead.

Now you recurse. Use six of those length-nearly-2*l strength-nearly-3*c
members to make a larger double-pyramid of length nearly 4*l and
strength-nearly-9*c. Repeat until you have desired length. Except for
the small loss due to the triangle not being infinitesimal thus length
is slightly less than (2**k)*l, force acting at an angle so strength is
slightly less than (3**n)*c, and weight of the tensile members, you have
scaled up a short compressive member without loss in strength/mass
ratio. So long as there are no extra sideward forces on the large
recursive compressive members, such as gravity or air friction, you can
build a tower of arbitrary height with a fixed cross-section merely by
dividing the cross-section into small enough pieces for the basic
compressive member that after multipliying by (3**n) you are back to
your planned cross-section. (Of course the practical limit is when the
cross-section is smaller than a few atomic thicknesses.)

I think Bucky had some even better designs, but I don't know them. The
double-pyramid is one I came up with to illustrate the basic idea.
(P.S. Thanks to Greg Yob, inventor of Wumpus, for showing me the Bucky
stuff.)

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

Date:     Fri, 10 Oct 86 17:24 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Fool me twice, shame on you

A panel convened by the National Research Council at the request of
Congress has concluded that, even with four shuttles, NASA will only be
able to attain a launch rate of 11 to 13 flights per year, fewer than
the 16 NASA is aiming for.  The panel also said that a three shuttle
fleet could attain 8 to 10 flights per year, and that only after a two
year ramp-up.  NASA is planning to fly the three shuttle fleet six times
the first year and twelve times a year thereafter.

The panel's lower numbers are still contingent on NASA improving its
procedures, including stopping the canabalization of one orbiter to fly
another, and assume that no orbiter becomes inoperable for long periods.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #22
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06032; Fri, 24 Oct 86 03:02:15 PDT
	id AA06032; Fri, 24 Oct 86 03:02:15 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 86 03:02:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610241002.AA06032@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #23

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 24 Oct 86 03:02:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #23

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 23

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #11
	 Re: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Oct 1986 14:38-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #11
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 12 Oct 86 03:13:29 PDT

>I claim that a program to establish mining or manufacturing operations
>in space WILL NOT MAKE ANY SENSE for at least thirty years.  In fact, I
>believe that shipping material goods from space to Earth is probably
>NEVER going to make any economic sense.

I agree that large scale mining will not be occuring in much under
thirty years, and more probably fifty years. But if we don't begin to
develop the infrastructure for chepa transport, it won't even happen
then. Of course, if people such as Eric Drexler (Engines of Creation)
and Hans Moravec (Mind Children, not yet in print) are correct, all bets
are off.

>For the next thirty years or more, I believe the following will be true:
>
>  1.  Factories in space and on the Moon cannot be expected to
>  manufacture sophisticated products.  High-tech products like
>  computers, jet engines and automobiles require much more equipment,
>  manpower and infrastructure than what we will be able to launch in
>  the foreseeable future.  Therefore, space industries will be limited
>  to either low-tech products and bulk materials, or to a few
>  intermediate steps of Earth-based manufacturing processes.

It is quite true about jet engines. I haven't heard a single suggestion
for constructing them on the moon. The purpose of lunar mining is lunar
construction and for the construction of things in space that would be
prohibitively expensive if bulk materials were shipped from the Earth's
deep gravity well.

>  2.  Right now there is no mineral resource on the Moon that would be
>  worth mining.  Some metals like titanium and chromium seem to be more
>  abundant there, but they are fairly abundant on Earth, too.  Those
>  metals are relatively cheap now, and will continue to be so for a
>  while.  For example, titanium metal (powder, 99.7% pure) costs about
>  $7/lb, according to the Rubber Bible.  In fact, the price and demand
>  for several metals (copper, aluminum) has been dropping of late.

If you are talking about materials for export back to the earth, there
is really only one that will be meaningful in the same time frame as the
first mining efforts: He3. I presume we'll be able to get fusion power
on a commercial footing by early in the next century, and this material
has an enormous profitability. And we can't get it here. There just
ain't none to be had.

>  3.  From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we can
>  expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on Earth.
>  Most of our commercial ore deposits can be traced to hydrological and
>  hydrothermal processes, which as far as we know never existed on the
>  Moon.

However, the lunar highlands, as it sits is a rich in Ti as the rutile
sands of Australia. It contains a great deal of pure Fe-Ni that can be
magnetically seperated. The Aluminum is also fairly easy to seperate
with cheap power available. The byproduct is O2 which is the heaviest
portion of the standard H2/O2 fuel. It is cheaper to export Lunar oxygen
to LEO than it is to ship it from the ground. The soils have a great
deal of Si and thus can used to make some very useful fiber glass
composites. The particle sizes are ideal for making a waterless concrete
via vibration compaction and sintering, a technique used in steel mills
for many years.

>  4.  The Moon is very poor in many important elements, notably
>  hydrogen.  That means we cannot count on using the Moon as a fueling
>  station; quite on the contrary, rocket fuel for traveling on and out
>  of the Moon will have to be brought from the Earth.  Also, if the
>  manufacturing or smelting processes use water or hydrogen in any form
>  (or chlorine, or nitrogen, or...), extra equipment and energy will be
>  necessary to recover those precious elements from the waste products.

As noted above, it is the O2 that is most important in terms of weight
costs. There is a very large net gain in shipping Lunar O2 to LEO. And
the H2 may come from Earth in the short run, but it is probably simpler
to go after a chondritic asteroid or a burned out comet. There are
several that are energetically favorable. There is a great deal of
research that has gone into doing the processes with only catalytic
elements shipped from Earth. I would recommend your study the Space
Manufacturing proceedings published every two years by the American
Astronautical Society and the Space Studies Institute.

>  5.  Even ignoring transportation costs, manufacturing anything in
>  space is bound to be substantially more expensive than manufacturing
>  the same product (or a functionally equivalent one) on Earth.  Labor,
>  materials and equipment for space manufacturing are more
>  sophisticated than their Earth equivalents.

Possibly true on the early manned space station. Probably not after a
decade of experience. And certainly not true on the lunar surface.
Hell, you don't even need to sheild a nuclear reactor. Just sit it in a
crater. (See papers by Dr. Kraftt Ehricke shortly before his death).
There is certainly no reason why labor need be more sophisticated.  For
industry, I suspect that early salary structures and personnel will
reflect an Alaska pipeline or deep sea drilling station model. And keep
in mind that for quite a while the products will remain restricted to a
few very high value items.

>  6.  In spite of all the hype, it is still highly unlikely that those
>  few resources that are unique to space (such as microgravity and
>  abundant high vacuum) will ever find significant industrial
>  applications.  Zero-g alloys MAY turn out to have unique properties,
>  but `unique' doesn't necessarily mean `desirable', much less
>  `extremely valuable'.  There still is no bio-industrial process that
>  would be significantly easier in zero g, and there are good reasons
>  to doubt such thing will ever be discovered (Note that the growing of
>  big protein crystals is pure science, not industry).

The growth of the protein crystals has important possibilities for
drugs. I also know of a successful business man who is donating large
sums of money to electrophoresis research because his son has juvenile
onset diabetes. The market will decide whether earthly processes will
win out in terms of purity etc.

And if you want to discuss, significantly easier, why don't we talk
about processes which are simply not possible or that barely work at all
under gravity?

The only way I can imagine someone making this statement is that they
have not been following the literature.

>  7.  Someone mentioned crystal-growing for the semiconductor industry.
>  The processes used by the semiconductor industry on Earth are the
>  result of some 20 years of intensive development, and are still being
>  improved.  It will take a long while for radically new space-based
>  processes to reach the same level of perfection.  How long (and how
>  much) will it take for a space-based company to learn how to make
>  3"x2' silicon monocrystals better than those we can buy right now on
>  Earth?

The truth is that amateurs with primitive equipment have generated
crystals of the size and quality of earthly manufacture. I've seen the
side by side slides. It is likely that zone refining will be able to
generate defect free large wafers with simple zone refining. Remember
wafer scale integration? The idea that failed and took Trilogy Inc
(Amdahl & Co) with it? It is probably possible with zero G processing.

>  8.  In fact, the lack of gravity and a limited air supply are a
>  serious problem for many industrial processes.  Traditional chemical
>  methods such as GAMT, ESGM, TIMEX-V and HPVLQ (and many more) do are
>  much harder or impossible to perform in zero g.  A LOCA that would be
>  of no consequence on Earth may seriously harm a space station and/or
>  its crew.  Even p-GaLiAs becomes an extremely hazardous substance in
>  zero g.  (Two p-GaLiAs containers which flew on one of the last
>  Shuttle flights had to be specially designed, and cost more than
>  $100,000 a piece.  In contrast, a standard p-GaLiAs container for use
>  on Earth costs less than 60 cents).

There is very little in this that is correct if you wish to refer to an
industrial facility. It will almost certainly be built with isolated
modules for hazardous materials. Don't compare the standards for doing
processing in an airplane with doing them in a mature industrial module
in free orbit. Even if something blows up, you don't have a disaster.
People got killed on the Alaska pipeline too. Any industry factors in an
estimated number of on the job fatalities and balances the cost of
safety measures versus the expected cost of accidents. Otherwise we'd
only have waldoes in steel mills.

And your comments about gravity processes are also completing in error.
The advantage of space is that you can get ANY gravity or gravity
gradient you want. Take two external tanks, tether them together, start
the mess spinning and voila! Thousands of cubic feet of industrial space
with whatever gravity field you want. So you do zero G processing in the
zero G shed, then move the materials over to the half G shed for GAMT,
ESGM, TIMEX-V and HPVLQ. Or maybe if you have a special requirement, run
it over to the HiG/HiGradient shed with the short tether...

>  9.  To the basic cost of doing something in space, we must add the
>  costs of designing, building, and launching the factory.  The
>  smallest space factory or lunar mine is going to cost billions of
>  dollars more than a comparable facility on Earth.  If such a factory
>  is going to make 100,000 somethings a year for ten years, it would
>  have to charge its customers THOUSANDS of dollars more per unit just
>  to pay the extra fixed costs.

You are using old fashoined thinking. You don't launch a factory. You
launch the space age equivalent of a quonset hut and then you ship in
modules for the processing you intend to do. And if you blow it, then
the bank gets the mortgage, and someone else comes along and puts their
equipment in for their bright idea.

As for the cost of construction, I'd recommend you look at some of the
automated partially self replicating factory systems discussed in the
literature by such as Dr. Marvin Minsky (Marvin: you're welcome to jump
in!!!) and also studied by Space Studies Institute and by NASA.
Estimates are that such a system could be set up at the cost of 3-5
shuttle bays, including transfer fuel and engines. The size and weight
keep dropping every time I check in on the field.

>  10.  Orbiting factories will have to get all their raw materials from
>  Earth.  Lunar factories may be able to get some materials from the
>  Moon itself, but will need a steady stream of `space trucks' to lift
>  the product out to space.  In both cases, transportation alone is
>  going to cost several hundred dollars per pound of product.

You have not done your homework. The mass driver already works. It has
been tested at (2/3?) of full scale size. A Mass driver including power
supply could be delivered to the moon in less than a shuttle bay. Once
in place, along with an automated (etc) as discussed earlier, it will
begin delivering material very shortly afterwards. It's utterly
ridiculously to consider landing and taking off with a rocket just to
get bulk materials into LEO. The cost is dollars/lb. Read up on it.

>  11.  A space factory or moon base is going to take some five to ten
>  years to build; during that period, demand for its product may easily
>  evaporate.  This is much more true true for high-tech
>  spacial-purpose products such as advanced alloys and biologicals
>  (In fact, this is happening right now to McDonnell's electrophoresis
>  separation project).  Thus, there is a very serious risk of such a
>  plant becoming hopelessly obsolete and useless even before it is
>  finished.

You are once again assuming that we're making finished products on the
moon for export. This is a very silly idea for a long time to come. I
expect such manufactures, but for local consumption. Exports will be
bulk materials to LEO and GSO. Finished products will be made at LEO for
Earth, Powersats will be made at GSO for export of power to Earth.

>  12. Most of these problems apply also to the mining of asteroids.
>  Except that some (like transportation costs) will be a lot worse.
>  Besides, we still don't know for sure what the asteroids are made of.
>  Before we embark in a multibillion, multi-decade asteroid mining
>  program, perhaps we should send a couple of cheap unmanned probes to
>  check whether there is something there worth digging, no?

We already know compositions of many near earth asteroids
spectroscopically. You can say we don't know for sure, and that is
correct. We need to collect some more 'Ground Truth' so we can be more
confident in the assignments made so far. There are some quite valuable
hunks of material found in the last few years by Elinor Helin and her
Asteroid Project. (Partially funded by the World Space Foundation, the
Planetary Society, off and on by L5 and L5 members, and I'm pretty sure
a bit of NASA funding as well.) I certainly would not disagree with
getting some probes out to look over the property. I doubt 3M will want
to take possession site unseen...

Since you don't have to go into any gravity well at all, the Delta V
requirements for some are even less than for a trip to the moon,
although considerably longer: 3-5 years total mission time.

>All these problems may be solved in time, but hardly within the next
>thirty years, no matter what we do or how much money we spend.  NASA
>and the space societies are trying to sell the space station and the
>lunar base for its industrial prospects; this may work for a while, but
>will be disastrous in the long run.  Sooner or later the paying public
>will realize that those projects will only bring multibillion-dollar
>losses to the economy, year after year for the foreseeable future.  If
>you think that the post-Apollo debacle was bad, wait until this one.

In less than thirty years we will probably be playing with some sort of
fusion drive. There will probably be talk of building a practical
anti-matter drive in a decade or two. With the fusion drive the solar
system is wide open. For that matter, with the solar sail the solar
system is wide open.

The biggest shortcoming we have right now is in CELSS technology. It
hasn't been 'sexy' enough to get sufficient funding and is lagging a
decade behind other areas.

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

Date: 13 Oct 86 21:07:50 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Re: Re: Leo Debris, more planetary science pain
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <507@aurora.UUCP>, al@aurora.UUCP (Al Globus) writes:
> > ... space travel far too expensive (by many orders of magnitude) for
> > "moving life off the planet"; that's just not realistic with present
> > technology. (By "present technology" I don't mean just the Shuttle;
> > I mean "chemical rockets").
> 
> Not so.  Apparently most of the weight of the shuttle stack is oxygen
> (does anyone know the actual numbers?).  Therefor, the aerospace
> plane, if successful, should give us a very large reduction in launch
> cost.

Each SRB weighs 1.82 million pounds empty and is loaded with 1.11
million pounds of propellant.  That means 5.86 million pounds of the
shuttle's takeoff weight is SRB.

			David Smith

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #23
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11014; Sat, 25 Oct 86 03:02:05 PDT
	id AA11014; Sat, 25 Oct 86 03:02:05 PDT
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 86 03:02:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610251002.AA11014@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #24

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 86 03:02:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #24

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 24

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
	     Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
			   slrm8 not valid
			    fusion engines
		       Satellite observers poll
			    Pop-top SRB's
 Re: recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas
			  Re: Pop-top SRB's
				CELSS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Oct 86 02:30:28 GMT
From: voder!apple!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Smith)
Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>> For the next thirty years or more, I believe the following will be true:
>> 
>>   1.  Factories in space and on the Moon cannot be expected to
>>   manufacture sophisticated products. 
>>  
>>   2.  Right now there is no mineral resource on the Moon that would
>>   be worth mining.
>
>Agreed, though eventually a point will be reached where the amount of
>raw materials needed in orbit will make the cost of lauching it from
>Earth prohibitive, and a handy alternative source is the Moon.

I have heard the argument that the moon contains reasonably large 
quantities of titanium that could be reasonably easily mined.  (No, 
I don't have a definition of 'reasonably easy').  Titanium aint cheap.

The idea went on to simplify the 'delivery' problem by shaping the
titanium into shuttle like objects then de-orbiting them to reenter.  On
the earth surface, the VERY HOT gliders would be recovered (perhaps from
a landing in water?)

Is this a valid idea, or was it shot down long ago as bogus? 


>>   3.  From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we
>>   can expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on
>>   Earth.
>
>Sure, but so what?  The energy to smelt the stuff is free, and the
>supply of raw materials is basically limitless.  Who cares if your
>efficiency is only 10%?

Sorry, but nothin's for free.  Sunlight on the earth surface is 'free'
too, but the structure to recover it costs.  The energy density per
square metre may be greater in space, but the recovery devices cost
plenty.

As to limitless supplies...  ever hear of transportation costs?  We have
lots of ore on earth that is 'basically limitless'.  One small problem,
you have to dig it up and move it some where.  Both operations take
capital.

The real question is: Given the greater energy available in space and
the particular transportation costs on the lunar surface; is it
cheaper/better to make product there rather than here?

(My *emotional* bias is to go set up shop on the moon because we ought
 to find out how to do it now.  My *analytical* capitalisic side says
 that you have to show me how many dollars I'm gonna make before I'm
 willing to spend a nickel ...  Lets do it for the right reasons,
 because we *WANT* to, regardless of the profit potential.)

>>   5.  Even ignoring transportation costs, manufacturing anything in
>>   space is bound to be substantially more expensive than
>>   manufacturing the same product (or a functionally equivalent one)
>>   on Earth.  Labor, materials and equipment for space manufacturing
>>   are more sophisticated than their Earth equivalents.

PROVIDED that thing *can* be produced on earth.  What was the value of
the picture of earth taken by the Apollo astronauts on the way to the
moon?  The one that shows the blue/white marble of earth sitting lonely
in space?  Commerce has made a lot of money from that image, humanity
has gained even more in non-money ways.

You don't have any idea how much profit can come from inventive minds in
a new environment until you put them their.  Any argument of the form "X
will always be cheaper on earth" is bogus due to this one fact.

(Give me sand, and I will give you Silicon Valley ...   I wonder how 
 much a 10% faster chip technology would be worth?  If a company could
 get it's 10meg RAM chips to market two years before the competion by
 doing it in space, how many millions is that worth?  I once worked at
 a semiconductor manufacturer down the street ... One of the wafers 
 in my product line was worth about $40,000 per.  Seems noone else 
 could make that chip so the per unit price was about $200 ...  Chip
 fab lines are not THAT large.  Wonder how many wafers would fit in 
 a shuttle ...) 

E. Michael Smith  ...!sun!apple!ems

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

Date: 14 Oct 86 07:16:47 GMT
From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jonathan P. Leech)
Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <211@apple.UUCP> ems@apple.UUCP (Mike Smith) writes:
>(My *emotional* bias is to go set up shop on the moon because we ought
> to find out how to do it now.  My *analytical* capitalisic side says
> that you have to show me how many dollars I'm gonna make before I'm
> willing to spend a nickel ...  Lets do it for the right reasons,
> because we *WANT* to, regardless of the profit potential.)

    We went to the moon because we WANTED to. We didn't stay there.  I
think this could easily happen again. But if there's money to be made,
the analytical capitalists will keep with it when the fickle public has
moved on. That's the only way we'll ever see a large human presence in
space - which is what I WANT.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date:     Tue, 14 Oct 86 08:02 MDT
From: <RAY%USU.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> (Ray Rawlins)
Subject:  slrm8 not valid
To: space@s1-b.arpa
X-Original-To:  space@angband.arpa



Please remove slrm8@usu.bitnet from your mailing list.  That account is
nolonger active at this node.

Thanks

Ray Rawlins
RAY@USU.BITNET

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

Date: Tue, 14 Oct 86 11:49 EDT
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@lll-mfe.arpa
Subject: fusion engines
To: space@s1-b.arpa



Paul Koloc writes:
   What we need is to develop the technology of fusion to do really
   significant things beyond LEO.  DoE has demonstrated it can't make a
   workable commercial fusion power generator...
   ... prototype fusion engines could be operating just after three
   years.  These engines if based on PLASMAK(TM) technology, would burn
   hydrogen(protium) boron(eleven) which generates pure helium(four) and
   no radiation.

Actually DOE has done a responsible job of allocating scarce funds.  The
main problem is that congress lost interest in fusion when the the oil
glut began.  Also it is a long way from a prototype fusion engine (just
a hydrogen-boron pellet being hit by a laser) to an engine which can
actually lift a payload.  We need better lasers and a good way to keep
the containment vessel from eroding.  I would prefer to see all of our
pennies for space research being spent on shorter term missions, with
fusion engines developing as best they can via military funding for
laser research.

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

Date:         Tue, 14 Oct 86 17:08 SET
From: Alessandro Berni
  <EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Satellite observers poll
To: Space digest <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>

Will all people interested in amateur satellite observing kindly drop me
a quick note?
I appreciate your help and thank you in advance.

Alessandro Berni
Genoa, Italy

BitNet ------> einaudi@icnucevm
ARPA   ------> einaudi@cnuce-vm
Internet ----> EINAUDI%ICNUCEVM.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

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

Sender: "Gooding:wbst200ul:Xerox.ns"@xerox.com
Date: 14 Oct 86 13:50:35 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Pop-top SRB's
From: Gooding.WBST@xerox.com
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Gooding.WBST@Xerox.COM

   Consider the following scenario: A significant malfunction is
detected during the early part of an STS mission following lift-off.
The appropriate designated individual in mission control orders an
abort.  This order pops the tops of the SRB's off and away from the
orbiter.  Reverse thrust nozzles are now exposed and the SRB's top ends
are ignited.  The thrust of the already burning ends are effectively
countered allowing the orbiter to detach before the SRB's buckle and
submit to a destruct order along with the ET.  The orbiter makes a best
effort emergency landing based on speed, altitude, etc.  
   Is this a viable method in which to minimize the risks of STS
missions encountered from lift-off to SRB burnout?  

Steve <Gooding.WBST@Xerox.COM>

Disclaimer disclaimer

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

Date: 14 Oct 86 18:46:27 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...Still, you have to transport from the Sahara, it would be nice to
> be able to deliver to some point on Earth not near Libya,

Actually, the Australian desert is probably better than the Sahara for a
number of reasons, political stability among them.
			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 15 Oct 86 21:02:34 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Pop-top SRB's
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> This [abort] order pops the tops of the SRB's off and away from the
> orbiter.  Reverse thrust nozzles are now exposed and the SRB's top
> ends are ignited.  The thrust of the already burning ends are
> effectively countered allowing the orbiter to detach before the SRB's
> buckle and submit to a destruct order along with the ET.

Based on what AW&ST said about the IUS/TDRSS failure (to the effect that
continued chamber pressure is necessary to support combustion), maybe
blowing the top off would extinguish the fire.  Note that the SRB is
hollow and burns from the inside out along its whole length.

But if blowing the cap doesn't extinguish the motor, I doubt it would
help.  If the orbiter lets go, it will pivot around the rear attachment
points and break up, as previously noted in this forum.  If the SRBs are
jettisoned, the orbiter and tank must fly through the plume.  If nothing
is cut loose, the front-end exhaust from the SRBs will impinge on the
oxygen tank.

			David Smith

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

Date: Wed, 15 Oct 86 11:10:28 pdt
From: bradley thompson <thompson%arc.cdn%ubc.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: CELSS

I have noticed a couple of references in the net to CELSS and thought a
short summary would be in order. CELSS [Controlled Ecological Life
Support Systems officially or closed environmental LSS by some] is a
concept being developed by a number of countries including our Soviet
friends, the US, Japan, ESA members, and Canada. Basically it involves
recycling the expendables used by and the wastes produced by
cosmo-asto-aero-nauts during a mission.  For short term missions
recycling has not been considered. For longer term missions
[mir-possible US- space stations, deep space exploration, colonies]
recycling becomes economically feasable. Recycling of components like
water, carbon dioxide [back to oxygen], and wastes can be done and will
be initially done physiochemically. Food recycling to a form palatable
to humans requires a biological link. A typical CELSS would look as
below:


water, food, oxygen -->humans, animals--> wastes, carbon dioxide, waste
water

wastes---> biological or physiological waste treatement--> carbon
dioxide, water, and inorganic salts

carbon dioxide, waste water, inorganic salts, [LIGHT], --->
photosynthetic organism [plant,algae]---> biomass [ie food], water,
oxygen

This is simplified of course but basically true. 
The various countries activities are as below:
 1-USSR - definite leader in the field. At the last COSPAR meeting in
Toulouse NO Soviets attended the CELSS session. The Soviets only attend
sessions where they are behind, or equal in advancement. I estimate from
the literature that they have at least 50 active projects going on
including an Earth based test bed and who knows what on Salyut 7 and
Mir.
 2- USA- low key effort mainly funded by NASA and done on Universities.
NASA Ames has a small in house effort. Some Earth based test bed work
planned.  NASA Ames has been instrumental in keeping international CELSS
alive by planning and holding meetings. US projects - about 20.
 3- Japan- low key effort- mainly aimed at physiochemical CELSS
compponents.  Japanese projects- about 20.
 4- ESA members- very low key effort- about 2-4 projects.
 5- Canada- very low key effort- about 2-4 projects.

If anyone is interested in CELSS the following people are coordinating
efforts in their respective nations:

USSR- Ye. Ya. Shepelev, Institute of Biomedical Problems, Ministry of
Health, USSR, Moscow, USSR

USA- R.D. MacElroy, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, California

Japan- K. Nitta, Space Technology Research Group, National Aerospace
Laboratory Chofu, Tokyo, Japan

ESA- I. Skoog, Dornier Systems Gmbh, Postfach 1360, D-7990
FRiederichshoffen, FRG

Canada- B.G. Thompson, Biotechology Department, Alberta Research
Council, PO Box 8330, Postal Station F, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada T6H
5X2

I must emphasize that we [the west] are way behind the Soviets on this
stuff and that it will be as essential for deep space missions as
efficient propulsionsystems. Any help in the form of lobbying, letter
writing, large financial donations, or moral support in your country
would be a big help.

Thanks
Brad Thompson

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #24
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13985; Sun, 26 Oct 86 03:02:12 PST
	id AA13985; Sun, 26 Oct 86 03:02:12 PST
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 03:02:12 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610261102.AA13985@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #25

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 26 Oct 86 03:02:12 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #25

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 25

Today's Topics:
		   6th Space Development Conference
	 Symposium on the National Commission on Space Report
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 RE: Space Telescope
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 Re: Space Telescope
			 Pointing ST at Earth
		       Re: JEP on Mars mission
			   CFC coming up...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Oct 1986 00:40-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: 6th Space Development Conference


                    6TH SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE
               "RETURN TO THE VISION: What will it take?"


Pittsburgh  L5  invites  you  to  participate  in a major event on March
27-29,  1987  at  the  Pittsburgh  Hilton:  The  6th  Space  Development
Conference,  sponsored  by  the  L5 Society, the National Space Society,
Students  for  the  Exploration  and  Development  of  Space,  Spacepac,
American  Space  Foundation,  AMSAT, Spaceweek, Space Studies Institute,
and the United States Space Foundation.

We will examine where we should be going in space over  the  next  fifty
years  and  how we will reach our stated goals. Our focus will be on the
long range, elements of which will be addressed in  small  workshops  on
computer  networking, space science, space technology, politics, chapter
organization, nanotechnology, arts and commerce.

The three day conference also includes:


   - A technical technical session on Innovative Space Systems with
     an emphasis on Closed Ecological Life Support Systems. Chaired
     by Dr. David Webb, member National Commission on Space and Dr.
     Richard  Parker  of  the University of North Dakota Center for
     Aerospace Science.

   - A course on Basic Spaceflight.  Captain  Ed  Daley  will  team
     teach  the  course  with  Greg  Maryniak,  SSI Vice President.
     Attendees will learn orbital mechanics,  proximity  operations
     and  aspects  of  space propulsion.  Captain Daley has trained
     NASA employees on this topic.

   - An Educators Seminar. The  importance  of  education  will  be
     stressed   in   programming   for   educators   and  students.
     Programming for teachers will make them  aware  of  the  past,
     present  and future of the space program and the ways in which
     space education may be incorporated in every subject area from
     art to social sciences and every grade level from Kindergarten
     to high school senior.

   - Student programming  for  K-12.  Students  will  be  given  an
     opportunity  to  go through a professional conference in which
     they can both learn and have fun.   Young  Astronaut  exchange
     student  Amy  Grubb  will  discuss  her  visit to Soviet space
     facilities,  and  a  'shuttle'  bus  of  students   from   the
     Philadelphia  public  schools  will rendezvous with Pittsburgh
     students.

   - A Space Defense Seminar. General Daniel O.  Graham  and  other
     experts will discuss defense issues.

   - Funding  and  governing of space settlements via a free market
     approach.

   - Professional workshops on space  themes  in  performing  arts,
     painting, writing and photography. If you wish to apply for an
     invitation to  participate,  checkmark  the  session  on  your
     registration form. A sample of your work will be requested.

   - An   evening  of  filk  music  by  Julia  Ecklar,  dance,  and

     electronic music by Don Slepian and other performers.


There  will  be  exhibits  by  space  organizations  and  space  related
businesses;  a film room; an extensive art show with works by Alan Bean,
Jack Olsen, Robert Rauschenberg, Kim Poor, Kelly Freas  and  many  other
reknowned  artists  of  the  space age; a tour of Allegheny Observatory,
site of some of the  world's  most  advanced  work  on  the  search  for
extrasolar  planets;  and  tours  of  the  widely acclaimed CMU Robotics
Institute.

For further information write to PO Box 8391, Pittsburgh, PA  15218-0391
or call 412-351-4973.

(Or send EMAIL to amon@h.cs.cmu.edu for an electronic copy of the
registration form. Feel free to copy and pass this around.)

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

Date: 16 Oct 86 06:08:20 GMT
From: rubin@topaz.rutgers.edu  (Mike Rubin)
Subject: Symposium on the National Commission on Space Report
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


	    SYMPOSIUM on the NATIONAL COMMISSION ON SPACE REPORT
		  "Space: the Last or the Lost Frontier?"

		Saturday, November 6, 1986, 1:00 to 4:00 PM
Sheraton City Squire Motor Inn, Broadway and 52nd Street, New York City

Moderator:  Hugh Downs, Chairman, National Space Society

Featured    Gerard K. O'Neill, President, Space Studies Institute
Speakers:   Isaac Asimov, noted author and futurist
	    Phillip Culbertson, high NASA official, Grumman Aerospace officer

Question and answer period, and wine and cheese reception, will follow.
Admission is free but limited to 350.  Register in advance through New York
City L5, c/o Intrepid Sea-Air-Space Museum, Pier 86, New York, NY 10036;
telephone (212) 757-7780.

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

Date: 16 Oct 86 02:35:55 GMT
From: klinner@sun.com
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> In article <180@ka9q.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:
> >It has been remarked (I don't remember where) that the Space
> >Telescope is basically an unclassified, civilian version of the KH-11
> >spysat.  Of course, the instrumentation is probably quite different,
> >and I suspect that it would fry instantly if pointed at the earth.

When I was working on the Science Operations Ground Station proposal
at TRW we too asked what would happen if the telescope was pointed at
the ground. You're right, most of the instruments would be damaged.
And since most of the instrumentation was designed by researchers from
various universities, the space telescope is definitely NOT a version
of any kind of spysat.

      Kent Klinner
      Sun Microsystems

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

Date: 16 Oct 86 10:27:00 PST
From: <art@acc.arpa>
Subject: RE: Space Telescope
To: "space" <space@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Reply-To: <art@acc.arpa>

I don't have any answers, but I have the following recollections (a bit
rusty) from working on a comm project for the Space Telescope Science
Institute.

Data from Hubble Telescope (LEO) sent to TDRS (GEO).

TDRS relays data to White Sands (New Mexico).

White Sands sends data via commercial satellite to NASA Goddard
(Maryland).

Goddard sends data via terrestrial T1 circuit to Science Institute
(Johns Hopkins).

I don't believe that the TDRS traffic would be accessable, but possibly
the relay to Goddard would.  The data will be digital at very high bit
rates.  The data volume will be huge (I seem to remember something like
up to 10**10 bits/day).  Remember that the data will be things like
multi- spectral, high resolution images. As a hypothethical example, a
single 3 color 1024X1024 image with 8 bit pixel resolution would be over
3 megabytes of data.  It will take some sophisticated image processing
equiptment to turn the data into photographs or video images.

I would suspect that the data will be handled somewhat like the LANDSAT
info, tapes of specific data could be bought and somebody (NASA maybe)
will probably sell finished photographs.  Also, remember that a small
amount of observing time is being given to qualified amateurs.

I would be very interested if someone has any current information about
all of this and if the Telescope has been assigned a new shuttle launch
date.
					<Art@ACC.ARPA>

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

Date: 17 Oct 86 00:25:01 GMT
From: jwp@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (Jeffrey W Percival)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <4270002@hpfcla.HP.COM> ajs@hpfcla.HP.COM (Alan Silverstein) writes:
>> Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth?
>Certainly possible, but it would constitute a gross defeat of free
>scientific endeavor.  It would mean stealing precious time from the
>astronomers lined up to use the scope.

ST will look at the earth for calibration purposes.  Some of the
instruments need a diffuse, uniform source of illumination so they can
map out their aperture locations, and the earth or moon would suffice
for this.

There is an earth/moon flag available to the flight software on board,
that indicates when the ST is within some small angle of these objects;
the instruments can take action or not, depending on the situation.

You can bet there's a sun flag, too.

	Jeff Percival ...!uwvax!uwmacc!sal70!jwp or ...!uwmacc!jwp

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

Date: 17 Oct 86 06:13:26 GMT
From: karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ... And since most of the instrumentation was designed by
> researchers from various universities, the space telescope is definitely
> NOT a version of any kind of spysat.

I'm sorry, people seemed to take my quote too literally. By "unclassified
version of a spysat", I understood the original author to mean that the two
spacecraft were of roughly the same physical size, mass, pointing capability
and resolution, not that a surplus KH-11 was actually converted into the ST.
(I'm still trying to dig up the source of this quote; I'm quite sure that I
didn't invent it.)

The ST and the KH-11 are OBVIOUSLY designed for entirely different missions.
The KH-11 operates in an elliptical orbit and probably has orbit-changing
rockets designed to optimize low-altitude coverage of interesting ground
sites; the ST will operate in a circular orbit and doesn't need an
orbit-changing capability.  The ST is designed to optimize both image
resolution and light-gathering power; obviously the KH-11 doesn't need much
of the latter.  Still, if the instrumentation could withstand it (e.g.,
through use of a neutral density filter) the ST would probably make very
nice high-resolution pictures of the earth.

Since it's resolution and not light-gathering power that the spooks are
after, I wonder if they've tried optical aperture synthesis yet.  If they
could figure out a way to coherently combine the photons from two or more
widely separated sets of optics (separated by, say, more than the diameter
of a Titan III payload fairing or the Shuttle cargo bay which would be the
ultimate limit on the diameter of a single-piece objective) then this might
result in much better ground resolution than we've given them credit for.

Phil

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

Date:         Wed, 22 Oct 86 11:07:25 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Pointing ST at Earth

     In an article about verification (ie., spy satellite) technologies I read
recently, the space telescope was discussed briefly as an example.  It was
mentioned that the sensors would not be able to look at the earth; they are
designed for faint sources and can't handle it.
     I believe that the space telescope has a much larger mirror than a
KH-11 (but since the details on KH-11 spysats aren't public, I can't
verify that).
                               --Geoff Landis

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

Date: 9 Oct 86 20:28:06 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!philabs!nyit!tmg@ll-xn.arpa  (Tom Genereaux)
Subject: Re: JEP on Mars mission
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> The following is an approximate quote from Jerry Pournelle, discussing
> the manned-Mars-mission notion on a panel at the Worldcon:
> 
> 	"It's interesting that this is the first manned spaceflight that
> 	Carl Sagan has ever supported.  The Mars mission would eat up
> 	all manned-spaceflight funding for 30 years.  At the end of it,
> 	we would have no infrastructure, no ongoing program, *nothing*.
> 	Sometimes I think the Mars mission is a hoax put together by
> 	people who don't really want men in space."
>			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

In a current issue of Newsweek, an opinion writer expressed support for
the Mars mission in exactly the same terms that were used to support
Apollo - It's us vs. them.  In the current political atmosphere that
seems to prevail in this country, that is probably the only way the Mars
Mission is going to get funded.  Clearly short-sighted, I would have
hoped that the Apollo program would have served as an object lesson in
how not to have a man in space program.  (Single goal, cost is no
object, no thought as to what we do next)

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

Date: 16 Oct 1986 17:00-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: CFC coming up...

		Attn: Federal Workers and Military Personnel

As many of you may know, the Annual Combined Federal Campaign is now
underway. Those of you who are interested in promoting the American
space program may not know that you are permitted to designate all or
part of your CFC contribution to go to the L5 Society, an organization
that provides opportunities for people to participate in opening the
space frontier. You may do so by listing the name of the L5 Society and
giving the address:

	L5 Society
	1060 East Elm St
	Tucson, AZ 85719

in the space provided on the CFC pledge card. We encourage all Federal
employees to participate in the CFC in some fashion, whether it is for
space or for other good causes.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #25
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16774; Mon, 27 Oct 86 03:02:21 PST
	id AA16774; Mon, 27 Oct 86 03:02:21 PST
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 03:02:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610271102.AA16774@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #26

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 03:02:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #26

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 26

Today's Topics:
			     NASA budget
   Nuclear Fusion Pulse Propulsion Systems -- available literature
		    More on the BIS & how to join
	       Another reason for Martian colonization
	     questions about Challenger commission report
		     new mag - "Commercial Space"
			  Re: Pop-top SRB's
		Chariots for Apollo #5 - Scrape & SWIP
		 Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 16 Oct 86 19:00 EDT
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
Subject:  NASA budget
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Does anyone know how NASA did in the current budget?

       Mark Purtill

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 14:22:57 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Nuclear Fusion Pulse Propulsion Systems -- available literature

Someone asked about source material on Nuclear Fusion Pulse rockets for
interstellar travel.  The best source is the Project Daedalus final
report produced by the British Interplanetary society.  To acquire a
copy write:

               The British Interplanetary Society
               27/29 South Lambeth Road
               Lonon SW8 1SZ, England

Also the Journal of the British Interplanetarey Society (JBIS),
Interstellar Studies (red cover series) often describes this style of
propulsion along with Bussard ram scoop and antimatter propulsion
schemes.  The JBIS is hands down, the best source of information about
the engineering on interstellar travel.  There is also a paper floating
around entitled: "A Laser Fusion Rocket for Interplanetary Propulsion"
by Roderick A. Hyde, 27 Set. 1983 from Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory (Larry Labs), preprint number UCRL-88857.  Roderick Hyde is a
nuclear weapons designer who designs starships when he isn't designing a
bigger and better thermonuclear warhead.  Supposably, most of his major
innovations on starship design are classified (Q-Clearance).  Also
"Astronautica ACTA" will on occasion produce something on interstellar
travel.  The most exciting stuff with respect to interstellar travel is
being done by Sandia National Labs.  Sandia is working on an inertial
confinement scheme based on high energy neutral particle beams rather
than lasers.  This sort of system could easily be adapted into a one
million sec. specific impulse propulsion system.  Word has it that the
Nova, Novette inertial confinement scheme at Larry Labs is a loser and
only good for bomb work.  It'll never be useful for producing electrical
power or propelling a spacecraft.
                                   Gary Allen

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

Date:  Wed, 22-OCT-1986 09:43 CDT
From: <HIGGINS%FNALCDF.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:  More on the BIS & how to join

Gary Allen has already put in a plug for my favorite pro-space group:
the British Interplanetary Society.  Founded in 1933 (Arthur C. Clarke
was an early officer), the BIS has always been a forward-looking outfit.
They published a design for a Moonship in 1939, and a starship (Project
Daedalus) in 1978. I thought I'd give a little more information about
them here.

The BIS promotes interest in space among both amateurs and
professionals. They publish a crackerjack general-interest magazine,
*Spaceflight*, and the more technical *Journal of the British
Interplanetary Society*.  The latter attempts to serve a rather
fractured constituency of interests by devoting a few issues a year to
near-term space projects and proposals, a few to "Interstellar Studies"
(such as SETI and interstellar flight), at least one to the history of
astronautics, and at least one to studies of Soviet spaceflight.  There
are also special one-topic issues; recent ones have included IRAS and
Halley's Comet.

With membership, you can get either magazine.  The other will cost you
thirty-four bucks extra.  If you're only interested in one of its
topics, say interstellar flight, most of the issues of *JBIS* will seem
like wastepaper to you.  I subscribe because I have a broad spectrum of
interests, and I want to know both about extrasolar planets and about
the nutsandbolts of the Giotto probe.  By the way, the *Journal* tends
to give considerable detail about important satellites and planetary
missions long before they're launched.

*Spaceflight* is very good at covering astronautics in general, I would
say better than *Space World*, its nearest American equivalent.
Unfortunately these magazines are hard to find in libraries in this
country-- if you want a look at them, try the technical libraries of a
college with a decent astronomy or engineering department.

Gary Allen made a remark about the BIS being the best of the "activist
groups."  In what sense do you mean "activist," Gary?  Certainly they
work vigorously to create public interest in space, but on the other
hand I'm not aware that they try to influence legislation, as L5 does.
But there are no groups that will keep you as well-informed as the BIS,
and mighty few that have been at it for more than fifty years! (The
space ancestor of the AIAA is three years older.)

The British Interplanetary Society
27/29 South Lambeth Road
London, SW8 1SZ, England

Dues were $36.00 last year; they fluctuate with inflation and the
exchange rate. There are discounts for members younger than 21 and
younger than 18.  (There may also be a premium for joining this year:
one of the books the Society publishes, such as the Daedalus design
report or Bob Parkinson's book of great old R.A. Smith paintings of
space travel, from the 1940's. I'm not sure whether this offer is still
in effect.)

                                Bill Higgins
                                Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                HIGGINS@FNALCDF.BITNET

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

Date: Fri, 17 Oct 86 14:51:49 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Another reason for Martian colonization

Another amusing point about Martian industrialization is that on Mars
"pollution is your friend".  On Earth you want to avoid having factories
spewing out vast volumes of smoke due to problems with the green house
effect, acid rain, etc.  Nuclear energy is generally incompatible with a
living planet because of the ionizing radiation.  However this is not
true with Mars.  Anything that adds pressure to the atmosphere is good
towards terraforming the planet.  With used up nuclear fuel rods, rather
than burying them deep into the earth, one should cut them up into small
hunks and scatter the pieces over the Martian ice caps.  If one could
get enough CO2 into the atmosphere of Mars one could in principle get
the atmospheric pressure above the partial pressure of water.  Once it
was possible to have liquid water on the surface of Mars, one could then
introduce geneticly engineered microorganisms to modify the atmosphere
into something breathable.  This is just one more reason why Mars is
ideal for industrialization.
                Gary Allen

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

Date: 17 Oct 86 06:35:19 GMT
From: karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: questions about Challenger commission report
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I finally got a copy of the Challenger Commission report and have read
most of it. I was most impressed with the overall thoroughness of the
Commission's work and the care with which they avoided jumping to
conclusions.  I do have one question, though.

On page 55, the possibility that a "case membrane failure" was to blame
is discussed: "Fracture mechanics analysis indicates that a hole in the
case larger than one inch would cause the entire case to rupture in a
few milliseconds. This would give rise to the appearance of a large
longitudinal flame, an event that is contrary to the flight films."
Elsewhere, pictures of the recovered right-hand SRB show that the
burn-through in the aft field joint had grown quite large (several feet
in diameter, judging from the photos on pages 78-81) before the booster
was blown up by the range safety officer. My question is, once the joint
burned through, why didn't the entire case quickly rupture, given the
comment on page 55? Is there something different about the behavior of a
hole in the joint versus one between the joints?  I remember that there
was considerable skepticism in the first few days after the accident
about whether the SRBs could be at fault, considering that they flew
away from the explosion more or less intact. Was this just a fluke?

By the way, note what appears to be a grounding strap attached to the
recovered SRB pieces shown in page 80. Was this a safety precaution to
avoid the possibility of igniting any remaining propellant? Having never
actually seen SRB propellant, I don't know if the brown stuff on the
inside of the piece is propellant or case liner. I thought the
propellant was supposed to be "battleship gray" in color, though.

Phil

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

Date: Friday, 17 Oct 1986 14:01:26-PDT
From: redford%seamos.DEC@decwrl.dec.com  (John Redford)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: new mag - "Commercial Space"

I came upon an interesting new magazine in the drugstore the other day:
"Commercial Space - the Magazine of Business in Space".  It's put out
quarterly by McGraw-Hill, and this is already Volume 2, Number 2.  It
had a Special Introductory Newstand Price of $2.95, so it looks like
they're going to promote it.  It's full of advertising from various
aerospace firms, and has articles on:

- Japan's space program
- Promoting cooperation with the Russians on a Mars project
- Finding new fishing grounds with satellites
- Joint efforts between 3M and NASA
- An MIT teleoperator project
- Where to find info on space research
- Globesat's efforts to build small, standard satellites

as well as many others.

I find it all very encouraging.  These are not blue-sky,
let's-get-pig-iron-from-the-asteroids type projects, but things of
economic value TODAY.  There is a lot happening in this field, and a lot
more can be done without mythical advances in technology.  I intend to
subscribe.

John Redford
DEC-Hudson

PS The subscription address is:

Commercial Space
PO Box 1523
Neptune, NJ 07754-1523            (appropriate!)

They want $24.95 for one year, and also want a title, company, and
nature of job for the sake of their advertisers.

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

Date: 16 Oct 86 23:32:30 GMT
From: ihnp4!chinet!john@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Mundt)
Subject: Re: Pop-top SRB's
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

One of the biggest problems early in flight is having enough of a
velocity to make it back to the runway.  If I understand you correctly,
the reverse thrusters would slow things down before the orbiter
detached.  No profit in that.  If the SRB's could be "pop-topped" the
orbiter could then shut down the main engines and release from the ET
while still maintaining as much velocity as possible.

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

Date: 17 Oct 86 13:21:53 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Chariots for Apollo #5 - Scrape & SWIP
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

The lander had gained even more weight during the early months of the
year [1965] than the command and service modules.  In May, Shea
pursuaded Mueller to approve an increase in lander weight to 14,850
kilograms, including crew and equipment.  In June, Harry L. Reynolds
warned Owen Maynard that it would be difficult to keep the spacecraft
below even that figure. ...  Really worried now, Grumman launched a
two-pronged attack known as "Scrape" and "SWIP".  Scrape meant just what
the word implies, searching the structure for every chance to shave bulk
off structural members.  But SWIP (Super Weight Improvement Program) was
Grumman's real war against weight. ...

By the end of 1965, Scrape and SWIP had pruned away 1100 kilograms,
providing a comfortable margin below the control weight limit. One of
the more striking changes to come from this drive for a lighter
spacecraft was the substitution of aluminum-mylar foil thermal blankets
for rigid heatshields.  The gold wrapping characteristic of the lander's
exterior saved 50 kilograms.

Many of these weight-reducing changes made the lander so difficult to
fabricate, so fragile and vulnerable to damage, that it demanded great
care and skill by assembly and checkout technicians.  Structural compo-
nents took on strange and complex shapes, requiring careful machining to
remove any excess metal - a costly and time-comsuming process even after
vendors had been found who would make these odd looking parts.*

* Arnold Whittaker described how the fabrication group was caught in the
squeeze between manufacturing requirements and schedule pressures.  At a
program management meeting he said that "one of the fellows in
manufacturing came in [with] a light cardboard box. . . He said `I'll
show you why everything's late.` And he dumped out a whole box of
machined parts . . , very complex fittings [too thin to be even]
reasonably heavy sheet metal - but it wasn't any sheet metal, it was a
complex machined fitting.  And he said `Man, we never built parts like
this before in any quantity like this and every fitting on the LEM looks
like this.`"

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA
SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0.

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date:     Fri, 17 Oct 86 17:48 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented

The NY Times reported today (10/16) that engineers at Comsat Corp.  have
developed a technique for reducing the fuel consumption of comsats by up
to 90%.  The technique can be applied remotely to satellite already in
orbit.

Currently, on-board thrusters on comsats in GSO are used to counter
perturbations induced by the moon.  These perturbations cause the orbit
to become nonequatorial, moving the satellite's footprint north or
south.  The new technique uses the thrusters to tilt the satellite so
the footprint remains fixed.  The new technique will require changing
the pointing hardware on some ground dishes, since a satellite in a
geosynchronous but nonequatorial orbit will bob up and down once a day.

This technique has not been used before because electronic failure had
been thought to limit satellite lifetime.  Experience has shown,
however, that the electronics is more reliable than was first thought.
It is estimated that this change will double satellite lifetime.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #26
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02649; Tue, 28 Oct 86 03:02:14 PST
	id AA02649; Tue, 28 Oct 86 03:02:14 PST
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 86 03:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610281102.AA02649@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #27

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 86 03:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #27

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 27

Today's Topics:
		    space news from 15 Sept AW&ST
		    space news from 22 Sept AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: mordor!lll-crg!seismo!mnetor!utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from 15 Sept AW&ST
Date: 19 Oct 86 01:31:57 GMT

Spacelab cutbacks result in several hundred layoffs and reassignments;
more are likely to follow.

Former White House science advisor George Keyworth slams National
Commission on Space report as unfocussed and lacking a clear agenda.  He
charges that the commission put too much emphasis on consensus proposals
to do everything, forfeiting its possible impact by asking for too much.
[Personal opinion: I fear he is right.  -- HS]

SDI in-space experiment of Sept 5 was a fairly complete success.
Sensors on the modified Delta second stage (including the first laser
radar flown in space) observed the satellite during deployment and after
some orbit changes.  They also saw the launch of an Aries (which is a
Minuteman second stage) from White Sands.  Finally, the satellite, using
the radar system from a Phoenix long-range air-to-air missile, homed on
and destroyed the second stage; apparently it hit within a foot of the
intended impact point.  Details are classified, but apparently the
sensors generally worked better than expected.

The next SDI launch will be a Delta from KSC scheduled for Nov 1987,
although the schedule depends on SDI's uncertain budget.  This one is
expected to include a relay-mirror experiment to assess the use of
ground-based lasers aimed via orbiting mirrors.  There will be two more
SDI Deltas following that.  Later, larger SDI payloads will be launched
by the Shuttle.  These will include a neutral-particle-beam satellite
for experiments in tracking and discrimination (prime contractor choice
next year, launch maybe 1990), the Space Surveillance and Tracking
Satellite carrying new-technology sensors for in-space tracking and ICBM
detection (launch maybe 1990), and the Boost Surveillance and Tracking
Satellite for experimental tracking of missile plumes lower in the
atmosphere (launch maybe 1991).  All of the dates are subject to change
depending on SDI's near-term budgets.

[Note to those violently opposed to SDI: these items are legitimate
space news, even though they happen to relate to a program you dislike.
-- HS]

As you might expect from the above, the Delta launch on Sept 5 was a
success.  Great care was taken, including referring a doubtful decision
on some missed test procedures all the way up to Fletcher.

On the same day, NASA decided to buy three more Deltas to supplement the
two already in inventory, and may buy yet another.  Current assignments
are:

	Delta 179	GOES-H weather satellite, 20 Nov 1986.
	Delta 182	Palapa comsat for Indonesia, 19 March 1987.
	Delta 181	SDI.  1987.
	Delta 183	SDI.  1988.
	Delta 184	Either SDI or the Cosmic Background Explorer,
			1989.  Explorer launch would be from Vandenberg
			and would require buying Delta 185 for another
			SDI payload.
			
NASA is considering buying an Atlas-Centaur to launch the German Rosat
X-ray sky-survey satellite in late 1989.  Rosat was originally scheduled
to launch last month on shuttle 71O.  Existing Atlas-Centaur schedule
calls for launches Nov 1986, Feb 1987, and May 1987 carrying Navy
comsats.

NASA plans to change Delta storage procedures to keep the first stage in
a controlled temperature/humidity environment.  Second stages are
already stored that way.

Aerojet TechSystems gets a small USAF contract for a low-thrust rocket
system intended for moving large, fragile structures from low orbit to
Clarke orbit.

NASA task force reviewing Space Station design proposes five redesign
options to address problems of cost, excessive EVA requirements for
assembly, and launch constraints.  They are: (1) enlarge the tunnels and
nodes connecting the pressurized modules, using the extra volume to hold
equipment that would otherwise be outside; (2) changes in assembly
sequence; (3) move equipment from the manned station to the unmanned
platforms (this would reduce external equipment on the station and help
with Congressional demands for early science return, but is likely to be
rejected because it doesn't help the transport problems); (4) use of
expendables for assembly and resupply; (5) changes to the polar-orbiting
platform [details unspecified].  This is the preliminary list, with a
definitive list going up to Phillips and Fletcher in mid-Sept.  A quick
decision is expected due to the desire to get things on track again
before Congress recesses.

Texas congressmen happy over a settlement of the Johnson/Marshall
dispute over responsibility for the habitability module.  Johnson
manages, Marshall contractor builds.  If this sounds awfully similar to
what NASA intended to do anyway, and the Texan happiness seems odd to
you, you're right.

DoD is unhappy about vulnerability of its comsats to jamming, with the
"Captain Midnight" commercial-comsat case as an unhappy example.  It
would need better equipment, though.  DSCS and other SHF-band satellites
have antennas capable of nulling out jammers, providing some protection.
The EHF Milstar system scheduled for the 1990s will be quite difficult
(not impossible) to jam.

The military is also unhappy about the increasing use of satellite
imagery, notably from Spot, by the news media.  They don't like
civilians looking over their shoulders, especially when the opposition
might be watching the news too.  They don't have much choice, though.
They expect China and Japan to join France in launching high-resolution
satellites, and also expect a Spot successor with 1-m resolution.

DoD annual launch schedule in the 1990s will probably be four Titan 2s,
five or six Medium Launch Vehicles, and five or six Titan 4s.

NASA Office of Space Science and Applications fingers 8 science
satellites that should be moved to expendables.  Prominently, the Cosmic
Background Explorer should launch in 1989; a NASA official claims that
$45-50M is in the FY1988 budget for a Delta for it (the FY1988 budget
went to the Office of Mismanagement and Bean-counting in September, but
won't be public until January).  The names of the other seven will be
released shortly.  Eight NOAA satellites are also recommended for
transfer to expendables in the report by Burton Edelson, NASA assoc.
admin. for space science.  He says Fletcher supports launching the
Explorer on an expendable, but wants the money to come out of the
science budget.  Edelson says he would do this on a one-time basis to
get a mixed-fleet strategy started, but would need more money to do it
on a continuing basis; historically the science budget buys the
spacecraft, mission operations, and data analysis, while the spaceflight
budget buys the launch.  The report looked at 146 missions and
determined that 126 needed the shuttle.  12 of the remainder should
remain on the shuttle for various reasons, leaving the 8.

Two of the 12 are Galileo and Ulysses; Edelson says that the plan for
launching these with Shuttle/IUS is uncertain, because the shuttle will
have to meet very narrow launch windows [Brief editorial: my, it sure is
knock- the-shuttle time, isn't it?  Shuttle missions have met narrow
windows in the past, and expendables have missed them. -- HS], new
shuttle safety standards may be incompatible with the isotope
generators, and the IUS may not be ready in time.

The 8 NOAA satellites include polar weather satellites and
next-generation GOES satellites.  NOAA has asked the USAF for two Titan
4s for the new GOESs; apparently the USAF sees no problem provided NOAA
can fork over the cash, about $250M each.  [Ah, those cheap expendables!
-- HS]

The mixed-fleet study isn't yet finished; yet to come are cost
comparisons, including the cost of mission delays.  "Delay is not free.
It's costing us $7M a month to delay the Hubble Space Telescope."

Continuing difficulties with scientific access to space are likely for
the next few years.  The plan now is for 63 shuttle flights between now
and 1992, which is 80 fewer than the old plan.  Space science and
applications was expecting 50, and now will have 19 at most.  11
Spacelab missions are being canned, as are many smaller missions like
8-10 Materials Science Labs and a dozen Spartans.  Average delay for
free-flyers is 30 months, for attached payloads 40 or more.

Edelson is urging new starts despite the 51L mess and tight budgets, to
keep the science program alive.  Top priorities are the Global Geospace
Science satellite (part of the International Solar Terrestrial Physics
program) and the High Resolution Solar Observatory (a scaled-down
version of the Solar Optical Telescope), and Edelson wants starts on
both in FY88.  The space-science office has offered to slip the launch
dates of Mars Observer, the Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite, and
the Advanced Communications Technology Satellite in order to get funding
to cover new starts for GGS and HRSO and to pay launch-delay bills.

Senate Appropriations defense subcommittee proposes to put $3G in the
FY87 defence budget to replace Challenger.  Despite the DoD funding,
NASA would operate the new orbiter.  NASA could sign next year to get
contractors going on the replacement, although actual spending would be
delayed.

NASA awards short-term contracts to five firms to study major revisions
to the shuttle SRBs.

Martin Marietta is renovating Cape Canaveral Pad 41 for the Titan 4.
The pad was last used to launch the Voyagers in 1977.

Fletcher says White House needs a permanent space advisory staff, to
make major planning decisions without bureaucratic bickering.  He says
the Senior Interagency Group for Space's decision-making process tends
to focus on interagency turf battles rather than policymaking.
SIG-Space does not have any full-time staff of its own.  In the 60s and
70s, space policy was set by NASA, DoD, and the White House.  Now
Commerce, Transportation, OMB, White House economic-advisory groups,
Reagan's own staff, and yet other peripherally-involved agencies all
make proposals, often without much understanding of the implications.
Fletcher is also unhappy about micro- management by Congress.

Ron McNair's widow has filed suit against Morton Thiokol, charging
negligence resulting in her husband's death.  Specifically, it charges
that the SRB joint design was basically defective, that MT failed to
warn the astronauts about it, and that MT also failed to warn them about
the cold-weather hazard debate the night before the launch.  NASA was
not named in the suit, although McNair and her lawyers have not ruled
out action against NASA.  More suits against MT are expected.  If the
suits reach court, MT is virtually certain to adopt the "government
contractor" defense, citing laws that forbid suing manufacturers over
equipment that was accepted by the government as meeting specs.

Fletcher is starting some internal planning efforts, notably looking at
goals after the Space Station.  Sally Ride will coordinate the results
as an assistant to Fletcher.  Some output is expected by spring.  One
reason to think hard about the next step is that the Soviets may already
have it well underway by the time the Space Station is up.  Fletcher:
"The important thing about Mir is not its size but its multiple docking
ports.  They can put together a space station now not too different from
what we are going to have in 1994.  It is quite clear that by the time
we get through with our space station, they may be on their way to the
next step..."  [Note that Skylab had multiple docking ports, never used.
Sigh.  -- HS]
			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Path: mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from 22 Sept AW&ST
Date: 26 Oct 86 00:54:21 GMT

Federal Express, which has both Ariane and Titan launch reservations
already, will issue a public request for proposals for launch services
in October.  Bidding will be open to all; interest from the Chinese is
expected, also possibly other new suppliers.

NASA is preparing to release new transcripts of prelaunch conversations
among the Challenger crew.  The tape is about an hour long, starting at
the time the crew entered the orbiter.  There are some references to
cold weather, but nothing relevant to the launch decision.  The
recording was not transcribed and released before because it provided no
accident-relevant information, and such conversations are normally
confidential in deference to crew privacy.

NASA space-station management recommends a redesigned station for launch
starting in 1993, focussing initially on a single crossbeam with manned
modules at the center and solar panels on the ends.  Many systems
planned for external mounting on the "dual keel" station will now be
inside enlarged "resource nodes" connecting the manned modules, to
reduce EVA requirements.  Extensive external structure resembling that
of the "dual keel" station might eventually evolve out of the initial
configuration.

The redesign will probably delay attachment of the ESA lab module, and
possibly the Japanese module.  The Canadian servicing facility might
also be affected.  There are few assembly sequences that *don't* delay
arrival of the international components.  The international partners
might get increased privileges in the US module group in compensation,
although doing this could make US users unhappy.  Europe and Japan are
pushing to get their modules up as early as possible.

The redesign endorsed a crew escape module as desirable, but didn't make
it a formal part of the configuration.  The intent here is probably an
attempt to separate the expensive escape module from the already-tight
budget.

The redesign will have a useful man-tended capability by the fifth
assembly flight (early 1994?) and will be permanently manned by the
seventh or eighth (mid 1994?).  Full assembly of the previous
configuration could have taken 31 launches over eight years.

The key changes that Fletcher might adopt are:

- Revision of assembly sequence to defer EVA until later missions.

- Change from the dual-keel configuration to the single-boom
configuration, at least for the first three years of operations.
Automatic deployment of the trusswork by robots is suggested as
preferable to astronaut assembly.  The transverse boom may have
disadvantages, such as pointing constraints for instruments.

- Shortening of the pressurized modules to fit them better to reduced
shuttle lift limits.

- Emphasis on deployed rather than assembled utilities, again to reduce
EVA.

- Use of expendables during assembly.  This would probably require an
automated rendezvous and docking system, such as the Soviets have.  The
polar platform may also need redesign to fly on the Titan 4, if there
won't be any polar Shuttle launches for a while.

- Basing the Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle in space during assembly, to
give more payload on shuttle flights.  The OMV could also provide
stationkeeping and reboost during early assembly, before the station can
do these for itself.

The review group found that shuttle launch rates will be a problem,
given that there will still be a backlog of missions from the launch
hiatus.  A four-orbiter fleet is considered marginal in the
circumstances.

Atlas E successfully launches NOAA weather satellite from Vandenberg
Sept 17, first successful US civilian satellite launch since shuttle 61C
on Jan 12.  The satellite, NOAA-10, replaces the aging NOAA-6, which was
called back into service after NOAA-8 failed in orbit late last year.
It also restores Sarsat capability that was lost when NOAA-8 failed;
NOAA-6 was too old to have the search-and-rescue package.  Launch was
trouble-free when it finally went off.  It had been delayed a total of
about a year due to scheduling conflicts and problems with both
satellite and booster.  12 Atlas E's remain in inventory, assigned to
military and civilian weather satellites through about 1990.  NOAA is
concerned, however, that the USAF may stop using the Atlas E, putting
all the overhead costs in NOAA's lap.  NOAA is studying the cost of
launching its satellites on Titan 2, just in case.

New report on problems of radioactive space debris calls it a serious
problem.  There are about 50 reactors and isotope generators now in
orbit, mostly from the Soviet military radar satellites.  The Teledyne
Brown report also says there is cause to worry about the possibility of
one of those satellites being fragmented by a debris collision; most of
them are in high-traffic orbital regions.  The Soviets did speculate
that the Cosmos 954 incident might have involved a debris collision.
Another ominous item is that the only US reactor in orbit, the
experimental SNAP-10A launched in 1965, has spawned pieces of debris on
at least six occasions in the last seven years; nobody knows what the
debris is or why it's being released.  Launch failures are also a
concern.  The US has had two isotope generators go into the ocean after
launch failures, one later recovered intact and the other believed to
have survived intact.  The Soviets have dropped two radar- satellite
reactors into the Pacific from launch failures, also a Lunokhod with an
isotope heat source.

NASA delays rollout of Atlantis for weather-protection tests two weeks
to Oct 7.  This will be the first time a shuttle has been rolled out
since 51L, and probably the last until launches resume.  The main
purpose is to check new weather-protection shields on Pad 39B.  NASA
also is taking advantage of the only time it will have a shuttle on the
pad any time soon to run assorted other tests of pad procedures and
facilities.  The delay is because a jammed payload-changeout-room door
must be repaired if some of the auxiliary tests are to be run, and
because wind instrumentation for a hydrogen-trapping test must be in
place before Atlantis returns to the VAB if that test is to be run.  The
door repair is taking longer than expected, and the wind-measuring gear
won't be ready until mid-November.  Among the auxiliary tests are a
crew-escape simulation, to evaluate the escape procedures and train
support crews on them.

Doubts are being expressed that the shuttle will be ready to go in the
first quarter of 1988.  Testing and verification of the booster redesign
is a problem area, although Truly says that the worst part of clearing
the shuttle to fly again is the huge task of reviewing all the flight-
critical items from scratch.  One thing that would necessarily involve a
major delay would be a vertical test firing of a full SRB.  At the
moment all full tests are to be horizontal, although there has been a
strong recommendation for a new test stand at Morton Thiokol to permit
testing under dynamic loads that the current stand can't provide.

[Editorial for the week: I support the recommendation in "America: A
Spacefaring Nation Again" that military shuttle launches using volunteer
military crews should resume *immediately*, to meet immediate needs and
keep the launch crews in practice.  -- HS]

House adopted and sent to the Senate an Administration-backed bill which
extends US patent law to cover space activities about US space vehicles;
essentially it makes a US space vehicle part of the US for patent
purposes.  Senate action this year is unlikely due to lack of time.

Intelsat buys another Ariane for the third Intelsat 6, formerly
contracted for the Shuttle.  The first and second Intelsat 6's have
already made the switch.

Intelsat plans to self-insure launch of the first two Intelsat 6
comsats, and has cancelled partial launch insurance already obtained.
Full coverage for $200M satellites was unobtainable, and the premiums
for partial coverage were approaching the value of the coverage itself.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #27
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05851; Wed, 29 Oct 86 03:02:19 PST
	id AA05851; Wed, 29 Oct 86 03:02:19 PST
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 86 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610291102.AA05851@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #28

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 86 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #28

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 28

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented
	       Re: Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented
	   How dense is the interstellar gas near the sun?
		    Welcome policy changes for STS
	     Re: Another reason for Martian colonization
	     Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
	 Pollution in space (was Re: Response to Globus ...)
			   Re: Moon Treaty
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Oct 86 23:53:43 GMT
From: ka9q!karn@petrus.arpa  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> The NY Times reported today (10/16) that engineers at Comsat Corp.
> have developed a technique for reducing the fuel consumption
> of comsats by up to 90%.  The technique can be applied remotely to
> satellite already in orbit.

I'm puzzled by this move on the part of Comsat. It has been well known
for many, many years that North/South stationkeeping is much more
expensive in terms of fuel consumption than East/West stationkeeping,
and that a satellite that foregoes N/S thrusting will describe a "figure
8" orbit whose inclination varies cyclically with time due to lunar and
solar perturbations.  However, they're claiming that this is a new,
novel and PATENTABLE idea. I hope there's something more to it than I've
heard so far, since AMSAT has been saying (in print) for several years
now that we would only do E/W stationkeeping on our Phase 4 amateur
birds in order to minimize hydrazine requirements.

The only problem I can see with this technique is how they are going to
keep the antenna footprint in a fixed position given a spinning
spacecraft.  I guess they could reorient the spin axis so that it's
always normal to the orbit plane. This would cause a 24-hour cycle in
which the footprint would "rotate" at the equator crossings.  With a
three-axis stabilized (i.e., non-rotating) spacecraft, however, this
could be avoided.

Phil

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

Date: 21 Oct 86 04:42:22 GMT
From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch)
Subject: Re: Comsat fuel saving maneuver invented
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

This is also good for HBO et. al., since home dishes are too simple to
modify for the figure 8 tracking that would be required...  All that
could be hoped for is that the focus might be made sloppy enough to keep
the satellite in view, at the expense of gain.

-David B. (Ben) Burch
 Analysts International Corp.
 Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)

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

Date:     Sat, 18 Oct 86 14:24 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:  How dense is the interstellar gas near the sun?

Additional comments on "bootstrap starship"...

For all of those who asked "Where does the energy come from?", the
answer is: from the reaction mass.  Initially the reaction mass and
spaceship are comoving, but when one dumps the reaction mass so it is
stationary.  Its kinetic energy stays with the ship.  The background gas
is not an energy source, it's a momentum sink.

It was commented that, even at .1 c, the power density of the
interstellar gas is low.  Quite right; I said that in the first message.
A very large, thin collector is needed; one also needs a long
acceleration path (light years long).

The biggest problem with my first scheme was the need to ionize the gas
by impact with a foil.  Sputtering could destroy the foil too quickly
for it to be useful.  Is this necessary?

It has recently been suggested (Bertaux et. al., Astron. Astrophys.
150(1), 1985; Reynolds, Astron. J. 92(3), 1986) that the local
interstellar gas is substantially ionized.  Estimates of density based
on Lyman backscattering by neutral hydrogen may therefore be too low.
Bertaux et. al. conclude that in the immediate solar neighbor
interstellar neutral hydrogen and helium concentrations are .03 - .06
cm**-3 and .015 - .020 cm**-3, respectively.  The ratio of neutral
hydrogen to helium is substantially below the "cosmic" ratio, suggesting
that substantial amounts of the hydrogen have been ionized.  These
figures imply that from 60 to 85% of interstellar hydrogen in the solar
neighborhood is ionized (perhaps more if helium is also substantially
ionized).  In this model, the local hydrogen density is 0.2 cm**-3.

Ionized gas is a *lot* easier to couple to than neutral gas.  The heavy
foil I suggested for the first version could be replaced by some scheme
using very sparse charged grids, or perhaps by superconducting cables
coupling to magnetic fields embedded in the interstellar plasma.  Such
collectors would be mostly empty space.

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

Date: 1986 October 19 17:41:15 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Welcome policy changes for STS

HS> Date: 7 Oct 86 22:21:41 GMT
HS> From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@caip.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
HS> Subject: space news from Sept 1 AW&ST

HS> ... and a general policy of trying to maintain both the Shuttle and
HS> expendables, and trying to make critical payloads compatible with
HS> both.

My personal opinion is they should have done that all along and I
applaud the change in policy at this time.

HS> First test of SRB joints using a new test rig at Morton Thiokol.
HS> The test setup is essentially a shortened SRB built out of fewer
HS> segments.  Initial tests will use the old joint design for
HS> calibration, then new features will be tested.

Testing vertically but with fewer segments sounds like a reasonable
compromise. Calibrating on old design first then comparing with new
design sounds like good procedure and I applaud the decision.

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

Date: 19 Oct 86 21:03:59 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Another reason for Martian colonization
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <8610171353.AA05955@s1-b.arpa> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>Another amusing point about Martian industrialization is that on Mars
>"pollution is your friend". ...
>                Gary Allen

Hmm.  By the time all this industrial pollution has created a breathable
atmosphere, I guess the plutonium would have decayed to safe levels! :-)

1.  If you want to terraform Mars, it is easier to just throw a few
    large pieces of rock or ice at the polar caps.  That will vaporize
    the CO2 faster than just about anything else.
    
2.  If noone in net.space has yet come up with a good reason to
    industrialize LEO or the Moon, what makes you think that putting
    industry on Mars will be make any more economic sense, especially
    given the vastly greater distance?
    
    Personal opinion time : I can't see any valid reason to go to Mars
    other than as another Apollo-type 'publicity stunt'.  Hold off on
    the flame-throwers, for a minute : I think the Apollo program was
    great, but I can see a lot more reasons for investing the money in
    Earth-Moon space than in a one-shot mission to Mars, even though it
    may be much more glamorous.
    
Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

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

Date: 19 Oct 86 22:00:09 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Response to Globus on L5 society & Mars
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <211@apple.uucp> Michael Smith writes :

>>>   3.  From what we know of the history and geology of the Moon, we
>>>   can expect rich ore bodies to be much less common there than on
>>>   Earth.
>>Sure, but so what?  The energy to smelt the stuff is free, and the
>>supply of raw materials is basically limitless.  Who cares if your
>>efficiency is only 10%?
>Sorry, but nothin's for free.  Sunlight on the earth surface is 'free'
>too, but the structure to recover it costs.  The energy density per
>square metre may be greater in space, but the recovery devices cost
>plenty.

I guess the point here is : do the recovery devices cost more than
shipping the stuff from Earth would?  Once you reach a certain capacity,
the answer is no.  Given current costs to even *orbit* material, it will
probably be economic to send a simple manufacturing facility quite early
in any serious industrialization attempt, rather than shipping
construction materials from Earth.

>As to limitless supplies...  ever hear of transportation costs?  We
>have lots of ore on earth that is 'basically limitless'.  One small
>problem, you have to dig it up and move it some where.  Both operations
>take capital.

Yes, you have to dig it out of ore veins and ship it to a smelter.  But
on the Moon there probably *aren't* any ore veins like we find on Earth,
any refining activities will just use lunar regolith.  You can put the
smelters and whatever anyplace you like : you basically don't have
transportation costs for raw materials because they're right in your
backyard.  The result is that *you don't have any mining or
transportation costs* other than the cost of a few vacuum-operable
front-end loaders.

This is about the same if you do your processing in space and launch the
raw materials using a mass driver.  Once that thing is built, you just
dig up a convenient area of the lunar surface.  Remember : on the moon
and in space you don't have to worry about land rights, access to
transportation or water, pollution requirements, and all the constraints
that on Earth determine where the most profitable place for a factory is
going to be, or if that facility is going to be built at all, or if some
ore body is worth mining.

>The real question is: Given the greater energy available in space and
>the particular transportation costs on the lunar surface; is it
>cheaper/better to make products there rather than here?

I guess it depends on the product.  Simple construction materials, yes.
Jet engines, no.
 
>E. Michael Smith  ...!sun!apple!ems

What's really needed is a lunar Landsat to survey the geological and
chemical properties of the Moon and answer some of these questions.  I
remember reading that the Russians have one on the drawing boards for
launch in the mid 1990's, and that NASA has (had?) plans for one,
unfortunatly about number 35 on their list of "Missions We Would Like To
Do If We Had The Money".

Andrew Folkins        ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

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

Date: 21 Oct 86 13:34:04 GMT
From: decvax!wanginst!infinet!barnes@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Barnes)
Subject: Pollution in space (was Re: Response to Globus ...)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

This comment about "land rights, ..., pollution requirements, ..."
sounds suspiciously similar to the strategy used in the late 1800s as
industry was expanding in the western United States.  No one minded if
the forests were cut down, the rivers polluted, etc. because no one
lived there (forgetting the Indians for a minute).  Lots of damage was
done to the environment that will take a long time to repair.  I would
hate to see us doing the same thing to the environments on other worlds
as we expand out into space.

{harvard,decvax}!wanginst!infinet!barnes	Jim Barnes

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

Date: 20 Oct 1986 20:19-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Moon Treaty

Approximately correct. The US State Department wrote the thing I
believe, as a bone to throw to 3rd world countries. In their short
sighted minds they weren't giving away anything useful.

There was little or no support one way or the other in congress as I
understand.

The L5 Society put everything it had into hiring Leigh Retiener
(Spelling of name is very approximate: it's been quite a few years) and
practically put itself in the poor house for years afterwards fighting
it. DC has a short memory, but we were the ones to kill it. Considering
our resources at the time, we succeeded mainly because nobody was
backing it except State, and State doesn't elect people. Most
congressmen hadn't even thought about it until the implications were
pointed out to them.

Considering where we were at back then, it is really amazing what can
happen when a gnat lands on one side or the other of a precariously
balanced rock...

The treaty is not ENTIRELY bad. But there are clauses which could lead
to an international agency with regulatory and taxing powers over space
industry, taxing power and a decidely non-capitalist outlook. Even with
the existing treaties, property rights can't really exist as we know
them on any existing bodies. There can be no national soveriegnity over
territory although there is required to be national responsibility anb
liability over any territory being used.  Property rights can only exist
in a rather unacceptably weak sense that many other countries have: the
ruling body OWNS everything, and deeds and such are more a tenantship
than an ownership document, even though they can be sold and otherwise
transferred, within heavily regulated bounds. Remember that under US
law, the government does not pretend to own nor does it have much
control over the land within our borders, although our lowlife judges
have interpreted away a great deal of the absolutist property right
intentions of the nations founders.

I think if such a treaty came around that had protections for individual
property on the lines of what we are used to having in a free country,
L5 would probably not complain so heartily.

We want to go out in space to be free peoples, NOT to be slaves to an
absentee landlord. Particularly a landlord who happens to be under the
control of a conglomeration of third world dictators.

Such a set up would eventually (100,200, 300 years?) lead to a bloody
revolt and (depending on the response of the ruling agency) lead to an
ugly schism in humanity. And before you pooh pooh the idea, consider
what such a UN agency would be like after 300 years of building an
international, diplomatically 'balanced' bureaucracy. One that has taxed
all space development for 300 years. Think of the vested interests it
would have in keeping the colonists under control. Probably as bad or
worse in effects than the Navigation laws of England, and existing for
pretty much the same reason: soak the colonists to make the homeland
rich.  There are more people and there is more money there, so the
existing interests will control what the colonists could mine, grow,
build, sell, what they can sell it for, who they can sell it to, how
much they can sell it for. After all, we don't want some small Platinum
exporting nation to have to compete with a cheaper source, now do we?

If we truly want a future of peace, we should be ready to let people go
and live their lives as they see fit. If you enslave them, they will
eventually learn to hate you. Then they will kill you.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #28
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11134; Thu, 30 Oct 86 03:02:15 PST
	id AA11134; Thu, 30 Oct 86 03:02:15 PST
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 03:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610301102.AA11134@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #29

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 29

Today's Topics:
			    HOTOL request
	      Finding a good Lagrange-points derivation
		      Are powersats impractical?
			Re: Space colonies...
	   Ganymede also crazy-quilt that has settled more?
       down a drain, or investment in future? Space is latter.
			    Dumb Question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Mon, 20-OCT-1986 23:16 EDT
From: MICHAEL R. WADE( GIPSY MANAGER )
  <WADE%VTCS1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <space@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:  HOTOL request

I would like to find out more information about the HOTOL concept and
the various designs that are being considered.  If someone could direct
me to the proper sources it would be greatly appreciated.  Replies
through normal mail would probably be appreciated by the space digest
readers.

                Thanks, Michael Wade
                        Spatial Data Analysis Lab
                        Replies to : WADE@VTSDA

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

Date:  Tue, 21-OCT-1986 10:29 CDT
From: <HIGGINS%FNALCDF.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:  Finding a good Lagrange-points derivation

A couple of requests recently have dealt with understanding the nature
of Lagrange's equilibrium points.  The most lucid mathematical
derivation I've found is in:

Jerry B. Marion, *Classical Dynamics of Particles and Systems*, second
edition, Academic Press, New York, 1970, pages 278-285.  Section 8.12,
"The Problem of Three Bodies."

This is an undergraduate mechanics text, and no math fancier than basic
calculus and vector algebra is used in the derivation. Marion gives
references on page 285 so you can explore further if you like.  Symon's
*Mechanics* goes into more detail on stability, but uses daunting math.
Dave Newkirk published some references the other day, but they didn't
look like they were intended for the beginner.

				Bill Higgins
				Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
				HIGGINS@FNALCDF.BITNET

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

Date:     Mon, 20 Oct 86 19:31 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Are powersats impractical?

Gary Allen recently disparaged the powersat idea.  Taking Gary's word
that microwave power-beaming powersats are infeasible, I wondered if
other schemes for orbital solar power are possible.  If so, Gary's
objections to microwave powersats are not arguments against space
settlements.

There's an obvious solar power scheme that is, in many ways, superior to
conventional powersats.  It's the Soletta idea: place large numbers of
mirrors in orbit to focus light onto ground based collectors.  The
drawback to the scheme is that the finite angular size of the sun makes
the reflected footprint on the Earth rather large.

The sun is about .5 degrees across, as seen from Earth.  A mirror at an
altitude of 5000 kilometers will reflect a spot 43 kilometers across.
The spot will in fact be somewhat larger, since the slant range will
often be higher as the mirrors move, and the ground will be tilted
relative to the beam, causing the spot to be elliptical.

Let's say the spot is 60 km across.  To get 1 sun of intensity in the
spot will require 2800 km**2 of mirrors in space.  If those mirrors are
made of 1 micron aluminum foil the total mass (of the reflecting foil)
is about 8000 tons.  Since the mirrors will often be below the horizon
from the receiver, this figure should be divided by some duty factor
(say .05); however, mirrors can be timeshared between geographically
dispersed receivers.  (Interesting problem: how best to space the
receivers, given that they should be far apart, yet should also be in
dry areas?)

I said 1 micron aluminum; it may be possible to build even thinner foil.
Aluminum remains fairly reflective down to a few tens of nanometers.
Some coating may be needed to protect against the solar wind, though.
Also, considerable mass will be needed for a supporting framework,
control electronics, attitude control flywheels and communications gear.

How much energy can we get from these mirrors?  Over three terawatts of
light passes through a 60 km circle at Earth.  If I assume 10%
efficiency for converting this to electricity, we get 300 gigawatts of
electricity.  Often the mirrors will not be head-on to the sun, so some
energy is lost, but the collectors will also get direct sunlight during
the day, which should help compensate.  At midnight mirrors directly
overhead will be eclipsed, but at that time power load should be reduced
anyway.

The scheme has some big advantages: inefficiency and complexity of
microwave transmission goes away, mass that must be placed in orbit per
unit power output is much lower (perhaps 10 to 100x times less mass per
unit power than conventional powersats, assuming many receivng sites),
solar cells are on the ground where they're cheaper and safer.

Disadvantages: does not scale down well, light pressure must be
compensated for, *lots* of mirrors are needed, atmospheric absorption
(build in deserts), astronomy is ruined, local heating.  Also, I assume
solar cells are cheap enough to make this fly; they currently are not
(quite).  One may want to focus more than 1 sun of light on the
collector; perhaps mirrors that reflect in only some wavelength bands
could reduce local heating.

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

Date: 20 Oct 86 18:01:34 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space colonies...
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...  The main problem with totally contructed colonies in space is
> radiation shielding...  The shielding required for a libration point
> colony is on the order of 30 megatons of lunar stone.  When I read
> that number I knew it was all over for this approach...

Why?  Nobody is proposing launching that much lunar rock with rockets!
Given an operational lunar mass-driver, or access to asteroidal rock,
sheer mass is just an annoying handling problem.

> The second order difficulty is that human beings require gravity for
> their bodies to stay healthy.  No problem, you just spin the colony...
> However then the spinning section has to be mounted on bearings that
> will pass all colony life support...

Why is this a problem?  If the life support is from external
greenhouses, they can spin too.  There is no need to have a rotating
joint in the pressure seal.  Only part of the spinning section is within
the shield.

> The bearings would have to be able to withstand megatons of force and
> be 100% reliable for a design life of a century.  As an engineer, I
> find this approach utterly absurd.

If you assume those are the specs, of course they are absurd.  What you
haven't justified is your specs.  Why do the bearings have to withstand
megatons of force?  This is free fall -- where are those forces coming
from?  There are forces involved, but they don't reach that order of
magnitude that I'm aware of.  And note that there is no requirement for
bearings to be 100% reliable *without maintenance*.  The requirement is
that (a) the bearings not be subject to catastrophic failure, so that
any problems which do arise can be fixed, and that (b) the bearings be
repairable without need for stopping the spin.  While this is not a
trivial design problem, it is not a priori impossible.  For machinery to
run unmaintained for a century is remarkable; for it to run for a
century given regular maintenance is not at all unprecedented.

> In contrast, here is how you make a life support cavity on the moon.
> ...  You blow a big cavity in the lunar or martian crust.  There would
> be a certain amount of cave in that would cover the stone that was
> activated by the explosion...

My understanding is that the cavities from underground nuclear
explosions usually collapse completely.  Remember, we probably are
talking about cavities in regolith, not solid rock.

> ... This approach would use old, tried and true technology already
> developed for testing nuclear weapons...

I would hardly call construction within a nuclear-bomb cavity "tried and
true" technology.  Making a (usually temporary) cavity is tried and
true; the rest is speculative.

> It could be used not only on the
> moon and Mars but also for hollowing out asteroids...

Personally, I would worry about the tensile strength of the asteroid.

> I should also mention that Mars is more appropriate for colonization
> than the moon.  The moon is almost devoid of nitrogen... Mars has
> **all** of the elements necessary for life and is rich in metals...

Unproven.  We have much more knowledge of surface geology of the Moon
than of Mars, and we don't really know very much about the availability
of materials even on the moon.  Personally, I tend to agree that if you
must colonize something at the bottom of a deep gravity well, and if you
ignore the problems of the much longer supply line from Earth, then Mars
is a better choice.  The availability of nitrogen is certainly much
better, ditto hydrogen (at least near the North polar cap), but the
place does have some disadvantages too.

> ... The Powersat idea has repeatedly been shot down in various energy
> studies...

Not the ones that have taken them seriously, especially with use of non-
terrestrial materials in mind.  As I recall, the infamous DOE study that
pretty much ended official interest in powersats is now openly admitted
to have made no attempt to properly study extraterrestrial materials.

> ... Besides Powersats are very hostile to the environment.  The
> microwaves would do injury to the ozone layer and side lobes from the
> main beam would play havoc with communications and health...

Can you cite a reference for the ozone-layer problem?  This is the first
I've heard of that one.  There was some concern, still present to some
degree, about possible effects on the ionosphere, but the ozone layer
has never been an issue that I know of.  Explain or cite references,
please.

The main beam from a powersat damn near wouldn't have side lobes, given
the sheer size of the transmitting antenna.  In any case, this issue has
not been ignored.  Microwave exposure outside the rectenna area would be
far below *all* existing exposure standards (including the Soviet ones),
last I heard.  Some attention to communications systems would be needed,
but the matter was looked at and does not appear too troublesome.
Again, can you cite references (technical, not propaganda) for your
assertions?

Personally, I agree that the economics of powersats are unproven, but
the word is "unproven", not "ridiculous".
			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 1986 October 22 22:45:45 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Ganymede also crazy-quilt that has settled more?

From recent Nova episode on Voyager/Uranus, I believe that the prevaling
theory of Miranda is that it was blown apart by some large collision and
then the pieces recollected and partly melted. Where heavy pieces ended
up in the center before the planet solidified, nothing subsequent
happened because it was at equilibrium, but where heavy pieces remained
near the surface during solidification those pieces later miagrated
towards the center, displacing lighter material which flowed to the
surface but cooled too quickly to damp out ripples (groves) and other
evidence of the geologic activity. Thus we see radically different
surface features depending on whether recent activity occurred or didn't
occur.

Based on that, I have a theory as to the surface terrain of Ganymede.
Perhaps Ganymede suffered a similar fate, except Ganymede is larger and
warmer so its more intense gravity pulled things toward equilibrium
faster and its higher temperature kept it liquid longer relative to the
resettling time of the chunks of rock and ice. When Ganymede finally
froze, virtually all of the settling back to equilibrium was finished,
leaving only some minor resettling to create the grooved terrain we
observed. Callisto was lucky, not suffering such a disaster, although
some of its large craters may have been caused by pieces from Ganymede
that strayed too far out from Ganymede's orbit at the wrong time. Europa
and Io of course have been so throughally melted recently to hide any
evidence of their early fate.

P.s. except for Titan and Miranda, the moons of Saturn and Uranus look
remarkably similar. All (except those two) are super-cold very-frozen
white-ice bodies which have frozen into them varying amounts of (1)
craters, (2) geologic faults, and (3) colored/bright/dark material
strewed across the surface. I predict the moons of Neptune will be
similar except Triton and perhaps one of the mid-size moons that may be
like Miranda.  (Somebody, please archive this prediction and pull it out
just before Voyager/Neptune in 1989?) By contrast, the moons of Jupiter
are much warmer, ranging from green slightly-frozen ice, or ice over
green water, to even warmer stuff.

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

Date: 1986 October 23 23:50:53 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh@caip.rutgers.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: down a drain, or investment in future? Space is latter.

nrh> Date: 6 Oct 86 05:06:00 GMT
nrh> From: pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh@caip.rutgers.edu

nrh> ... What is important is that each shuttle flight represents a loss
nrh> to the taxpayers of something like $100 million.

I have two rebuttals, one already stated by somebody else and one new:

(1) Most of the money goes to employees within our own nation,
recirculating into the tax base, only a small part for exotic materials
or foreign employees leaves our economy. -- What really happens is that
money is diverted from other employees to these aerospace employees. If
these aerospace employees would otherwise be wasting their college
education and years of expertise working at a hamburger stand, hiring
them to run the shuttle would be beneficial even if the shuttle were
virtually worthless, which it isn't. If these aerospace employees would
otherwise be building a private launch facility, then we have a major
decision to resolve, is the diversion worth it??

(2) We aren't throwing the money away into a business that is failing.
We are conducting basic research in operations in space. We are
investing in the future, not blowing it on a poor choice of the present.
Every company must invest in unproven methods in order to have something
new, better then the competitors, in the future to turn into a
profit-making activity. The question is what fraction of profit to pay
to stockholders and what fraction to invest in the future of the
company. Our nation must do the same, and in addition being a major
nation in the world must consider investments which help the human race
at large rather than the United States alone.

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

Date: 23 Oct 86 00:15:40 GMT
From: shawn@mit-eddie.arpa  (Shawn F. Mckay)
Subject: Dumb Question
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I know I'm letting myself in for it with this question, but here
goes...

"Where would one find a forum on UFO sightings, speculation, and
 more speculation."?

I'm looking for a group with a serious interest in these events,
and would love a pointer if there is such a group, somehow I doubt
I'm the only nut roaming around with a serious curiosity in them.

			Thanks for the help,
			  -- Shawn

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #29
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15673; Fri, 31 Oct 86 03:02:24 PST
	id AA15673; Fri, 31 Oct 86 03:02:24 PST
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 86 03:02:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8610311102.AA15673@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #30

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 31 Oct 86 03:02:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #30

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 30

Today's Topics:
	   Chariots for Apollo #6 - Stalked by the Spectre
	     Another (quick) satellite launch capability
       Re: Pollution in space (was Re: Response to Globus ...)
    An analysis of vacuum filled lighter-than-air metal structures
			    Fusion Rockets
			   Space Telescope
			    Stars program
		       Re: Re: Space Telescope
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Oct 86 22:20:46 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Chariots for Apollo #6 - Stalked by the Spectre
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


	At 6:31 a cry came over the radio circuit from inside the
capsule: "There is a fire in here."

	Stunned, pad leader Babbitt looked up from his desk and shouted
to Gleaves: "Get them out of there!"  As Babbitt spun to reach a squawk
box to notify the blockhouse, a sheet of flame flashed from the
spacecraft.  Then he was hurtled toward the door by a concussion.  In an
instant of terror, Babbitt, Gleaves, Reece and Clemmons fled.  In
seconds they rushed back, and Reece and Clemmons seached the area for
gas masks and fire extinguishers to fight little patches of flame.  All
four men, choking and gasping in dense smoke, ran in and out of the
enclosure, attempting to remove the spacecraft's hatches.
	Meanwhile, Propst' television picture showed a bright glow
inside the spacecraft, followed by flames flaring around the window.
For about three minutes, he recalled, the flames increased steadily.
Before the room housing the spacecraft filled with smoke, Propst watched
with horror as silver-clad arms behind the window fumbled for the hatch.
"Blow the hatch, why don't they blow the hatch?"  he cried.  He did not
know until later that the hatch could not be opened explosively.
Elsewhere, Slayton and Roosa watched a television monitor, aghast, as
smoke and fire billowed up.  Roosa tried and tried to break the
communications barrier with the spacecraft, and Slayton shouted
furiously for the two physicians in the blockhouse to hurry to the pad.
	In the clean room, despite the intense heat, Babbit, Gleaves,
Reece, Hawkins and Clemmons, now joined by Rogers, continued to fight
the flames.  From time to time, one or another would have to leave to
gasp for air.  One by one, they removed the booster cover cap and the
outer and inner hatches - prying out the last one five and a half
minutes after the alarm first sounded.  By now, several more workers had
joined the rescue attempt.  At first, no one could see the astronauts
through the smoke, only feel them.  There were no signs of life.  By the
time the firemen arrived five minutes later, the air had cleared enough
to disclose the bodies.  Chaffe was still strapped in his couch, but
Grissom and White were so intertwined below the hatch sill it was hard
to tell which was which.  ...
	After the autopsies were finished, the coroner reported that the
deaths were accidental, resulting from asphyxiation caused by the
inhalation of toxic gases.  The crew did have second and third degree
burns, but these were not severe enough to have caused the deaths.  ...
	NASA had always feared that, in manned space flight, danger to
pilots could increase with each succeeding program. ... Man was
fallible; and a host of editorial cartoons reiterated this axiom for
several months after the fire.  One, by Paul Conrad in the Los Angeles
Times, showed the spectre of death clothed in a spacesuit holding a
Mercury spacecraft in one hand, a Gemini in the other, and with the
smouldering Apollo in the background.  It was captioned, "I thought you
knew, I've been aboard on every flight."

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA
SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: 24 Oct 86 03:06:45 GMT
From: adelie!axiom!linus!alliant!gottlieb@ll-xn.arpa  (Bob Gottlieb)
Subject: Another (quick) satellite launch capability
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

With all this talk about no expendable boosters around to put satellites
into orbit, I was thinking: what about the (remaining) Titan II missiles
used by the USAF as ICBMS in silos in Arkansas?  They are being
decommissioned - there have been several failures due to leaks causing
fires, explosions, etc. So why not use the ones remaining?

Pros:

o	The missiles take 1/2 hour to fuel, so their military usefulness
	is limited at best (first strike, anyone?)
	
o	They don't have to be moved; just remove the warhead bus and
	replace with a satellite & shroud & ... (I didn't say this was
	free or even cheap; just available soon)
	
Cons:

o	Are they reliable enough to use as satellite launchers?

o	Would the Soviets be nervious if they saw a (single) launch of a
	Titan II into circum-polar orbit? [i.e., would they think it's a
	pin-down strike?]
	
o	Military: We can't spare a single missile.

Unknowns:

o	Cargo weight of a Titan II to LEO? to GSO?

o	Time to build a housing for a satellite for the Titan II?


Anyway, if anyone knows more about this than I (That is to say, any real
facts), I would be curious about this.

						-- Bob Gottlieb

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

Date: 23 Oct 86 00:22:57 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!cadomin!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Pollution in space (was Re: Response to Globus ...)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <410@infinet.UUCP> barnes@infinet.UUCP (Jim Barnes) writes:
[ responding to a comment of mine about lunar industrialization . . . ]
>
>This comment about "land rights, ..., pollution requirements, ..."
>sounds suspiciously similar to the strategy used in the late 1800s as
>industry was expanding in the western United States.  No one minded if
>the forests were cut down, the rivers polluted, etc. because no one
>lived there (forgetting the Indians for a minute).  Lots of damage was
>done to the environment that will take a long time to repair.  I would
>hate to see us doing the same thing to the environments on other worlds
>as we expand out into space.

Yes, maybe it does sound the same, but, last I heard, there *are* no
*ecological* environments on any other planets for us to damage. I
really don't see how you can get upset about strip mining the Moon,
which has been dead in just about every sense of the word for the last
two billion years.  I understand your point of view, and I agree with it
here on Earth, but the Moon?

Where's my "Save the Craters" button when I really need it?

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

Date: Fri, 24 Oct 86 12:30:43 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: An analysis of vacuum filled lighter-than-air metal structures

I have been observing the debate between Robert Maas and John Hogg with
growing irritation.  Maas proposed the idea of lighter-than-air vacuum
filled metal structures while John has been trying to argue against this
odd notion.  One is reminded of the old saying that, "one should never
argue with a fool because others might be unable to tell the
difference".  However I believe that pseudo-scientific arguments should
be slapped down forcefully.  The notion of lighter-than-air metals based
on a vacuum containing structure can be rigorously disproven.  The
geometry that can best withstand compression is a sphere.  If a hollow
sphere will collapse under pressure then all other hollow geometries
will also fail.  The equation for the classical buckling pressure of a
sphere can be found in the "Handbook of Engineering Mechanics" by W.
Fluegge.  The equation is

          pcr=2.0*E*((t/r)**2)/((3.0*(1.0-(nu**2)))**0.5)

with the assumption of t<<r , where E = Young's modulus, nu=Poisson's
ratio, t=wall thickness, r=radius pcr=critical buckling pressure.  The
mass of a hollow sphere with the assumption of t<<r is
m=4*dnsmtl*pi*(t/r)*(r**3) where dnsmtl=densitiy of the metal.  By
Archimedes principle for an object to be bouyant, its mass must be less
than the mass of the air that it displaces.  This leads immediately to
the inequality (t/r) < (1/3)*(dnsair/dnsmtl) where dnsair=air density.
This new inequality validates our original assumption of t<<r.  We may
now derive form the buckling equation the inequality constraining a
lighter-than-air structure based on vacuum which is:

     (P/E) < (2/(9*((3*(1-(nu**2)))**0.5)))*((dnsair/dnsmtl)**2)

where P=atmospheric pressure consistent with the density of air, dnsair.
We note the thickness ratio t/r has dropped from the equation.  No
manipulating of the thickness will effect the outcome of the inequality.
We also note that the air density increases as a square against the
pressure.  Under the perfect gas law p=dnsair*R*T where R is the gas
constant and T is the absolute temperature.  The absolute temperature
only varies by about 25% in the first 10,000 meters, so as a first
approximation we can assume that pressure is proportional to density.
Based on this we see that the inequality is most likely to work at sea
level where density is highest and thereby benefitting from its being
squared.  Steel has one of the highest strength-to-weight ratios, so it
would serve as a best case for this problem.  We now plug in numbers for
steel at sea level and find that P/E = 4.9e-7 and

(2/(9*((3*(1-(nu**2)))**0.5)))*((dnsair/dnsmtl)**2) = 3.21e-9

The inequality fails by over two orders of magnitude.  This conclusion
is an obvious one.  I will not comment on how this reflects upon the
intelligence of Robert Maas who proposed this idea and then so staunchly
defended it against John Hogg's criticism.  I hope that If Maas wishes
to continue to defend this idea, he would make this a private discussion
or move it over to the SF-LOVERS forum where ideas of similar quality
are often presented.
                                 Gary Allen

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

Date:         Sat, 25 Oct 86 14:23:58 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject: Fusion Rockets

bouldin@ceee-sed:
> Many years ago (1976) I seem to remember seeing some articles on the
>idea of fusion 'pulse-rockets' based on small (very small) laser
>inititated fusion explosion. Sort of a pure fusion version of Orion.
>Anyone have any refs. to this? Hopefully, more recent than my distant
>memories??

     You are probably thinking of the British Interplanetary Society's
"Project Daedalus" study, which was a design study of a laser-fusion
propulsion probe to Barnard's star.  I believe you can get this report
from the BIS; it was also discussed and critiqued some in the _Journal
of the British Interplanetary Society_ (which is the only journal which
regularly discusses interstellar travel concepts; highly recommended)
and in popular periodicals (I think it was on the cover of _Sky and
Telescope_, for example).
     Alternatively, consider a report:
R.A. Hyde, "A Laser Fusion Rocket For Interplanetary Propulsion",
UCRL 88857, Lawrence Livermore National laboratory,
September 27, 1983.
     also, R.A. Hyde, "Earthbreak: a Review of Earth to Space
Transportation, UCRL 89252, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
May 24 1983.

Personal Opinions (skip this section if uninterested):
     There seems to be a lot of belief in fusion among the people
 who post to SPACE.  For example, in the last few digests
>[for a technology more cost effective than SSPS] "we could
>go to ... nuclear fusion..."
     and
>"In less than thirty years we will probably be playing with some sort
>of fusion drive."
   just to pull a few quotes at random.  I won't say that fusion *won't*
work, but from what I get from trying to keep at least minimally current
with what's happening, it seems to be a long shot.  I have great doubts
that it will ever produce economical power.  Ever since the early
1950's, the estimates of the people working on the problem have been
that we will have practical fusion reactors "in twenty years".  That's
what they *still* say.
     There was an article in _Technology Review_ about two years ago
discussion fusion.  The main problem they pointed out is that everybody
in the field is still trying to just get ignition.  In terms of power
generation, this is only the tip of the iceberg; what is needed is
economical power (electricity or propulsion, depending on application).
It is not clear that this will ever happen, or that it will be cheap if
it does. Although the energy per unit fuel is large, actual power
densities considered will be very low.  Fusion reactors will be much
bigger than fission reactors, and will produce less power.  Refining
fuel may not be cheap either, and for ICF schemes, making the fuel
pellets alone will contribute significant amounts to the cost.  For
space travel, it sounds very unlikely.  Fusion reactors are almost
certainly going to be very heavy; not what you want for a space ship.
     In short, fusion is certainly worth doing research on, and *might*
someday be practical, but probably not soon, and quite possibly not
ever.  Don't count on it.
                                   --Geoff Landis

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

Date:     Sun, 26 Oct 86 10:38 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Space Telescope

Not only will pointing the ST at earth damage some of its sensors, but
there's a possibility that looking at bright debris in earth orbit could
damage one of the more sensitive detectors.  The article I read that in
points out that in the 17 year lifespan of the telescope there's a good
chance it will be hit by a millimeter sized chunk of orbital debris or
meteor (and about a 1% chance of a collision with a large chunk that
would nearly certainly destroy the satellite).  Much larger scopes will
have to be built in high orbit.

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

Date: Mon, 27 Oct 86 02:27:53 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Stars program
To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu

    Last year someone posted requesting information on positions of
    nearest stars, saying they were developing a program that would
    display them, and that the program would be published in Byte. I
    would like a copy of the program, so is the author still on the net
    or does anybody know who he was and what his current net address is?
    
  I don't know anything about this person or this program, but I have
written a Pascal program that displays the nearest stars as seen from
the solar system or from any nearby star.  It uses the Yale Catalog of
Bright Stars, which is available on the ARPAnet and which I have a copy
of on my PC.  I will be glad to send this program to anyone who is
interested.
							...Keith

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

Date: 25 Oct 86 01:54:32 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Re: Space Telescope
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>> Will the ST ever be pointed at the Earth?

I'm not absolutely sure, but while I was reviewing some of the ST
software I remember that the cover closed automatically when viewing a
bright object (such as the Sun or even the Earth) to protect telescope
electronics.  If my memory is correct, then the ST cannot be pointed at
Earth without ruining it.

Al Globus
Sterling Software

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #30
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19956; Sat, 1 Nov 86 03:02:12 PST
	id AA19956; Sat, 1 Nov 86 03:02:12 PST
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 86 03:02:12 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611011102.AA19956@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #31

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 1 Nov 86 03:02:12 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #31

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 31

Today's Topics:
		  Challenger disaster responsibility
			   Mirrors is space
	     The vestibular system in rotating structures
	   why Mercury (liquid metal) used for ion rocket?
		    Re: Are powersats impractical?
	   Re: The vestibular system in rotating structures
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 86 22:36 EST
From: William M. York <York@sapsucker.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: Challenger disaster responsibility
To: space@mc.lcs.mit.edu

This message includes a transcription of an article by William V.
Shannon, entitled "The questions linger after Challenger disaster -- and
need answers".  The article appears on the editorial page of October
29th's Boston Globe.  It is long, but I thought that it would be of
interest.

================ Beginning of article ================

   President Reagan several days ago swore in William Graham as his
science adviser.  The theme for the occasion should have been, "Nothing
succeeds like failure."
   Graham was acting administrator of NASA when the space shuttle
Challenger ended in disaster on Jan. 28.  According to a powerful new
article by Richard C. Cook, formerly on the NASA staff, Graham made the
critical decisions on scheduling on the weekend of Jan. 25-26 that led
to Challenger's fatal flight.
   Cook is the man who wrote a memorandum to higher officials in NASA in
July 1985 reporting how deeply concerned the agency's engineers were by
the unreliability of the shuttle's O-rings.  he was an early witness
before the commission of inquiry headed by former Secretary of State
William P. Rogers.
   In an article for the November issue of The Washington Monthly, Cook
again blows the whistle, this time on the Rogers Commission and its
elaborate avoidance of the question of responsibility, particularly with
regard to acting administrator Graham.
   The commission's report correctly cited the O-ring failure as the
cause of the disaster but it stated an outright falsehood in assessing
responsibility.  It declared that top-level officials who made the
decision to launch on that January day "were unaware of the recent
history of problems concerning the O-rings and the joint."
   The truth is the exact opposite.  Testimony before the commission --
and NASA's own records -- proved that knowledge of the O-ring erosion
danger was widespread in NASA and known at every administrative level.
There was not, as the commission report suggests, a failure of
communication.
   The commission's second major failure was not finding out why the
launch was ordered over the strong protests of the engineers at Morton
Thiokol, the contractor in charge of the solid rocket booster.  The
commission's report falls back on the assertion that these protests
never came to the attention of top officials.  The sequence of meetings
in the 24 hours preceding the launch makes this explanation totally
implausible.
   For the first time in the history of the shuttle, Thiokol had to
prove why NASA should not launch, rather that why it should.  Thiokol
engineer Allan McDonald testified: "I've been in many flight-readiness
reviews, and I've had a very critical audience...justifying why our
hardware was ready to fly.  I was surprised that the tone of the
[pre-launch] meeting was just the opposite of that.  I didn't have to
prove I was ready to fly... We had to prove it wasn't ready, and that's
a big difference."  Why the pressure to launch?
   The question comes back to the timing of President Reagan's State of
the Union address, which was scheduled for Jan. 28.  The
teacher-in-space flight featuring Christa McAuliffe was originally
scheduled to end on that day.  A series of delays for technical reasons
pushed the tentative date for launching to Sunday, Jan. 26.  Vice
President George Bush was scheduled to attend the launch.  (It was no
accident that the school teacher chosen was from New Hampshire, where
Bush will be running in the first primary of 1988.)
   In his article, Cook points out that on Saturday evening the 25th,
Graham "followed a procedure unprecedented in [NASA] history."  Because
the weather at Cape Canaveral is unpredictable, astronauts normally
board the shuttle even though bad weather is predicted because the
weather might suddenly change.  But Graham canceled the Sunday flight on
Saturday evening because bad weather was predicted.
   Cook hypothesizes that Graham did so because of a safety rule that
forbids loading and unloading the shuttle more than twice in a 48-hour
period.  If it had been fueled up Sunday morning and canceled, it could
be tried again on Monday, but if that failed, the next attempt could not
be until Wednesday -- too late for the president's speech.
   By canceling Saturday night, Graham made it possible to try either
Monday or Tuesday.  A Monday flight proved impossible because of icy
conditions.  A Tuesday flight was definitely hazardous, but NASA sent
the astronauts up -- to their deaths.
   Did the flight go off because Donald Regan, the White House chief of
staff, gave the order. {sic} There are rumors that they command was,
"Tell them to get that thing up."  Is that why the protests of the
Thiokol engineers were overruled?  Did Graham, who has no visible
qualifications to be the government's top scientist, get his new job as
a payoff for keeping his mouth shut and protecting his bosses in the
White House?  A thoroughgoing Senate investigation is required.

================ end of article ================

The author clearly has a stong political position and would probably
like to see the Challenger disaster damage the Reagan administration (I
can't deny having some similar feelings).  However, political rhetoric
aside, some interesting issues are raised.  Anyone care to transcribe
Cook's article from The Washington Monthly?

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

Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 11:24:54 EST
From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Mirrors is space

>...The
>drawback to the scheme is that the finite angular size of the sun makes
>the reflected footprint on the Earth rather large.

Couldn't you just make the mirrors slightly concave? 

					-Chris

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

Date: Thu 30 Oct 86 16:11:14-PST
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.arpa>
Subject: The vestibular system in rotating structures
To: space@s1-b.arpa

There has been some discussion about rotating space colonies lately,
mostly concerned with the reliability of bearings.  My recollection was
that the idea of rotating structures to produce pseudogravity was out
because of problems with Coriolis forces and the human vestibular
system.  I have not seen this point made in print, the only time I heard
it mentioned was at the 1977 Princeton Conference by somebody from
NASA-Ames.

The theoretical anatomic/physical basis for the problem is given later
in this note; evidence to justify concern that the problem really will
happen comes from experiments made at the Navy's Pensacola Research
Center in the 1960s.  These guys built a room on a motorized lazy susan
(known as "the rotating room") and put subjects in there to live for
some amount of time.  Basically, people with intact vestibular systems
got motion sick because every time they turned their head, effects of
Coriolis forces in their inner ear produced the illusion that they were
rotating in a completely different plane.  (You can do this at home!
Twirl around as fast as you can for 30-40 seconds with your eyes/head
looking straight ahead.  Then quickly look down at the floor and you
will feel like your feet are trying to swing above your head.  Do this
15 or 20 times and you might find it disagreeable.)

I have forgottent the details of their research (those interested can
check the Archives of Neurology in the mid-60s for articles by Ashton
Graybiel), but I seem to recall that adaptation either did not occur or
was only partial, and that even very slow rpm (on the order of 3) was
enough to produce symptoms.  So, if you allow a maximum rpm of 3 and try
to produce earth gravity in your space colony, you have to have a
structure with a very large radius (it's an easy calculation, if you
remember how to do it!).  Clearly, pseudo-gravity will not be possible
for a Mars trip in a reasonably sized spacecraft.  The physiological
benefit of less than earth gravity over extended times has, of course,
not been investigated.

(The Coriolis problem stems from the anatomy of the vestibular system.
Each ear has three orthogonal "semicircular canals" (that are
functionally closer to being circular) filled with fluid.  The movement
of the fluid in each canal tells the brain whether the head is rotating
in the same plane that the semicircular canal occupies.  If rotation in
a plane is prolonged, the fluid in the corresponding canal equilibrates
(that is, the fluid and the canal bone eventually will rotate at the
same speed).  This is the basis for the phenomenon that if you spin in a
chair long enough, you no longer feel like you are moving.  So in a
slow-rotating-room or a space station, the fluid in the canal that is in
the same plane as the room's rotation is equilibrated.  But moving your
head cancels all bets: a new canal is now in the plane of rotation of
the room, and the still-moving fluid in the old canal is now in a plane
that was formerly stationary.  Your brain integrates all this and tells
you what it thinks; sadly, your other balance senses (vision,
proprioception) tell you otherwise, and you have a sensory conflict that
soon results in nausea.  Of interest is that Guinea pigs may be immune
from this problem.  Their canals are nowhere near orthogonal (presumably
since their ancestors were not arboreal and didn't need high performance
balance systems), so the cross-coupling forces would be much smaller.  I
guess it proves that man was not to fly after all!)

				John Sotos
				Stanford University
				SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.ARPA

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

Date: 1986 October 30 09:34:34 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: why Mercury (liquid metal) used for ion rocket?

B> Date:         Fri, 10 Oct 86 10:22:46 EDT
B> From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
B> To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
B> Subject:      Specific Impulse

B> Yes, but with an ion drive, one is typically more concerned about
B> getting the most performance out of the ENERGY source, which is
B> usually the limiting factor instead of the reaction mass.  A fixed
B> voltage ion drive will give a fixed energy per unit charge, E.  E=1/2
B> mv**2, so momentum transfer (mv) is SQRT (2mE).  To optimize this per
B> unit reaction mass, we want the smallest molecular weight possible.
B> To optimize this per unit ENERGY, we want the HIGHEST molecular
B> weight possible.  That's why mercury or cesium is typically used.

I don't believe this. In deep space, you have months to reach your
target. During that time, your solar collector or atomic pile can
generate more energy than you need for your delta-vee, but the only fuel
you can carry with you is what you could launch, which is limited by
your launch booster. (Assuming you don't have a space station with
re-fueling center, which would allow a different strategy of
accumulating fuel from lots of launches to power a single deep-space
probe.)  Therefore if there were no engineering problems you would pick
the lightest ion so you could pack the largest number of molecules in
your ion-fuel tank for a given Earth-launch mass. But there are indeed
engineering problems: Hydrogen requires pressure containers whereas
mercury is a compact liquid at normal temperature and pressure. Other
atomic materials are like Hydrogen, or solid.  Mercury is the only
atomic liquid available. Compounds would have to be broken into parts
(they'd break apart anyway if you tried to use them as ion fuel) and
you'd have to get rid of the parts you're not using or else have
equipment to handle all the parts with their different particle masses
and different ionization characteristics, a big hassle equipmentwise.

I have no experience in this area, this is just brainstorming, would
like to hear from an expert to judge our difference of opinion.

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

Date: 30 Oct 86 15:43:41 PST (Thursday)
From: Cate3.PA@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Are powersats impractical?
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: , Cate3.PA@Xerox.COM

Paul Dietz <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net> writes: 
>There's an obvious solar power scheme that is, in many ways, superior
to
>conventional powersats.  It's the Soletta idea: place large numbers of
>mirrors in orbit to focus light onto ground based collectors.  
.
.
>Disadvantages: does not scale down well, light pressure must be
>compensated for, *lots* of mirrors are needed, atmospheric absorption
>(build in deserts), astronomy is ruined, local heating.  

     Another option might be to build up in mountains, or on the plains
in Wyoming or South Dakota.  This would help make the winters lots more
reasonable.  It may even be possible to grow crops year round on land
near the ground based collectors.
     
     Henry III
     cate3.pa@xerox.com

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

Date: 31 Oct 86 03:52:42 GMT
From: news@csvax.caltech.edu  (Usenet netnews)
Subject: Re: The vestibular system in rotating structures
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords: 
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
Path: oddhack!jon

In article <12251039742.21.SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.ARPA> SOTOS@sumex-aim.arpa (John Sotos) writes:
>... So, if you allow a maximum rpm of 3
>and try to produce earth gravity in your space colony, you have to
>have a structure with a very large radius (it's an easy calculation,
>if you remember how to do it!).  Clearly, pseudo-gravity will not be
>possible for a Mars trip in a reasonably sized spacecraft. 

	We can obtain arbitrarily large radii by connecting two modules
with a cable. It should be straightforward to see if a combination
of 1g and low enough RPMs can be obtained with reasonable materials
(Kevlar cable, perhaps?). I hate to think of the cable breaking, though...

	-- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
	Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
	__@/

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #31
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23692; Sun, 2 Nov 86 03:02:00 PST
	id AA23692; Sun, 2 Nov 86 03:02:00 PST
Date: Sun, 2 Nov 86 03:02:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611021102.AA23692@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #32

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 32

Today's Topics:
     Sorry Henry, There **is** proof on Martian surface chemical
			 SPACE Digest V7 #30
	      Re: Martian surface chemical composition.
		       Re: Powersats, DOE study
			 Re: Vacuum balloons
		     Reaction mass for ion drives
			       Fusion?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 16:54:13 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Sorry Henry, There **is** proof on Martian surface chemical
  composition.

In Vol. 7, Nr. 29 of Space Digest, Henry Spencer claimed that the
existence of **all** the elements on Mars necessary for life and the
industrial developement of Mars is unproven.  A conclusive proof of this
would be possible only through a detailed survey conducted on the
surface of the planet (an idea I heartily endorse).  However we already
have two excellent data points from the two Viking landers.  While it is
possible that the Vikings landed on some unrepresentative spots, I'm
inclined to doubt it.  Here is a summary of their results:

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

        Composition of the Martian Lower Atmosphere
               Carbon Dioxide         95.32 %
               Nitrogen                2.7  %
               Argon                   1.6  %
               Carbon Monoxide         0.13 %
               Water                   0.03 %

              Composition of the Martian Soil
               "Oxygen"               50.1  %
               Silicon                20.0  %
               Iron                   12.7  %
               Magnesium               5.0  %
               Calcium                 4.0  %
               Sulfur                  3.1  %
               Aluminum                3.0  %
               Chlorine                0.7  %
               Titanium                0.51 %
               Potassium               0.25 % (less than)
               nondetected elements    8.4  %

The concentration of "oxygen" is based on the assumption that all of
the other elements are oxides.  The Viking instruments lacked the
capability of detecting elements of atomic weight less than magnesium.
The values observed by the two Vikings closely agreed.  The above
percentages don't add up to 100%, this reflects measurement error.

                    -- For Comparison --
           Average Composition of the Earth's Soil
               Oxygen                 46.6  %
               Silicon                27.2  %
               Aluminum                8.1  %
               Iron                    5.0  %
               Calcium                 3.6  %
               Sodium                  2.8  %
               Potassium               2.6  %
               Magnesium               2.1  %
               -traces-                2.0  %

References:

T. Owen, et. al. "The Composition of the Atmosphere at the Surface
of Mars", J. Geophys. Res., 82, 4635-4639 (1977)

P. Toulmin, et al. "Inorganic Chemical Investigations by X-Ray
Fluorescence Analysis:  The Viking Mars Lander",
Icarus, 20, 153-178 (1973)

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

All of the elements necessary to support life exist on Mars.  However
based on this evidence, Mars does lack some elements necessary for
human health and those are:  Iodine and Phosphorus.  Most likely
these elements do exist on Mars but were simply below Viking's
detection threshold.  Even on Earth, Iodine is relatively rare.
The extreme richness in iron is particularly exciting from the
standpoint of industrialization.  Viking performed a simple
experiment of passing Martian soil over a magnet and the iron
filings were clearly visible in the subsequent photos.  Therefore
extraction of iron from the soil should be quite straight forward.
So there you have it.  Mars is a rich planet for industrialization.
All that needs to be worked out is the economics. However, as I've said
before, that's the big problem for all of these space industrialization
dreams.
                  Gary Allen

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1986  14:18 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa, minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #30
In-Reply-To: Msg of 31 Oct 1986  06:23-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at s1-b.arpa>

Gary Allen's buckling-sphere argument seems convincing at first, but
can one really prove that a shpere is indeed the best geometry?  Gary
says, "The geometry that can best withstand compression is a sphere."
However, I suspect that this is only "locally" true for homgenous
materials, and the theorem does not apply to inhomogeneous - let
alone, fractile - materials.

For example, if you made a pressure-bearing container of solid
polystyrene, I don't doubt that the best you could do would be to form it into a sphere.  But wouldn't it be vastly more resistant to buckling if you
made it into a much thicker spherical shell composed of styrofoam?

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

Date: 31 Oct 86 17:38:00 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Martian surface chemical composition.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <8610310817.AA15131@s1-b.arpa> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> <long summary of Martian surface composition>

	My question is, how hard is it to extract useful stuff from
the surface material? Taking oxygen out of the various iron oxides
and the like it's locked up in sounds very energy-consuming. Also,
it would be interesting to compare the composition of exposed surface
   material and areas further down which haven't been radiated for billions
of years. Of course I refer to molecular composition, not atomic
abundance which should be much the same as the exposed surface.
    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date: 31 Oct 1986 16:49-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Powersats, DOE study
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Thu, 30 Oct 86 03:13:47 PST

I find Gary Allen's attack on power sats rather interesting. I should pass
it on to Dr. Glaser; I'm sure he'd get a kick out of it.

A CMU professor was involved with the DOE study on powersats (I'm not
sure he was with the university at that time) and has told me that he
had a very strong dissenting opinion on the report findings. He felt
that the study baselines chosen were chosen with the INTENT to kill
official interest in powersats because DOE had a strong protective
interest in fusion and MHD, and an even stronger bias towards
'soft-tech' wind power, solar cells, solar passive, cogeneration. They
weren't interested in using any baseline scenarios that might make it
look feasible. Remember, this was in the Carter era...

Interestingly enough, powersats were panned by "Mother Jones" at about
the same time in an article that used blantantly falsified information.
I know of one person whose father was misquoted to a point which can
only be called INTENTIONAL.

>From the mumblings I pick up a conferences, it would appear that the
soviets are quite interested in the powersat idea to supply cheap power
for third world client states: a real diplomatic coup for them,
regardless of the front end costs. And of course, once you've built #1,
#2 is a breeze and a hell of a lot cheaper.

There is also strong interest at Astrotech Corporation for building
small powersats for orbital power augmentation. They have some
agreements with Dr. Glaser (Arthur D. Little Corp), who holds US
patents on the powersat idea. The idea is that you start small, make a
buck supplying power for NASA, DOD or whoever, and gradually (over 30-50
years) bootstrap yourself to larger operations, culminating in GSO
stations.

I might add that laser transmission has also been considered as an
alternative means of transmitting power to the surface. The laser
technique is not as well known a quantity. Microwave energy
transmission has been done experimentally over reasonably long distances
with high efficiencies. Actually better than power transmission lines,
and the cost effectiveness gap widens with distance.

Even without GSO powersats, the beaming technology is useful. There
have been proposals to transmit energy from sites where it is cheap (ie
a solar power station in the Sahara) to places where cheap power is
needed (Japan, Western Europe, US) by 'bouncing' it from passive
reflectors in GSO. This might even beat superconducting power lines,
because you don't have to build the infrastructure to get lots of power
to where it is needed. You just tilt the reflector. This is
particularly good for undeveloped countries.

The Soletta is an interesting idea, but I have some misgivings about
the environmental effects of it. Microwaves don't couple directly with
the atmosphere, unless you transmit in the 'waterhole' like your home
microwave ovens. High Power laser transmission could likewise largely
avoid such coupling. But the Soletta will transmit a broad energy band
into an extended region of the atmosphere. The lit oval would
create a warm air mass. I would expect it to set up an elliptically
symmetrical flow with strong updrafts in the center, cool surface winds
sweeping from the surrounding dark areas and a warm high altitude
outflow. If the effects are mild, it'll be great for hang gliders.

I suspect the winds would be quite strong though. Desert areas would be
preferred for such stations because of the dry air. But dry air also
has less heat capacitance and high transmissibility. IE, as soon as it
gets dark in the desert, the air gets cool and the ground radiates it's
heat quickly. Thus we have a boundary temperature differential of
perhaps 40 degrees or more across a boundary of only a few miles. That
strikes me as enough to drive a damn good storm. At the very least, I
would not be the first to fly a 172 anywhere CLOSE to it.

Also due to the desert climate, one would expect such winds to pick up
considerable dust, which as we know from Mars, improves the coupling if
the heating occurs in the updraft rather than the down draft. (Science
10/24/86, "Interannual Variability of Global Dust Storms on Mars") By
the way, I am NOT trying to say that this would cause global dust
storms, only suggesting a possible positive feedback connection that
would cause wider effects than one might at first suppose. It might
continue after daylight, and in fact drift with prevailing weather
systems since it would not be 'locked' in position by an external
energy source. Needless to say, power generation would not be terribly
efficient under such a scenario...

My knowledge of weather dynamics is not that strong, but I wonder about
the impact of coriolis affects. Would such a 60km cell spawn cylconic
storms or other weather anomolies? Could the effects be used to rob
energy from existing cylonic storms? Have we got any atmosphere modelers
out there?

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

Date: 31 Oct 1986 18:02-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Vacuum balloons

Mr. Allen:

The injection of a mathematical reality into a discussion is useful. The
injection of ad hominum attacks is not.

REM: I would suggest trying Mr. Allen's equations with different types
of materials. Steel is very very far from optimum in strength. First,
look into glasses, since they tend to get stronger under symmetric
compressive loads.  Just for interest, one might want to see if pure
diamond, or if some exotic materials might be useful. Things like
glassy metals, single crystal metals, and such. I haven't the time to
research it, but I'd love to see the results. After all, with a
material as primitive as steel, the equation ONLY fails by two orders
of magnitude...

Other than glass, this would make it useless in the manner discussed,
but it is still a fascinating idea. I, for one, am happy to see a few
creative minds on this digest.

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

Date:         Thu, 30 Oct 86 23:57:22 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Reaction mass for ion drives

[Re a statement that metal ions are used for ion drives because heavier
ions give higher performance (ie., impulse) per unit energy consumed,
although lower performance per unit reaction mass]:
REM>  In deep space, you have months to reach your
REM>target. During that time, your solar collector or atomic pile can
REM>generate more energy than you need for your delta-vee,
    If your power source generates more energy than you can use, it is
too big:  use a smaller, lighter one.  You gain more by downsizing
your power source than you lose.  Power sources are heavy.
Once you move to the smallest size power source, you will find
it pays to optimize for impulse per unit power.

REM>I have no experience in this area, this is just brainstorming, would
REM>like to hear from an expert to judge our difference of opinion.
      Likewise.
            --Geoffrey Landis, Brown University

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

Date:     Fri, 31 Oct 86 17:15 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:  Fusion?

Geoff,

  In regards to that Technology Review article about fusion: it was a
critique of *magnetic confinement* fusion; specifically, tokamaks and
magnetic mirrors.  Inertial confinement fusion does not suffer from
the same problems, since the first wall can be a liquid lithium alloy
or ceramic pebble blanket, and the reaction vessel need not contain
a high vacuum.  Also, it's not clear if Lidsky's complaints apply
to D-He3 reactors, since these can use direct conversion and avoid
the major costs of steam turbines and generators.

  There's a form of fusion power that is possible today.  It's
possible to excavate large cavities in salt domes by circulating water.
Fill the cavity with high pressure steam, add some impurities to make
the steam cloudy, and detonate about 100 kilotons of bombs per day.
That's about 5 gigawatts of heat, not counting heat from radioactive
decay products.  Fissile material for the bombs can be bred separately
or in-situ by surrounding the bombs with breeding blankets.  This
scheme has obvious safety problems, but requires no new science.

  Small scale inertial fusion may be closer many think.  Light ion
beam fusion is close to the power levels needed for ignition (although
delivering the beam to the target is more problematical).
There's been a report that "hohlraum" targets (in which driver energy
is converted to thermal x-rays which then drive the fuel element) have been
tested by using thermal x-rays from underground bomb explosions.

  These two schemes can be combined by using multi-stage fuel elements.
A small pellet with about a gigajoule of energy output is used to
generate x-rays to detonate a 300 gigajoule (say) pellet.  Detonate one
every 5 minutes in a cavity to generate a gigawatt of heat.  This scheme
might make it practical to deliver the initial driver energy by means of
disposable conductors.  It might also make a reasonably low-tech
"mini-Orion" engine for moving asteroids, if detonated behind a pusher
plate.  Where one draws the line between large fuel pellets and
small hydrogen bombs is unclear; would such a rocket violate the
Outer Space Treaty?

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #32
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA27898; Mon, 3 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST
	id AA27898; Mon, 3 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611031102.AA27898@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #33

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 33

Today's Topics:
			      Powersats
   Space infrastructure is achievable through one-shot boondoggles
			 SPACE Digest V7 #30
			    fusion energy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Nov 86 04:44:50 GMT
From: jade!tart23!c60a-2jm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter;260E;;)
Subject: Powersats
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <531179395.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
In re: powersats...
>I might add that laser transmission has also been considered as an
>alternative means of transmitting power to the surface. The laser
>technique is not as well known a quantity. Microwave energy
>transmission has been done experimentally over reasonably long distances
>with high efficiencies. Actually better than power transmission lines,
>and the cost effectiveness gap widens with distance.
	Does anyone remember the Scientific American ("Scientific
Democrat") articles on "Phase Conjugate Mirrors," or something like
that.  These little buggers are supposed to reflect back light, by
reversing the direction of every beam that hits it.  They also can
amplify light, to the point where some researchers were able to make
lasers just by waving a metal cooking spatula near them.

	Anyhow, one of their neat applications, is that if you aim a
beam through a scattering medium and it hits a phase conjugate mirror,
the "mirror" will exactly reverse the scattered light so it goes back
through the scattering medium and becomes perfrectly "unscattered."

	So here's the idea:

		Small guide beam --> LEO powersat.
		LEO powersat --> LOTS OF ENERGY focused almost
			perfectly back down the "guide beam."

Comments?

	+		+
+		Adam		+
	+		+

Adam J. Richter					...ucbvax!miro!richter
2504 College Avenue \				richter@miro.berkeley.edu
Berkeley, CA 94704   >= May change soon
(415)459-9672	    /

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

Date: Wed, 29 Oct 86 15:34:31 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Space infrastructure is achievable through one-shot boondoggles

There has been a fair bit of flamage against the idea of a Mars mission.

I agree with the position that space industrialization is **not**

directly served by one shot space missions for purposes of demagoguery.

However the sad truth is that space travel is expensive.  I believe it

is possible to establish a profitable industrial base on Lunar and

Martian resources.  However, everyone will agree that to do this

one must first have an infrastructure.  Building this infrastructure

will cost billions of dollars and take decades to set up.  Is it likely

that a congressman will support an enormously expensive project that

won't become operational until long after he's out of office?  The trick

is to build up this infrastructure in small, politically acceptable

pieces.  Our politicians probably would not support the NASP if it was

billed as a scientific project.  However if you can convince them that

the NASP is essential to get SDI battle stations into orbit, then

they'll fund the thing.  I think getting out of LEO (from a political

standpoint) will be very difficult unless one can provide some sort of

advantage that a politician can understand.  Having an astronaut plant a

flag on Mars is absolutely useless in terms of space industrialization.

However to get him to Mars, one could justify building a really big

space station in LEO or even one in lunar orbit.  One could present

arguments that it would be easier to build the Mars vehicle from lunar

materials and thereby provide the basis for establishing a lunar base.

I fully agree it is assinine that one can't simply argue directly for

going into space because it's the right and profitable thing to do.

However if politicians will only accept the argument that we should go

to Mars because the Russians will beat us, then we should go for it and

then milk the deal for all its worth in establishing an infrastructure.

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

Date: Fri, 31 Oct 1986  20:45 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa, MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #30
In-Reply-To: Msg of 31 Oct 1986  14:18-EST from MINSKY


(Addition to previous note.)  I did not mean to suggest that Gary
Allen's argument is incorrect, but only to wonder whether the
classical derivation considers every possibility.  Presumably, it uses
a variational method that finds the extremum for variations in the
mass distribution of deviations from a spherical form and (correctly)
finds the shell to be optimal.  Very likely, this is correct, but I
wonder if the variational method extends to distributed variations in
density/porosity.

Eric Drexler showed me a draft calculation that showed that it is
feasible to make a lighter-than-air object with perfect carbon fibres.
However, this is entirely in accord with Gary's argument since (1)
those ideal fibres are indeed a couple of orders of magnitude better
than steel and (2) Drexler's calculation did not suggest any large
margin beyond that.  Drexler's construction involved a dense
tetrahedral lattice that supports a spherical, airtight shell.  As I
recall, Drexler was not maintaining that the hollow lattice was
superior to the uniform shell in regard to preventing buckling.  What
he did argue was that the lattice could be constructed with so fine a
grain that the fibres would be smaller than wavelengths of light.  The
resulting floating object, then, might also be invisible!  Very cute,
if true, but I don't know enough wave theory to know whether it would
end up with a substantial refractive index, in any case.

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

Date:         Sun, 02 Nov 86 16:11:03 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      fusion energy

PFD> Inertial confinement fusion does not suffer from
the same problems...
     No, it suffers from other problems.

PFD> It's not clear Lidsky's complaints [about the problems still facing
PFD> fusion] apply to D-He3 reactors, since these can use direct
PFD>conversion and avoid the major costs of steam turbines and generators.
     Maybe.  Can this be ignited?  I thought it took
much higher pressure/temperatures to ignite that reaction.
Isn't He3 expensive?  Is there enough around to use for fuel?
What's this about turbines and generators--don't *all* magnetic
fusion schemes assume MHD power conversion?

PFD>  There's a form of fusion power that is possible today....
PFD> Fill [a] cavity with high pressure steam...
PFD> and detonate about 100 kilotons of bombs per day.
     Yes, that's an old idea of Teller's, abandoned about the
middle of the sixties when it seemed that *nobody* would take
it seriously.  Bombs have too bad a rep.  Sounds like a good idea
for what to do with old H-bombs after they become "impotent and
obsolete"  (by disarmament, star-wars, antimatter bombs and
biochemical warfare, whatever).

PFD> Small scale inertial fusion may be closer many think.
     Then again, it may be farther away than many think, too.

PFD>  Light ion beam fusion is close to the power levels needed for
PFD> ignition.
Power density is only one element of many needed to make it work.  And
"ignition" is a long way from scientific break-even, which is
far away from engineering break-even, not even considering
scale-up and economic break-even.  And, if you're considering
fusion rockets, how heavy is the accellerator needed?

PFD> A small pellet with about a gigajoule of energy output is used to
PFD> generate x-rays to detonate a 300 gigajoule (say) pellet.
PFD>Detonate one every 5 minutes in a cavity to generate a gigawatt of
PFD> heat.
     I can't quite picture the geometry here, how the x-rays from
the first pellet are coupled to the second.  Are you assuming an
x-ray reflector?  Keep in mind that symmetry of compression is critical.
How big are the pellets?  They sound awfully large to me.
What are the cost estimates for this?  A gigawatt-hr of heat has to
go for under about $50,000 to be competitive.

    Again, I'd say that *maybe* fusion technology will pan out.
But I certainly wouldn't count on it.   We're still trying
to prove that controlled fusion can be done at any cost.
That's a long, long, LONG way from practical power (or propulsion).
                                 --Geoffrey A. Landis

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #33
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02970; Tue, 4 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
	id AA02970; Tue, 4 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611041102.AA02970@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #34

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 4 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #34

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 34

Today's Topics:
			  Fusion is Far Out
			      Powersats
   restriction on visual degrading of natural landforms (on Moon??)
	      NASA summer positions and other NASA news
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 03 Nov 86 11:21:18 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Fusion is Far Out

   PFD>>> D-He3 reactors ... can use direct conversion and avoid the
   PFD>>> major costs of steam turbines and generators.
  GL>> I thought that took much higher pressure/temperatures to ignite.
 PFD> He3 does require higher temperatures to ignite...  The biggest
 PFD> problem is that the high plasma temperature increases losses
 PFD> due to synchrotron radiation.

But if we currently can't even get the lower temperature reaction to
ignite, I'd be really hesitant to place my bets on a reaction that
even HARDER to get going.

 PFD> At 30% efficiency, 300 gigajoules is the energy output of about
 PFD> three grams of deuterium.
By inertial confinement fusion standards, 3 grams is a gargantuan fuel
pellet.  I don't think anybody is talking about igniting objects that
large.

  GL>> Isn't He3 expensive?  Is there enough around to use for fuel?
 PFD> You can get He3 on the moon, or by breeding it from lithium-->
 PFD> Tritium -->He3 in underground explosions.  Very little He3
 PFD> is needed.

I said that fusion is not a technology to count on as a sure thing;
you are saying that the current concepts won't work, that we need a
technology that's even harder to ignite (and thus that we are even
farther away from making work) and that requires fuel produced by
mining the moon to extract He3 present in parts-per-billion levels,
or by making it in underground bomb blasts.
I think you are supporting my point.

                       --Geoffrey A. Landis

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

Date:  3 Nov 86 15:35 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Powersats
To: space@s1-b.arpa

   Does anyone know the proposed power densities of powersat receivers?
Also, how flexible do the focusing mechanism have to be to compensate
for thermal warpage of the transmission antenna, atmospheric changes, et
cetera.

   The reason I'm asking this is to get a feel for how good a weapon a
powersat would be. Personally, I think I'm most likely to stay at the
bottom of the gravity well, and I don't particularly want anyone sitting
in the relative security of geo-sync orbit ( it takes hours to get there
) deciding to write his name on a glacier with a laser, or boil Lake
Placid with a microwave. Just call me paranoid, but where people are
concerned, these types of things happen.

   This whole infrastructure-in-space discussion ignores the tactical
superiority of a position at the top of a gravity well, relative to us
poor taxpayers at the bottom. Remember that anything that deliver energy
to a target is a weapon. And it is one of the major tenants of the
infrastructure supporters that delivering anything to the top of a well
starting at the bottom is very very difficult.

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

Date: 1986 November 03 13:52:26 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: restriction on visual degrading of natural landforms (on Moon??)

In regard to the "Moon Treaty" and related issues of preserving
astronomical bodies in their native condition rather than "pollute" them
with human activities... Although most comparisons between Earth (early
pioneers destroying bison and native americans) and Moon show that we
really don't have to worry about the Moon because there's no native life
to destroy, the following election measure may be of interest, on the
ballot this November 4 in San Mateo County, California:

It is supposed to be for preserving coastal and other agricultural
lands from urban encrochment, but observe the following passages:
8.7 Ridgelines and Hilltops
  a. Prohibit the location of new development on ridgelines and
    hilltops unless there is no other buildable area on the parcel.
  c. Restrict the height of structures to prevent their projction
    above ridgeline or hilltop silhouettes.
8.17 Alterations of Landforms
 Minimize the visual degration of natural landforms caused by cutting,
 filling, or grading for building sites, access roads, or public
 utilities by:
  a. Concentrating development so that steep hillsides may be left
    undisturbed.
  b. Requiring structures to be designed to fit hillsides rather than
    altering the landform to accommodate buildings designed for lval sites.
  c. Prohibiting new development which requires grading, cutting, or
    filling that would substantially alter or destroy the appearance
    of natural landforms.

Imagine if a similar measure were law for building habitat and
manufacturing facilities on and mining the Moon and asteroids?  Wouldn't
it put a bit of a cramp on activities? Question: Is natural topography
so valuable to preserve that such a cramp is desirable? Or is this sheer
folly which precludes industrial progress? If such measures are enacted
on Earth, will similar measures follow on other planets moons and
asteroids where they could as easily apply?

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

Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 17:46:38 pst
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: NASA summer positions and other NASA news

I will be posting my yearly "Announcement of Opportunity" in about a
month to people who read net.space for people interested in taking
summer positions with NASA.  My contacts are primed and ready to act as
inside sources to those people interested in things other than great
wages, excellent working conditions, etc.  The target opening date will
be January 1 and closing on January 31, so if you are an undergrad just
starting school again: get your resumes ready.  And as a piece of advice
for any summer position next year, anywhere: START YOUR RESUME NOW!
Companies prefer to look early in the year, not later.

Other news: I was told that the amount of trash on the net has not
diminished, but on a quick check, it appears it has.  Re: space
telescope pointing to earth.  They thought about it in the late 1970s.
It can point to earth without damaging optics (they have those things
designed for nuclear blast observation, forgot what they are called).
NASA just commissioned a study to consider follow-ons to the ST using an
external fuel tank as the base.  I have also talked to people at GSFC
about the possibility of distributing satellite elements on the network:
they can't do this due to BITNET restrictions against file transfer:
complain to BITNET.  Yes, we are working on Mars missions (not at Ames),
and I don't know if you saw the request by Mike Malin (pixar!malin)
looking for people to build a Mars camera.  I can vouch for Mike, his is
a worthy project, I highly endorse it: little pay, small recognition,
but helpful to mankind.  I have more but that will wait.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #34
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06481; Wed, 5 Nov 86 03:02:09 PST
	id AA06481; Wed, 5 Nov 86 03:02:09 PST
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 86 03:02:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611051102.AA06481@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #35

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 5 Nov 86 03:02:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #35

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 35

Today's Topics:
	 Nuclear Fusion is the Key to Space Industrialization
				Fusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 04 Nov 86 14:20:26 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Nuclear Fusion is the Key to Space Industrialization

In Vol.7 Nr. 30 of Space Digest, Geoff Landis quite correctly expressed

scepticism about the prospects of the near term success for nuclear

fusion as an electrical power source but then carried this same

scepticism over to fusion's potential for spacecraft propulsion.  Later

in Nr. 32, Paul Dietz responded by pointing out that while things look

grim for magnetic fusion based on magnetic mirrors or Tokomaks, this is

**not** the case for inertial confinement schemes which happen to be

the basis for the various propulsion schemes.  I find myself often being

very impressed with Paul Dietz's postings, which strike me as among

the most well thought out in Space Digest (not that this says a whole

lot).  The inertial confinement scheme to watch in terms of spacecraft

propulsion applications is the one being developed by Sandia National

Labs.  This approach uses neutral particle beams to compress the pellet

into nuclear fusion.  I have toured the Novette facility at Lawerence

Livermore and was impressed with just how enormous the device was.

Novette uses lasers to compress the pellet and **can** make atoms

undergo fusion.  However it isn't close to achieving break-even and

wasn't even designed for that purpose.  The engineer who showed me

the facility privately told me that the only thing Novette was good for,

was doing materials studies related to weapon's work.  This however is

not the case with the Sandia device.  I have a friend who works for

Sandia who has also privately informed me that the Sandia approach has

tremendous promise because the coupling between neutral particles and

the target pellet is much better than between a laser and the target.  I

should add that the Sandia approach is extremely well suited to

spacecraft application.  I remember thinking to myself when viewing the

Novette and seeing these enormous pieces of glass optics mounted on

micrometers, that this system would be totally unrobust in a vibrating

environment.  However since the Sandia approach is nonoptical, its

ignition system is much more compact.  The problem of energy extraction

is of paramount importance in terrestrial fusion application but is

quite secondary with a Daedalus propulsion scheme.  With a spacecraft

the expanding fusion plasma pushes against a magnetic filed via a mirror

effect (where lots of leakage is quite acceptable).  This not only

provides a thrust but also delivers an EMF to the magnetic field that in

turn can recharge the ships capacitors for refiring the beam guns.  The

original Daedalus idea used lasers for ignition, and He3 as fuel.  Both

ideas I believe to be mistakes.  However if the Daedalus idea was

revised to use the Sandia ignition system with deuterium as fuel, I

think one would have a practical propulsion system that could be

realized within 20 years.

                              Gary Allen

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

Date:     Tue, 4 Nov 86 08:46 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@s1-b.arpa, ST401385%NROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:  Fusion

Geoff,

  In the future, please do NOT send replies to private mail messages to
a public bulletin board, especially if you include selective quotes from
my message.

  About He3: I was not saying that magnetically confined D-He3 reactors
are a near-term prospect (much less hydrogen-boron reactors some fellow
was flaming about).  Rather, D-He3 reactors might get around some of the
problems Lidsky had noted with D-T reactors.

  Three gram pellets: yes 3 grams is a lot, but, if you read my messages,
you'lll see it's being driven by 1000 MJ's of x-rays from the primary
pellet.  This is a lot of driver energy by ICF standards.  Large pellets
actually may be somewhat easier to ignite, since they don't have to be
compressed as much.

  Paul DIetz

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #35
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA11151; Thu, 6 Nov 86 03:02:15 PST
	id AA11151; Thu, 6 Nov 86 03:02:15 PST
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 86 03:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611061102.AA11151@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #36

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 86 03:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #36

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 36

Today's Topics:
			Overcrowding of space
			   NASA Joint Test
			 Astronomy Technique
			  A recommended book
	 Chariots for Apollo #7 - Around the Moon in Six Days
				 X29
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: space
Date: Mon, 3 Nov 86 11:26:31-1000
From: Jimmy Y. Cheng <cheng%humu@nosc.arpa>
Sender: ota
Subject: Overcrowding of space


     I am interested in the availability of space for satellites in the
geosynchronous (and other) orbits.  Since data networks are becoming
more widely distributed, the electromagnetic interferences between
orbiting satllites are increasing.  Does anyone know of the technical
and political issues in this problem?  I would really appreciate if you
can e-mail any references for me.  All this will form the basis for my
research project in satellite communication class.  I will post a
summary if there are enough responds.  Thanks in advance.

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

Path: mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!hao!nbires!isis!scicom!markf
From: markf@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Mark Felton)
Subject: NASA Joint Test
Date: 26 Oct 86 17:50:40 GMT

NASA NEWS -> October 2

NASA SELECTS HORIZONTAL CONFIGURATION FOR JOINT TEST

	After an intensive study, NASA has determined that the
redesigned Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) will be test fired in
a horizontal attitude. This test attitude best simulates the critical
conditions on the field joint which failed during the STS 51-L mission.
	NASA also will conduct extensive component tests, full-segment
joint environmental simulation tests (with loads applied) and full scale
motor static tests to verify and certify the redesigned motor for
flight.  Also being considered at this time is the construction of a
second horizontal test stand with the capability of simulating launch
and flight loads on the motor during static test. This second horizontal
test facility, which should be ready for use in about 12 months at a
location still to be determined, would provide additional test
capability and redundancy in case of the loss of the only test facility
now available to NASA.
	The Presidential Commission investigating the STS 51-L accident
recommended that NASA consider the vertical attitude for the motor
firing s and duplicate the actual flight conditions as closely as
possible. It is NASA's belief that testing in the horizontal attitude is
the most demanding test of the redesigned joint for the pressure and
flight-induced loads and thus best satisfies the Commission's intent.
	These findings were reviewed within NASA's technical community,
with the Shuttle management's formal review system, and SRM design
overview committee composed of NASA and industry experts, and the U.S.
Air Force team which is responsible for returning the Titan launch
vehicle to flight status.  They also were presented to the independent
SRM design review panel of experts established under the auspices of the
National Research Council.
	NASA believes that the test plan being implemented will provide
the correct basis for flight verification of the redesigned SRM.
____________________________________________________________________________
NASA News Release 86-139 Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution

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

Path: mordor!sri-spam!sri-unix!hplabs!hao!nbires!isis!scicom!markf
From: markf@scicom.AlphaCDC.COM (Mark Felton)
Subject: Astronomy Technique
Date: 26 Oct 86 17:33:41 GMT

NASA NEWS -> Oct 3, 1986

NEW SPACE ASTRONOMY TECHNIQUE DEVELOPED TO STUDY CELESTIAL BODIES

	A new space radio-astronomy technique, using an orbiting
satellite to study celestial objects, has been successfully tested by
scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, California.
	An international team of scientists conducted experiments during
July and August employing a new space technique called very long
baseline interferometry (VLBI). They combined data from radio telescopes
on the ground with data from an antenna on NASA's Tracking and Data
Relay Satellite System (TDRSS) spacecraft, managed by NASA's Goddard
Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
	Investigators obtained better resolution of three quasars than
is possible in ground based radio studies at the same wavelength.
Quasars, or quasi-stellar objects, are among the most distant objects
known. The resolution obtained from the orbiting VLBI experiment was
equivallent to that of a radio telescope with size of 1.4 Earth
diameters. The quasars studied are designated 1730-130, 1741-038 and
1510-089.
	For the first time, a VLBI experiment used an orbiting satellite
as one of its radio telescopes. Previously, scientists linked widely
separated antennae on the ground with VLBI techniques to produce
high-resolution radio astronomy studies of celestial objects.
	Primary ground observatories in the experiment were NASA's Deep
Space Network 210-foot antenna in Australia and the Institute of Space
and Astronautical Sciences' 64 meter antenna at Usuda, Japan. An 80 foot
antenna at the Radio Research Laboratory in Kashima, Japan, also was
used to check performance of the larger ground antenna.

	Researchers believe the experiment's success demonstrates the
feasibility of a proposed orbiting VLBI mission. That mission would use
a satellite dedicated to radio-astronomy observations and would yield
new data on many celestial phenomena, including the nature of galactic
nuclei, the overall phenomena, including the nature of galactic nuclei,
the overall distance scale of the Universe and the formation of new
stars.
	The research team led by Gerald S. Levy and other JPL scientists
included investigators from M.I.T.; the Haystack Observatory, Westford,
Mass.; Bendix Field Engineering Corp., Columbia, Md.; the Spacecom/TRW/
Bendix team White Sands, N.M. and NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center,
Greenbelt, Md.
	Australian participants were from the Commonwealth Scientific
and Industrial Research Organization and Australian National
University's Mount Stromlo Observatory. Japanese experimenters were from
the Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, the Nobeyama Radio
Observatory and the Radio Research OLaboratory.
	NASA's portion of the VLBI experiment was jointly sponsored by
the Office of Space Tracking and Data Systems and Office of Space
Science and Applications.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-140 Leon Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C and
Franklin O'Donnell Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution

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

Path: mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!husc6!seismo!umcp-cs!aplcen!osiris!stsci!jay
From: jay@stsci.uucp (Jay Travisano)
Subject: A recommended book
Date: 24 Oct 86 15:38:04 GMT


        THE MARS PROJECT: JOURNEYS BEYOND THE COLD WAR
        Spark M. Matsunaga  (Senator, Democrat - Hawaii)
        1986  Hill & Wang  New York

A short and highly readable book about some of the work being done in
Congress on promoting international cooperation in space.  A number of
the senator's personal "visions" are presented along with discussions of
actual legislation in the last few years.  A bit superficial, especially
for the more technically enlightened readers of this newsgroup, but
nonetheless, I found a number of interesting tidbits of information and
thought-provoking ideas.  Now appearing at a public library near you.

    Jay Travisano
    CSC/Space Telescope Science Institute   Baltimore, Maryland
    ARPA:   jay@stsci.arpa
    UUCP:   {astrovax,brl-smoke,cfa,charm,jhunix,noao,nrao1,osiris}!stsci!jay

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

Path: mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!seismo!gatech!cuae2!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn
From: dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Chariots for Apollo #7 - Around the Moon in Six Days
Date: 4 Nov 86 14:20:20 GMT


	-------------------------------------------------------------
	|							    |
	|         You are cordially invited to attend		    |
 	|                the departure of the			    |
	|         United States Spaceship Apollo VIII		    |
 	|            on its voyage around the moon,		    |
	| departing from Launch Complex 39A, Kennedy Space Center,  |
	|         with the launch window commencing at		    |
	|           seven a.m. on December 21, 1968		    |
	|							    |
	| r.s.v.p.			       The Apollo VIII Crew |
	-------------------------------------------------------------

	Riding the huge Saturn V, propelled by more power than man had
ever felt pushing him before, the crew had varied impressions.  Borman
thought it was a lot like riding the Gemini Titan II.  Lovell agreed but
added that is seemed to slow down after it left the pad.  Rookie
astronaut Anders likened it to "an old freight train going down a bad
track."  The S-IC stage shook the crew up, but not intolerably.  Despite
all the power, the acceleration reached only four g. ... At 10:17,
former crew member Collins - back from his bout with the bone spur and
now at the capcom's console rather than in the center couch of Apollo 8
- opened a new era in space flight when he said, "All right, you are go
for TLI [TransLunar Injection]."  Many watchers in Hawaii, who had seen
a launch on live television for the first time, raced outside and looked
for the fireworks high above them. ...

	Lovell said: Okay, Houston, the moon is essentially gray, no
color; looks like plaster of Paris or sort of a grayish deep sand.  We
can see quite a bit of detail.  The Sea of Fertility doesn't stand out
as well as it does back on earth.  There's not much contrast between
that and the surround- ing craters.  The craters are all rounded off.
There's quite a few of them; some of them are newer.  Many of them -
especially the round ones - look like hits by meteorites or projectiles
of some sort. ...

	After looking at the back of the moon on several orbits, Anders
was moved to comment: It certainly looks like we're picking the more
inter- esting places on the moon to land in.  The backside looks like a
sand pile my kids have been playing in for along time.  It's all beat
up, no definition.  Just a lot of bumps and holes.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA
SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0, $12.00.

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Date: Wed, 5 Nov 86 21:13:46 EST
From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: X29
Cc: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa


	The new technology represented in the advanced forward swept
wing aircraft (X-29) seems very interesting.  Does anyone know exactly
what the advantages of the forward swept wing are and how the
technology may be applied to the next generation space plane?

					-Chris

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #36
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15023; Fri, 7 Nov 86 03:02:25 PST
	id AA15023; Fri, 7 Nov 86 03:02:25 PST
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 03:02:25 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611071102.AA15023@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #37

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 03:02:25 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #37

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 37

Today's Topics:
			Cabled Space Habitats
			A final word on fusion
	     Fusion propulsion and a parting shot at SPS
	       Summary of a talk by A. Scott Crossfield
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 05 Nov 86 18:52:08 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Cabled Space Habitats

     For quite a while I've considered that putting a space habitat on
the end of a cable and spinning it (with either a big rock, or another
habitat on the other end) would be the easiest way to provide gravity
for a space colony.
    The calculation is similar to that for tethers and skyhooks.  A
cable material has an ultimate tensile strength, "UTS" for short, and a
density "RHO".  The figure of merit is the strength per unit weight,
which is the characteristic length Lc=UTS/g*Rho.  For steel, Lc is about
50 km; for graphite or kevlar, Lc is about 1000 km, depending on what
type of material, how it is woven, etc.
     Assume the mass of the cable is small compared to the mass of the
habitat; for a specific example, let Mcable=0.1*Mhaitat, and that the
colony has a centrifugal gravity of 1/3 g, and that the safety margin is
a factor of three.  Then the maximum length of a habitat cable (from the
center of gravity) is Lc/3.  Minimum RPM comes at the maximum cable
length.  From physics, we know that F=mv**2/r, or a=m*omega**2 (omega
the angular frequency); thus the frequency of revolution of a colony
with gravity g and a cable length r is (1/2pi)*SQRT(g/r).  Putting in
r=Lc/2, Maximum cable lengths and minimum RPMs are:
         Steel cable: 0.04 RPM   cable=5 km    tip speed=0.4 km/sec
         Graphite   : 0.01 RPM   cable=100 km  tip speed=1.8 km/sec

(unless I made an arithmetic error, which is entirely possible).  These
rotation rates sound to me like they will be slow enough that people
won't get dizzy.

                         --Geoffrey A. Landis

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

Date:         Wed, 05 Nov 86 18:59:14 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      A final word on fusion


(1) Public Apology to Paul Dietz:
PFD> please do NOT send replies to private mail messages to public
PFD> bulletin board, especially if you include selective quotes from my
PFD> message.
     Sorry; somehow I thought that you sent a copy of your reply to my
posting to SPACE as well.  I will try be careful to read the headers of
messages more carefully.
    "Selective" quoting was done on the assumption that the reader had
already seen your message, and that quoting in full would only bore
them.  I apologize for the fact that, since people *hadn't* already seen
the full text, this had the effect of distorting your meaning.  That was
not my intention.  I, personally, don't like people who reprint the
entire text of some posting I've already read in order to reply to some
minor point.

PFD> About He3: I was not saying that magnetically confined D-He3
PFD> reactors are a near-term prospect (much less hydrogen-boron
PFD> reactors some fellow was flaming about).  Rather, D-He3 reactors
PFD> might get around some of the problems Lidsky had noted with D-T
PFD> reactors.
     I think that we are essentially in agreement.  I'm *not* trying to
say that fusion won't work ever.  I'm only trying to point out that it's
not a sure thing, nor necessarily near term.

(2) Comment on Gary Allen (ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET)'s comments:
GA> ...Paul Dietz responded by pointing out that while things look grim
GA> for magnetic fusion based on magnetic mirrors or Tokomaks, this is
GA> *not** the case for inertial confinement schemes which happen to the
GA> the basis for the various propulsion schemes.
     Right, but keep in mind that propulsion systems are weight
critical.  I have no way to guess what an accelerator for a neutral beam
fusion reactor would weigh.  This is not a parameter that they're
currently optimizing for (and rightly so: first make it work, then make
it light).  At, say, a thousand tons per engine, fusion will work for
moving asteroids, but not for ships.

GA> the Novette [laser fusion experimental device]... would be totally
GA> unrobust in a vibrating environment.  However since the Sandia
GA> [neutral beam] approach is nonoptical, its ignition system is much
GA> more compact.
     But is it any better against vibrations?  Seems to me that the
limiting factor is the pellet size, typically microns if I remember
right.  If this is the case, vibrations > 1 micron will kill any such
system.  Active control (ie., real time beam retargetting) might be
necessary to get around this problem.  This might be hard to do with a
neutral beam.

GA> The problem of energy extraction is of paramount importance in
GA> terrestrial fusion application but is quite secondary with a
GA> Daedalus propulsion scheme.  With a spacecraft the expanding fusion
GA> plasma pushes against a magnetic filed via a mirror effect.
     This won't work in a system where the energy is mainly deposited in
the form of hot neutrons, which aren't reflected by a magnetic mirror.
If you want to do this, you need the He3 reaction (or another one which
generates the energy in the form of charged particles).

(2) Re the query about whether powersat microwave beams could be
used as a weapon:

The original proposals were for power densities of about a kilowatt per
square meter, which is about one sun.  This is not high enough to use as
a weapon.  Whether such a phased array can be easily focussed down to
get higher power densities, I don't know.  This depends on the phasing
electronics and the antenna size.  The original concepts also had a
feedback loop involving the ground receptors to focus the beam, and if
the beam missed the rectenna, it would defocus to trivial energy
densities (thus guarding against some types of accidents).

                       --Geoffrey A. Landis

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

Date: Thu, 06 Nov 86 13:39:28 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Fusion propulsion and a parting shot at SPS

In a recent posting Geoffrey A. Landis correctly pointed out that some
of the energy in the deuterium-deuterium fuel cycle would be useless in
a fusion propulsion system because it would be in the form of fast
neutrons which wouldn't reflect against the engines magnetic mirrors.
The deuterium-deuterium fuel cycle has four reaction components:

          D + D >> T + p      D + T >> He4 + n
          D + D >> He3 + n    D + He3 >> He4 + p

According to the Project Daedalus report about 35% of the energy is in
the form of fast neutrons, compared to 5% for a pure D-He3 reaction.
This 30% energy loss is annoying.  Even more annoying is the lost energy
is in the form of fast neutrons which require the spacecraft's
command/payload module be shielded and separated from the propulsion
module on a long mast, (adding considerable extra weight to the
vehicle).  However in my view these shortcomings are more than
compensated for by the fact that deuterium is relatively cheap ($60 a
liter at 1970 prices for heavy water), and relatively easy to ignite.
This compares favorably against the 1960 price for He3 of $27000 per Kg.
As mentioned early, a boron fuel cycle is the way to go, but it's a long
way off because of ignition problems.  Since this propulsion system has
an Isp of one million seconds, it could be reduced to 10% of its design
specification and still be better off than any other propulsion design.
Eariler I claimed incorrectly that Daedalus used lasers for ignition.
This approach is used in the Novette and in other fusion propulsion
concepts.  However the Daedalus design used relativistic electrons,
(which is probably inferior to neutral particle beams).

On another subject, Geoffrey correctly pointed out that the proposed
Solar Power Satellite (SPS) could not be used as a weapon because the
energy density of its microwave beam was too low.  However this is a
specious argument.  All the SPS would require to become a weapon, is a
docking port with a power coupling.  You simply dock a free electron
laser to your SPS and presto-chango your SPS is now a space battle
station.  The free electron laser could easily be disguised as some
nonmilitary satellite and the docking could occur in a matter of
minutes.  However I consider this to be only a third order argument
against the SPS.  Economics is the first order problem, with
environmental problems being second order.  These are the main reasons
why the SPS was assigned to the trash can in the early 1980s.

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

Date: Fri, 7 Nov 86 00:18:16 pst
From: eugene@ames-nas.arpa (Eugene Miya)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Summary of a talk by A. Scott Crossfield

Today's Ames Director's Colloquia was given by Scott Crossfield.  This was
a presentation only open to the Ames community so I did not post it to
the Bay Area message systems.  Note: I read Crossfield's book "Always Another
Dawn" about 6 months ago.  He published his autobiography around 1962 and
many of the photos in that book were presented today.  Note this was also
a reference in Tom Wolfe's book, the Right Stuff.  The subject of today's
talk was about the development of high performance aeronautics craft.

Crossfield was noted in the motion picture was the first man to fly at Mach 2.
Crossfield wants it noted he is the first man to fly faster than Mach 2
and survive. He noted the name of another man (sorry, I forgot) who
broke Mach 2 before him, but died in the later stages of flight.

Crossfield was portrayed as Yeager's nemisis.  He was also the delivery pilot
for the X-15.  Most impressive were the sets of tables giving pilot names
and numbers of flights in each of many experimental aircraft.

Crossfield (not covered in the talk in great detail) grew up near
Willington in the "South Bay" of Los Angeles (near the Great Pumpkin
for those of you familiar with that refinery area). His family moved to
Washington state during the depression and he entered the Navy and was a
flight instructor during the war.  He went to school receiving his masters
from the U. of Washington. The last I heard he was living in Westchester,
CA, but I did not get a chance to ask him if he was still living off
Lincoln Blvd after the talk.

Crossfield is has a fairly light sense of humor, and he nearly took a
job at Ames in 1946.  He has many old friends here.  Crossfield is a firm
believer in the man in the flight loop.  He is not impressed by unmanned
space (admittedly, this author's bias).  He is not impressed by fancy
electronics in planes (the X-15 was given as one example).  Crossfield
noted that the engines designed for the original X-1 were in use from
1945 to 1975 (in modes of the X-24 lifting body).  Such a 30 year span
has no peers in computing.

Photos, tables, stories covered planes from the X-1 to X-24B.  Also noted
were the XF-92A and the century series F-100s thru F-107 (the latter
he described as he watched it burn) [note Crossfield is the only person
to have a street named after him at Edwards AFB who is alive and or
survived his crash: "XF-92A."  This is all in his book BTW].

What is impressive about his tables of flights is that hundreds of flights
were made by people in planes like the X-1 and the D-558 -1 and -2.
Mentioned by name was the father of a friend who was killed testing
planes at Edwards, so Dave Drake at DEC (AIWest), if you are reading this,
your dad was mentioned.

Crossfield made a couple of jabs at the life sciences people
both present and absent (in particular Dr. Lovelace of the noted clinic).
Crossfield had photos of the original pressure suit he and others
made and noted the olive drab color (suit sewn by Mrs. Crossfield
while living in Palmdale).  He said he would explain why suits were silver,
but I guess he forgot.  It was covered in his book: basically he and
others thought, hey, aren't astronauts supposed to have silver colored
suits?  Sure, let's make them that way.....  He did note the suit
they made was the grand-daddy to Armstrong's lunar suit.  There was a
photo of the Crossfield rubber dummy used for the X-15 pressure suits.
Crossfield also had photos of centrifuge tests for the X-15,
what -3 Gs does to deform your face (he noted he underwent 150 Gs
when the X-15 exploded on a test stand and his portion of the plane
flew forward 20 feet, this permanently damaged his eyes, but he got
away with it by wearing dark glasses).  "Yes, nothing more comforting
when all the guys around you retreat to the block house and then
you get into your plane (on test stand). [laughter]"

He was critical of the formation of NASA as spliting space and aeronautics
into two distinct camps and that aeronautics was the logical way into space.
He was critical of the German rocket scientists, and he felt that
American aeronautics RESEARCH would have gotten men into space.
He had photos of the X-20 mock up (I wonder if James Abahamson was one of
those standing in front...).  He also had photos of two Orient express
designs.

He had a photo fo the X-15A (not in the autobiography) (this model had
external tanks).  He also had a photo of the proposed X-15B orbital system
with Beryllium tipped surfaces, for reentry, which he had a hand in designing.
He felt that using existing obsolete air defense rockets (can't remember,
maybe Bomarcs) strapped together, they could have had a single staged
space plane in the mid 1960s.  He had a photo of his X-15 in the
National Air and Space Museum and he noted it is still airworthy and
would be useful if they wanted to recommision it.

Crossfield also had some photos of his avocational interests:
small planes, race cars, and high speed boats.

Afterward, a group of people congrigated.  I only wanted to ask him if
he still lived in Westchester (no chance), but it was interesting to watch.
Old friends came to greet him.  Several photos of the old group at Pancho's
were produced (this was neat seeing these).

Crossfield is now a consultant to the House.  He frequently speaks
at aeronautics departments at universities and colleges.  This talk
was a canned talk, but a very nice one.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,dual,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

  note: several people have tried sending me mail, but I can't reply.
  please put path or address info on a trailing signature as above.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #37
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18776; Sat, 8 Nov 86 03:01:58 PST
	id AA18776; Sat, 8 Nov 86 03:01:58 PST
Date: Sat, 8 Nov 86 03:01:58 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611081101.AA18776@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #38

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 38

Today's Topics:
		  Powersat as weapons, an expansion
			    Re: Powersats
			     (con)fusion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  7 Nov 86 15:09 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Powersat as weapons, an expansion
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa


Date:  7-NOV-1986 14:57
From: Dennis O'Connor
Sender: OCONNORDM
Subject: Powersat as weapons, an expansion
To: SPACE@ANGBAND@smtp
--------

	In SPACE Digest Volume 7, Issue 37, Geoffrey A. Landis states :

>(2) Re the query about whether powersat microwave beams could be
>used as a weapon:
>
>The original proposals were for power densities of about a kilowatt per
>square meter, which is about one sun.  This is not high enough to use as
>a weapon.  Whether such a phased array can be easily focussed down to
>get higher power densities, I don't know.  This depends on the phasing
>electronics and the antenna size.  The original concepts also had a
>feedback loop involving the ground receptors to focus the beam, and if
>the beam missed the rectenna, it would defocus to trivial energy
>densities (thus guarding against some types of accidents).

 and "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu" then says

>            ... All the SPS would require to become a weapon, is a
>docking port with a power coupling.  You simply dock a free electron
>laser to your SPS and presto-chango your SPS is now a space battle
>station.  The free electron laser could easily be disguised as some
>nonmilitary satellite and the docking could occur in a matter of
>minutes.  However I consider this to be only a third order argument
>against the SPS.  Economics is the first order problem, with
>environmental problems being second order.  ... 

Taking a few points in order,
    1. One sun of light is not a problem for biological systems,
but one sun of microwave energy is different story. How much higher
than the safe limit for long ( hours ) human exposure is a kilowatt
per square meter? OF course, if you aimed such a beam at a city, the
reflective structures would produce areas of much higher exposure.
    2. Feedback loops were made to be broken. I am not talking
about accidental strastraying of the beam, I'm talking deliberate
targetting for terrorism / blackmail / warfare .
    3. BIG free-electron lasers are not just wished up. Direct use
of an already installed system that delivers energy to a target
( which pretty much defines "weapon" ) is much better. And if all
you have to do is bypass a few safety features ...

The larger point I'd like to make is this : A space-based culture
needs transportation, energy generation and energy distribution
systems. The nature of space-resident versions of these systems
( powersats, mass-drivers, orbital-manuvering-vehicles ) combined
with their advantageous positioning allow them to easily be
converted to weapons, especially against large unmoving targets
at the bottom of a gravity well. A space-based culture, as long
as it was self-sufficient ( no need for H,N,C, or O2 shipments
from earth ) would be in an excellent position to terrorize /
threaten / wage war the planet it orbitted. All such a course
requires is creative application of existing "non-military"
hardware. The culture at the bottom of the well is not so lucky.
To fight the space culture they'd have to build speciallized
anti-space weapons systems.

I'm not real happy with the above scenario. If we are going to
establish self-sufficient cultures off-planet, let's do it
either FAR away ( orbitting Mars, say ), or at the bottom of
another gravity well ( on the moon, say ), or preferably
both ( on Mars ). I'd sleep better, the USSR would sleep
better. I'm ignoring the other questions about space culture
establishment for now ( like, can it pay for itself ) in order
to add a new dimension to the argument.

			Dennis O'Connor

--------

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

Date:  7 Nov 1986 22:54-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Powersats

For those interested in accurate information on the status of powersat
research in the 80's, I would recommend the refereed journal "Space
Power" published by the Sunsat Energy Council.

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

Date:     Fri, 7 Nov 86 21:40 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  (con)fusion

There have been several untrue statements made about fusion rockets
lately, so I'll try to correct them.  (The following "quotes" are
not quotes.)

(1) "Pure deuterium is a bad fusion rocket fuel because it makes neutrons".

One of the big howlers of the Daedalus study was the choice of
D-He3 fuel.  There are three reasons why this fuel is not better.

First: D-He3 pellets produce about 15% of their energy by D-D
side reactions, which either make neutrons directly or produce
tritium that immediately burns to make a neutron.  So, neutron
output in D-He3 pellets is not less than about an order of magnitude
less than pure deuterium pellets.  Second, D-He3 and D-D burn at
about 100 KeV, so a good fraction of the energy will come off
as hard x-rays which are as bad as neutrons when it comes to
vehicle heating. (Hydrogen-boron burns at much higher temperatures,
and is therefore ruled out as a fusion rocket fuel, even if it could
be ignited.) Third, fuel in a compressed pellet is several neutron
scattering lengths deep, so even if DD and DT reactions put
most of their energy into neutrons much of that energy gets redeposited
in the plasma, negating D-He3's potential thrust advantage.

(2) "Sandia's particle beam fusion reactor would be good for rockets."

  Not really, because Sandia produces ion beams, not beams
of neutral particles.  These beams diverge unless propagated
through a plasma channel in a background gas, which is not
practical in a rocket operating in space.  (This situation
might change if they can inject a comoving electron could.)

  Hyde in UCRL-8857 surveys possible drivers and settles on
excimer lasers as the best bet.

(3) "Fusion pellets are a micron across."

  No, fusion pellets are large hollow spheres about a centimeter across.
(Details are unfortunately classified.)  Consider: Hyde's pellets contain
15 milligrams of deuterium, which is about 0.1 cm**3 in liquid form.

  I'll add that many problems with vibration and aiming can
potentially be solved with phase conjugating mirrors, as outlined
in a recent Scientific American article.

(4) "A fusion engine with a mass of 1000 tons is only good for
   moving asteroids."

 The mass of the engine is less important than the power/mass ratio.
Hyde's concept from UCRL-88857, for example, has a unloaded mass of about
500 tons,  an average fusion energy output of 200 gigawatts,
and a maximum thrust of 3 meganewtons.  An asteroid mover could operate
economically with a power/mass ratio perhaps 100 to 1000 times lower.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #38
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA21928; Sun, 9 Nov 86 03:02:01 PST
	id AA21928; Sun, 9 Nov 86 03:02:01 PST
Date: Sun, 9 Nov 86 03:02:01 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611091102.AA21928@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #39

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 39

Today's Topics:
			   Unmanned shuttle
		      Re: Power Sat's as weapons
			    fusion energy
		       Re: Powersats, DOE study
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Nov 86 19:19:35 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Unmanned shuttle
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

[from AP - posted without permission]

a039  0235  08 Nov 86
PM-UTC-Shuttle,0486
Unmanned Shuttle-Like Space Vehicle Proposed
    HARTFORD, Conn. (AP) - An unmanned space vehicle using the launch,
propulsion and guidance systems of NASA's space shuttle could carry
larger payloads at lower cost, say officials of a company proposing
to build the ship.
    United Technologies Corp. has submitted an unsolicited proposal to
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for a system dubbed
the Unmanned Payload Carrier.
    The vehicle could fly more often with heavier payloads for less
money than the manned shuttle, said J. Donald Mirth, vice president
of Space Flight Systems, part of United Technologies' Defense and
Space Systems group.
    It would ''help reduce the backlog of Department of Defense,
scientific and commercial payloads more rapidly'' and accelerate the
development of a space station by reducing the number of fights now
planned, he said Friday.
    The proposal, submitted Aug. 28, is being reviewed at NASA's
Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., according to Mirth.
    David Drachlis, a spokesman for the space flight center, said it
''would not be appropriate ... to comment'' until a standard review
process ''has been completed and the company has been notified of the
results.''
    Mirth said plans call for development and operation of the new
vehicle about three years after approval from NASA. He said he did
not know when the space agency might respond. No estimate of the
project's cost was given.
    The proposed vehicle could carry 115,000-pound payloads of more than
22 feet in width and 72 feet in length, or more than 45,000 cubic
feet of cargo. The manned shuttle, whose flights were halted after
the explosion of the Challenger killed its crew in January, can carry
only 11,000 cubic feet of cargo in a bay measuring 14 feet by 52 feet
of usable space.
    The proposed system would be able to launch payloads into polar
orbit from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California.
    The company also said the unmanned system could be used with
existing liquid fuel upper-stage propulsion systems such as the
Centaur to lift payloads of up to 35,000 pounds into geosynchronous
orbits - high-level orbits that keep a satellite over a fixed point
on the rotating Earth.
    Because of the danger posed to shuttle crews, NASA has not used the
powerful but volatile liquid fuel systems to push shuttle-bay cargoes
into higher orbit. Safer but less powerful solid fuel systems can put
only about 6,000 pounds into geosynchronous orbit.
    Like the shuttle, the unmanned vehicle would ride piggy-back on an
external liquid-fuel tank flanked by two solid-fuel booster rockets,
which would parachute into the ocean for recovery after launch. The
external tank would disintegrate on re-entry into the atmosphere.
    The payload would automatically deploy in orbit and a part of the
payload carrier containing the three main engines and control systems
would return to Earth for recovery on land.
    
AP-NY-11-08-86 0533EST
***************

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

Date:  8 Nov 1986 20:59-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Power Sat's as weapons

First, I suspect we're talking about a bit more than a few safety
interlocks. One must also keep in mind that a powersat is an EXTREMELY
vulnerable target to a military attack, which makes it a not terribly
good weapon. Unless it has a damn good SDI around it, and I'm sure
someone would notice the million ton lunar rock covered battlestations
moving into position...

To Mr. O'Connors worries, I reply that I'm much more worried about
what will happen if earthbased mentalities try to handcuff the
creativity, advancement and dispersion of the space based portion and
causes them to fight for their freedom. Such would probably
lead to far worse than you imagine. Worse, at least, for the would-be
Imperial earth.

The truth is, I expect there will be very little that I space based
culture will WANT from Earth, once it has become self sufficient.
Possibly tourism: an occassional visit to legendary primitive lands
like the USA. Of course that might not be very popular because of all
the uncontrolled weather, disease, roving tribes of fanatic Baptists, etc.

The portion of humanity that stays on the ground will become a genetic
backwater equivalent to that of the fish that DIDN'T grow lungs. They
will have ceased to place their mark on history. As the song "Hope
Eyrie" says (approximately): "The crown of life passes to younger lands..."

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

To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: fusion energy
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 86 23:35:57 EST
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

Paul F. Dietz writes...
>> It's not clear Lidsky's complaints [about the problems still facing
>> fusion] apply to D-He3 reactors, since these can use direct
>>conversion and avoid the major costs of steam turbines and generators.

Geoffrey A. Landis replies...
>     Maybe.  Can this be ignited?  I thought it took
>much higher pressure/temperatures to ignite that reaction.
>Isn't He3 expensive?  Is there enough around to use for fuel?

You should read an article mentioned last summer in this newsgroup.  I
just found a copy.  Here's the abstract:

      "An analysis of astrophysical information indicates that the
      solar wind has deposited an abundant, easily extractable source
      of He3 onto the surface of the moodn.  Apollo lunar samples
      indicate that the moon's surface soil contains ~10**9 kg of He3. 
      If this amount of He3 were to be used in a 50% efficient D-He3
      fusion reactor, it would provide 10**7 GW (electric)-yr of
      electrical power.  The energy required to extract He3 from the
      lunar regolith and transport it to earth is calculated to be
      ~2400 GJ/kg.  Since the D-He3 reaction produces 6x10**5 GJ of
      energy per kilogram of He3, the energy payback ratio is ~250. 
      Implications for the commercialization of D-He3 fusion reactors
      and for the development of fusion power are discussed."

- L. J. Wittenberg, J. F. Santarius, and G. L. Kulcinski, "Lunar Source 
of He3 for Commercial Fusion Power", _Fusion_Technology_, vol 10, Sept 
1986 (pp 167-178).

In fact, ALL readers of this newsgroup should read it.  This just could 
be the industrial application of space we've been waiting for.  

To answer the immediate questions: Terrestrial He3 presently costs
about $700/g.  By the year 2000 we can collect maybe 600 kg and be
producing 18 kg/yr.  The article also indicates that magnetically
confined D-He3 reactors appear to operate at about 4 times higher
temperature and 1/50 the normalized power density of D-T reactors.

For building fusion reactors, the advantages of the D-He3 reaction are:

1.	The small fraction of fusion power produced in the form of neutrons, 
which leads to lower cost and mass for the blanket, reflector, and 
shield system.

2.	The potential for converting much of the fusion power at high 
efficiency by electrostatic direct conversion of chaged particles, thus 
allowing fucion reactors that have very high net plant efficiencies,

3.	The removal of the requirement for breeding tritium [not available 
naturally because it decays],

4.	The inherent safety due to a low afterheat density and a low 
inventory of radioactive isotopes,

5.	The increased plant lifetime and availability due to the low neutron 
flux.

The disadvantages are:

1.	The low power density imposed by a lower fusion cross section than 
D-T and by a higher operating temperature [mentioned above],

2.	The problem of obtaining a sufficient supply of He3,

3.	The difficulty of fueling, since He3 is not easily incorporated into 
pellets.

The article proposes mining the rigolith, releasing the helium by
heating, and separating the isotopes by cryogenic distillation.  It
suggests that we use the 600 kg or so of terrestrial He3 between 1990
and 2010 to develop the reactors, the 10**9 kg of lunar He3 from then
to 2100, then start on the 7x10**22 kg of He3 in the atmosphere of
Jupiter!

All in all, a very thought-provoking article.

                      - Jim Van Zandt     (jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa)

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

To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Powersats, DOE study
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 86 23:36:26 EST
From: James R. Van Zandt <jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa>

Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu writes...
> From the mumblings I pick up a conferences, it would appear that the
> soviets are quite interested in the powersat idea to supply cheap power
> for third world client states: a real diplomatic coup for them,
> regardless of the front end costs. And of course, once you've built #1,
> #2 is a breeze and a hell of a lot cheaper.
>                      ...           
> ...There
> have been proposals to transmit energy ... by 'bouncing' it from passive
> reflectors in GSO. This might even beat superconducting power lines,
> because you don't have to build the infrastructure to get lots of power
> to where it is needed. You just tilt the reflector. This is
> particularly good for undeveloped countries.

However, look at it from the undeveloped countries' point of view. 
Allowing either kind of installation in your country gives the fellow
at the other end a mighty powerful lever - anger him and he can pull
the plug on you, and supply cheap energy to your unfriendly neighbor
instead.
                               - Jim Van Zandt  (jrv@mitre-bedford.arpa)

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #39
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA26079; Mon, 10 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST
	id AA26079; Mon, 10 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST
Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611101102.AA26079@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #40

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 40

Today's Topics:
		  Impressions of the NCOS Symposium
		 Re: Powersats and 3rd world welfare
	 Powersats as weapons, battlestations, genetics, etc.
			 Re: Seed the Stars ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 9 Nov 86 11:33 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Impressions of the NCOS Symposium

I just attended the "National Commission on Space Symposium" in New York
City, 11/8/86.  Here's a report on what happened.  It is incomplete and
reflects my personal bias (as well as the migraine headache I had after
the first hour).

The symposium crammed 350+ people into a rather small room (that by fire
codes was supposed to house no more than 250).  This was preferable,
though, to standing in the hallway for 45 minutes as we had to do while
they set up seats.

Gerard O'Neill gave a slide show on the NCOS report and plugged SSI and
Geostar.  Little new there.  He gave a slide on the Lunar Polar orbiter,
which he said could be built for $20 - 50 million (plus launch costs),
and would do a gamma ray spectroscopic survey of the lunar polar regions
looking for hydrogen.

Phillip Culbertson, NASA General Manager, gave what I thought was a
pretty weak presentation about what NASA was doing in space, more of a
wistful look at past achievements and then some bush-wa about the space
station (he showed a slide of the June 86 baseline design, now obsolete,
and mentioned that the space station will have attached some kind of
telescope for looking for extrasolar planets [astrometric?], which I
would think would be far better placed on a free-flyer).

Alexander Alexandrovitch of Grumman described a GaAs growing experiment
that Grumman wants to put on the shuttle.  He said they know that GaAs
crystals with fewer defects can be grown in space, but it has not been
shown that it is worth it given the cost.  He made some comments about
too much delay could kill the project (apparently directed at
Culbertson).  (Side question: does it seem reasonable that NASA will
allow large quantities of arsenic into the space station?  If not,
wouldn't a free-flyer do just as well for growing GaAs crystals?)

Finally, Isaac Asimov talked about why the Challenger tragedy had such
an impact.  He said it was because we saw it on TV.  I disagree -- the
real impact was because of the cognitive dissonance between our previous
perception of NASA and the revelations after 51-L.

The questions afterwards were more interesting.  Dr. O'Neill continues
to be realistic about space industrialization.  In a question about
communications satellites, he said they will be largely replaced by
fiber optics for such things as telephone calls.  Afterwards I asked Dr.
O'Neill if he still thinks microgravity manufacturing in low earth orbit
can be "hardly more than a publicity stunt", he said yes.

Dr. O'Neill also stated (during the Q/A period) that he was concerned
that the space station is going to take 10 years to go up, and that NASA
is ignoring quick and cheap opportunities that will arise in the
meantime.  He's afraid someone will zap the station just like Ariane
zapped the shuttle.

I haven't looked at L5 literature in a while, so I looked at some they
were distributing in the hallway.  It's still high on "inspirational"
material (paintings of ET scenes, "the stars belong to everyone", etc.)
and short on anything I'd want to pay for.  Space World (from NSS) was a
lot better.

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

Date:  9 Nov 1986 12:19-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Powersats and 3rd world welfare
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 9 Nov 86 03:12:38 PST

Jim Van Zandt: More likely scenario is that if the USSR supplies energy,
so will we within a few years to a decade. The client nation will just
do what third world nations have always done: play one superpower off
against the other and get as good and long a free lunch as possible out
of our mutual paranoia.

And don't kid yourself that even with only one supplier that there
wouldn't be any takers. It never stopped anyone from accepting MIGS or
PHANTOMS, so I doubt it would make any difference with energy either.

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

Date:  9 Nov 86 23:31 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Powersats as weapons, battlestations, genetics, etc.
To: space@s1-b.arpa

    In SPACE Digest V7 #39, "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu" writes :
>       ... One must also keep in mind that a powersat is an EXTREMELY
>vulnerable target to a military attack, which makes it a not terribly
>good weapon. Unless it has a damn good SDI around it, and I'm sure
>someone would notice the million ton lunar rock covered battlestations
>moving into position...

	First, why is a powersat vulnerable, and to what? Second,
    SDI is easy to make "damn good" if the target(s) you're defending
    are smaller than cities and relatively few in number. Third,
    "million-ton lunar-rock-covered" space colonies abound in
    most plans for an autonomous space culture. Some of them even
    serve as power distribution centers. Sounds like a potential
    battlestation to me. But then, I'm diabolical.

    After a brief flame, "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu" then continues :

>The truth is, I expect there will be very little that I space based
>culture will WANT from Earth, once it has become self sufficient.
>Possibly tourism: an occassional visit to legendary primitive lands
>like the USA. Of course that might not be very popular because of all
>the uncontrolled weather, disease, roving tribes of fanatic Baptists,
>etc.

	Gee, and I thought they might just want raw power. But, such
    nasty, ambitous, charismatic and ( yes, say it ) EVIL people
    surely will not exist in a space-base culture !! ( note sarcasm ).
    Also remember, its always cheaper to get something from somebody
    else ( rather than make it or get it yourself ) if you can avoid
    paying for it (i.e. blackmail/tribute/et cetera ).
   
    "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu" then concludes :

>The portion of humanity that stays on the ground will become a genetic
>backwater equivalent to that of the fish that DIDN'T grow lungs. They
>will have ceased to place their mark on history. As the song "Hope
>Eyrie" says (approximately): "The crown of life passes to younger
>lands..."

        I don't oppose anyone going anywhere they please ( with a few
    exceptions : No condos in the Galapogos, please ). But I don't
    support making people who aren't going pay for the trip. And I don't
    oppose space colonies, just not over MY planet, if you don't mind.
    And not with MY tax money.
    	Your genetic arguments are "fishy" at best : changing your
    location doesn't cause evolution, only selection pressure and a
    diverse gene pool ( with maybe a lucky mutation ) can do that.  The
    controlled enviroments of space colonies will probably have less
    selection pressure and a less diverse gene pool than Earth, so I
    guess your counting on the mutations. Good Luck. You Need It.
        The reason "younger lands" were usually more prosperous than
    older ones ( e.g. North America, 1600s..1900s ) is because their
    ecosystems hadn't been raped by humanity yet. But that's a long and
    rather depressing story ( but true, unfortunately ). Where are you
    going to find virgin ecosystems ( to pillage ) in space ?
	And as for 4 billion plus people suddenly ceasing to place
    their mark on history, lets go back to the fish : They are still in
    the ocean, causing fishing rights disputes and red tides, and only
    occasionally eating people, or haveing III movies made about their
    "mandibles" ( pun alert ). BTW, they're still evolving, too.
   
			Dennis O'Connor

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

Date: Mon, 10 Nov 86 00:05:47 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Seed the Stars ?
To: Space@s1-b.arpa

  We must be very careful not to destroy information or preclude future
possibilities.  We should not seed Mars or Venus, for instance, until we
are certain there is no native life there, or if there IS native life
there, until we are sure that it is not intelligent AND that we
completely understand it and have gained everything we possibly can from
it.
  Similarly, introduction of life is likely to alter the geology
(planetology?) of the world in question.  We should learn all we
possibly can about the geology before doing anything that is likely to
radically alter it.
  Also, introducing life will most likely preclude introducing a
different sort of life later.  We should be certain that we aren't
preventing future generations from terraforming or biomining or
otherwise using the planet in a more productive way.
  It is doubtful that we will have the knowledge or the wisdom to be
able to satisfy these question for a long time.  So I think that for the
forseeable future we should not release uncontrolled life on other
worlds.
  Please understand that I do not think that plants and animals have any
rights.  And dead matter certainly has none.  I think we should hold off
for our own future benefit, not for the benefit of any alien life
(excluding intelligent aliens, of course).
  I see nothing wrong with tearing down most of Earth's rain forests, IF
enough are left to be enjoyed, AND we are sure we have discovered every
species, analyzed their genetic code and any other information needed to
totally recreate their ecosystem, AND we have safely stored it in
multiple places on CD-rom or other very long term storage media, AND
this information is available to everyone and is not the property of
some elite.
  Similarly, if we wish to completely replace an alien ecosystem with
one of our own design, I see nothing wrong with that if we first
completely analyze and store the alien ecosystem.
							...Keith

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #40
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA29683; Tue, 11 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST
	id AA29683; Tue, 11 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611111102.AA29683@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #41

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 11 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #41

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 41

Today's Topics:
			       Re: X-29
			      Lunar He3
			 LA Area: Space Talk
			Space colony paranoia
			  NY NCOS Symposium
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 09 Nov 86 17:39:25 EST
From: H. Thomas Sharp
  <TSHARP%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Cc: <WELTYC%CIEUNIX@rpics.arpa>
Subject:      Re: X-29

>From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty)
>
>   The new technology represented in the advanced forward swept
>wing aircraft (X-29) seems very interesting.  Does anyone know exactly
>what the advantages of the forward swept wing are and how the
>technology may be applied to the next generation space plane?
>
>                   -Chris


There are several advantages of a forward swept wing (FSW) over an aft
swept wing (ASW).  Among these are

   o Improved performance at high angles of attack.  For the ASW flow
     separation occurs at the wing tip and degrades the responsiveness
     of the control surfaces.  Flow separation on a FSW occurs inboard
     and generally never reaches the tip.  This allows for higher roll
     rates than would be possible with an ASW.

   o While wing sweep, either fore or aft, postpones the drag rise near
     Mach 1, a FSW has a lower wing profile drag than a ASW.  Therefore,
     one can obtain higher lift coefficients under transonic conditions.
     This translates into a greater payload capacity for a given aspect
     ratio.

Of course the major disadvantage of a FSW is it's desire to bend.  The
major contribution of the X-29 is the knowledge which has been gained on
the manufacturing and use of composites which can be tailored to the
aeroelastic bending.

 H. Thomas Sharp  (TSHARP@BROWNVM.ARPA)
 Division of Applied Mathematics
 Brown University

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

Date:         Mon, 10 Nov 86 11:34:49 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Lunar He3

James R. Van Zandt    [Quoting  Wittenberg,  Santarius, and Kulcinski,
_Fusion_Technology_,  vol 10, Sept. 1986 (pp 167-178).]
>  "Apollo lunar samples indicate that the moon's surface soil contains
> ~10**9 kg of He3.  If this amount of He3 were to be used in a 50%
> efficient D-He3 fusion reactor, it would provide 10**7 GW
> (electric)-yr of electrical power.

     Hmmm.  The moon has a surface of about 40 million square kilometers.
1E9 kg of He3 works out to 25 kg/km2, or 25 mg/m2.  If we assume that
the He3 is homogenized into the top 1m depth, this is .025 micrograms
per cc.  If the lunar rock has a density of 5, that's 0.5 parts per billion.
This is low grade ore with a vengence!  However, if extraction is really
as simple as just heating it, it may still be practical.  (Given that we
can make the D-He3 reaction work, that is.)

> The energy required to extract He3 from the lunar regolith and
>transport it to earth is calculated to be  ~2400 GJ/kg.  Since the
> D-He3 reaction produces 6x10**5 GJ of energy per kilogram of He3, the
>energy payback ratio is ~250.
      Given the low concentrations, I would expect, however, that other
costs than merely the cost of the energy to extract it will dominate the
costs of mining.

> Terrestrial He3 presently costs about $700/g.  By the year 2000 we can
> collect  maybe 600 kg [from the moon] and be producing 18 kg/yr.
    600kg = 24 km2 mined by the year 2000.    18 kg/yr = .75 km2/yr
At an 18kg/yr rate, it takes 33 yrs to mine 600 kg.

                                   --Geoffrey A. Landis

     DISCLAIMER: "WHAT is right is more important than WHO is right."

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

Date: 10 Nov 1986 15:23:20 PST
Sender: ROGERS@b.isi.edu
Subject: LA Area: Space Talk
From: Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@venera.isi.edu>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: BBoard@venera.isi.edu, BBoard@usc-ecl.arpa
Reply-To: Rogers@VENERA.ISI.EDU


	  Never before has the United States faced such a
     challenge to its civilian space program.  Find out what
     YOU can do to put America back on the High Road to Space
     by attending a special free symposium.  This event will
     feature speakers and discussions highlighting the findings
     of the National Commission on Space's report and program
     for civilian space development through the year 2035.

          The symposium will be held at the California Museum of
     Science and Industry in Exposition Park on Saturday, November
     22, 1986, from 1:00 PM to 4:00 PM.  Admission is free, but
     space is limited.  Call (213) 419-0561 to make a reservation.

	  The following organizations are participating in the
     symposium:

	       The National Space Society
               Rockwell International
               TRW
               The California Museum of Science and Industry
	       The Organization for the Advancement of Space
                    Industrialization and Settlement, a chapter of the
		    L5 Society (OASIS/L5)
	       The L5 Society
               The Planetary Society
               The American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
               The American Astronautical Society


	  The panel of speakers at the symposium will include:

	       Dr. Thomas Paine, Chairman of the National Commission
		    on Space
	       Louis L'Amour, western writer
	       Seymour Z. Rubenstein, President, Space Station Systems
		    Division, Rockwell International
	       Dr. Albert Hibbs, formerly JPL Technical Staff

	  Portions of this symposium will be taped for rebroadcast by
    the Discovery cable TV channel.


          OASIS/L5 is a non-profit educational group which promotes
     space development.  For more information about this event or
     other OASIS/L5 activities call Craig Rogers at (213) 419 - 0561,
     or send a message to <ROGERS@ISI.EDU>.

     [Portions of this message were copied, with permission, from the
     National Space Society's press release for the symposium.]
-------

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

Date: 10 Nov 1986 23:22-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Space colony paranoia

OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa:

A useful power sat is a fragile structure of very thin girders and
solar cells and/or large solar concentrators for Rankine cycle or other type
generators. They are literally huge and very flimsy by the very nature
of what they do: maximize collecting area and minimize mass. Nobody
interested in making a profit is going to build them any other way.

I'm really amazed at your level of paranoia. Did the USA turn around and
conquer Britain? No. It wanted left alone to go it's own direction. The
same will happen at a space settlement, which is very vulnerable to outside
attack*. Protection by rock would be limited to that necessary to stop
particles from the direction of the sun. None of the various designs
would hold up long against concerted attack, if the attackers didn't
care if they killed most everyone. A takeover could be quite difficult
if you wanted to take live prisoners.

* Note: except for a lunar settlement, which could be near invulnerable
to even a concerted NUCLEAR attack. You might have to take out each
building seperately. But then, it has a gravity well, so it's not
really the high ground you speak of.

A battle station is a VERY different proposition. A non rotating
structure buried in a sphere of rock and slag, with passages to bring
replacement weapons and sensors to the surface after they get blasted
off. Think of the difference between the hardness (and price) of a
cadillac versus that of a battle tank with Chobham armor. The caddy
might eat a Volkswagen strike, but it won't handle anything SERIOUS.

And even if you do harden everything, fight the war and get someone to
surrender (without having an army that can stand up when it lands, or
knows how to deal with mosquitos, killer bees, thunderstorms, mud,
etc), you then have to keep 7 billion people under thumb somehow. How?
The Russians can't even keep an empire together (they've got some 7-8
revolts against them around the world) and they are here, they have an
army HERE, they have an army that knows how to live HERE, and they
aren't afraid to use any amount of force or deadly gas that comes to
hand. How do you propose that a bunch of colonists are going to pull off
this coup? I find it an utterly ridiculous concept. I think you've been
reading too much Starship Troopers.

There is really no chance they would attempt an attack on the other
OTHER THAN TO REMOVE THEMSELVES FROM ITS GRIP OR THREATS. People on
frontiers look outwards, not backwards. The ones you have to worry
about are the patriotic military forces from Earth wanting to hold
Earth-Moon space for mother (pick your favorite super power) ______ in
order to make the Earth safe for (pick your favorite ideology)
________. All things considered, you are probably safer if they ARE
independant.

If you want to hypothesize some far future time (500 years or so) when
the population density out there is such that there are aged cultures
spread around the system, ones whose energies are not entirely taken up
by building and surviving and expanding, then there might be some
credence to your worries. However, at that late a date, it won't really
matter WHERE they are based, because with a fusion drive, you can move
the whole damn thing. But why would you move a city closer when all you
really want to do is send your weapons to dominate the high ground? And
I'm still not sure that I see any gain worth the cost. It just doesn't
seem feasible to conquer 7 Billion individuals. Easy to kill a lot of
them off, but not so easy to leave anything intact that will make the
attempt worth the cost.

And as to selective forces, I strongly suspect people will adapt to low
or zero gravity, possibly in only a few generations. Most people, after
having been up long enough to stop tossing their cookies have preferred
it. The choice may be one way: once you adapt you can't EVER go back.
Children born in low gravity (the moon for exasmple) may likewise never
be able to visit a high gravity planet, or would simply not be
interested in the huge effort required to get in that kind of physical
condition.

Simple power has very rarely been the only, or even a major driving
factor behind war. Most wars are caused by religion, scarce resources,
fear or rebellion against an oppresor. I'm hard pressed to think of any
major confrontations in the last 2000 years that was mainly for power,
other than Kenghis Kahn and Adolf Hitler. And if a power crazed maniac
comes along, it probably doesn't matter where he starts out. The result
will be the same.

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

Date: 11 Nov 1986 00:03-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: NY NCOS Symposium

DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET:

350 when they planned on 250!!!!!!! Glad to hear it was a rousing
success.  It's always a good feeling when you get swamped with people.
It shows there are people out there who really care. I've had some
experience with half full (and less) rooms for events that had a great
deal of hard work and planning put into them. You just never know until
the doors open; all you can do is cross your fingers, hold your breath
and dive into the PR campaign.  Guess I should give NYC L5 (they
organized and ran the whole thing on the NYC end) a call and
congratulate them on doing a great job.

I only hope the one coming up here in Pgh next week can have them
standing in the aisles. Can't let them New Yorkers get TOO swell
headed...

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #41
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02717; Wed, 12 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST
	id AA02717; Wed, 12 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611121102.AA02717@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #42

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 03:02:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #42

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 42

Today's Topics:
	     Chariots for Apollo #8 - Snoopy at the moon
		    space news from Sept 29 AW&ST
	   Powersats, Orbital Bummers, Causes of War, Etc.
			      Lunar He-3
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Path: mordor!sri-spam!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn
From: dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Chariots for Apollo #8 - Snoopy at the moon
Date: 7 Nov 86 23:58:29 GMT

	Young caught sight of the lunar module at a distance of 120
kilometers; Snoopy appeared to be running across the lunar surface like
a spider.  At other times, using a sextant, he spotted the craft as far
away as 550 kilometers.  An hour after the first descent burn, Stafford
and Cernan fired the engine again to shape the trajectory for their
return to the command module. ...
	After Stafford's camera failed, he and Cernan had little to do
except look at the scenery until [it was] time to dump the descent
stage.  Stafford had the vehicle in the right attitude 10 minutes early.
Cernan asked, "You ready?"  Then he suddenly exclaimed, "Son of a
bitch!"  Snoopy seemed to be throwing a fit, lurching wildly about.  He
later said it was like flying an Immelmann turn in an aircraft, a
combination of pitch and yaw.  Stafford yelled that they were in gimbal
lock - that the engine had swiveled over to a stop and stuck - and they
almost were.  He called for Cernan to thrust forward.  Stafford then hit
the switch to get rid of the descent stage and realized that they were
thirty degrees off from their previous attitude.  The lunar module
continued its crazy gyrations across the lunar sky, and a warning light
indicated that the inertial measuring unit was about to reach its limits
and go into gimbal lock.  Stafford then took over in manual control,
made a big pitch maneuver, and started working the attitude control
switches.  Snoopy finally calmed down.
	For this first lunar module flight to the vicinity of the moon,
the pilots were supposed to use the abort guidance system instead of the
primary guidance system, to test performance in the lunar environment.
The abort system had two basic modes: "attitude hold" and "automatic."
In automatic mode, the computer would take over the guidance and start
looking for the command module, which was certainly not what the crew
wanted to do just then.  In correcting for a minor yaw-rate-gyro distur-
bance, the pilots had accidentally switched the spacecraft to the
automatic mode, and the frantic gyrations resulted.  From Cernan's
startled ejaculation to Stafford's report that everything was under
control took only three minutes.  Flight control told the crewmen that
they had made an error in switching, but the system was fine.  They
could fire the ascent engine.  After the firing, the lander flew what
Stafford called a "Dutch roll," yawing and pitching and snaking along.
When the engine shut down, however, to the crew's surprise the attitude
and flight path to the command module were correct.  From a maximum
distance of 630 kilometers, the thrust from the ascent engine moved the
lunar module to within 78 kilometers of the mother ship.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA
SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0, $12.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Path: mordor!lll-crg!seismo!mnetor!utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Sept 29 AW&ST
Date: 9 Nov 86 02:42:51 GMT

[This issue is a bit late for various reasons.  In case new readers are
wondering, these summaries usually run about a month behind the cover
date on Aviation Week because (a) AW&ST takes a while to reach my PO
box, (b) I only empty the box about every 10 days, (c) it takes a while
for me to get around to typing this stuff in.]

10-member team of senior US space people (NASA, White House, DoD, State
Dept) visited Soviet Union secretly in mid-Sept to discuss resuming
US-Soviet space cooperation.  Team head was JPL director Lew Allen.

Space Industries Inc and Westinghouse have agreed to form a partnership
to continue design and development of SII's Industrial Space Facility.
This will be a free-flying man-tended materials-processing facility.
Current role of Westinghouse is financial backer and possible customer.
NASA is looking at renting a substantial fraction of ISF.

When NASA asked about getting a Titan 34D to launch a TDRS, the USAF,
which would act as purchasing agent for dealings with Martin Marietta,
informally quoted over $150M.  This is raising a lot of doubt about
whether MM can make commercial Titan competitive with Ariane -- Ariane 4
is currently going for about $84M.

One of the two tape recorders aboard Spot 1 has failed, and attempts to
get it going again have been unsuccessful.  This recorder was giving
trouble earlier.  [Tape recorders are generally a problem area in such
satellites.]

Small commercial space companies are facing major financial difficulties
as a result of the Shuttle stand-down and the resulting policy changes.
They are being largely ignored in the policy debates, and often cannot
afford to wait endlessly for formation and clarification of the rules.

Orbital Sciences Corp is most unhappy about NASA's proposal to delay the
launch of the Mars Observer by two years.  OSC is supplying the TOS
upper stage for it; the slip would mean that NASA would either delay
purchase of the TOS, or buy on schedule and store it for a while.  Scott
Webster of OSC: "It would be devastating if they slip the contract for
two years.  I don't know how we'd survive.  If they decide to buy later,
I don't know who they'd be buying it from..."  He does say that OSC will
survive if this problem is resolved, unlike other firms.  He attributes
much of the trouble to the ineptitude of the officials enacting policy:
"It's not so much the Challenger disaster, as the fact that Reagan's
policies on commercial space development have been ignored and distorted
to apply to others who are not commercial innovators."  He is
specifically referring to the current commercial expendable-booster
suppliers.  "I've almost given up on the government's doing anything
that is of real practical help to those working with real outside
capital to do new things in space."

Some companies that had been hoping for space access are renewing
attention to ground-based processes as an interim measure.  Microgravity
Research Associates, which plans to make high-grade semiconductor
crystals in space, recently came up with a process for making small
high-grade GaAs crystals on the ground.  This will defer their need for
spaceflight by making it possible to satisfy some of their customers
without it.  They still want to move into space.  The ground-based
process is good only to about 1 inch in diameter, which is good enough
for development but too small for production use.  Space-based
production should permit 3-5 inches, which is the right sort of size for
the much larger production market.

Management shakeup expected in DoT's Office of Commercial Space
Transportation.  Lack of technical expertise is seen as a major problem
with the current setup.

Officials of expendable-booster companies remain suspicious of the vague
policies about who can fly on the shuttle.  Not even NASA knows quite
how to interpret some areas of the policies.

L.J. Evans, former NASA deputy assistant administrator for commercial
space, slams NASA and other federal agencies for failing to do much
about the commercial-space policies unveiled in 1984.  In particular, he
says NASA is still incapable of making prompt decisions on cooperative
agreements with industry, with the result that such agreements are very
expensive and difficult to arrange.

Robert Brumley, Commerce Dept deputy general counsel, disagrees with
Evans about the desirability of pursuing the 1984 policies, but agrees
that NASA is botching the commercial-space aspect of its duties.  He
says, essentially, that NASA wants to remain the boss and doesn't want
independent commercial activity.

American Rocket Co. unveils a new expendable design, intended for tests
in early 1988.  It will be a four-stage design using 19 nearly-identical
hybrid rocket engines.  The first stage is 12 engines in a ring around
the common oxidizer tank, whose base is used as a plug nozzle.  The
remaining stages are seven cylindrical sections in a hexagonal layout;
four of them are the second stage, the remaining outer two are the
third, and the central one is the fourth.  It will launch 4000 lbs into
LEO, 3000 lbs to polar LEO.  The payload fairing is 90 in. dia with a 9
ft cylindrical section and some taper fore and aft.  Price will be
$5-8M.

General Dynamics approves purchase of long-lead items to restart Atlas-
Centaur production.  No firm orders yet.

Hughes asks NASA for a cooperative agreement on using Shuttle
external-tank tooling for building the Jarvis booster, and for prices on
a couple of dozen Saturn engines in storage at Marshall.  One problem is
that the tank tooling belongs to NASA but the facility housing it
belongs to Martin Marietta, which isn't likely to be happy about Hughes
using it to build a competitor for MM's commercial Titan.

Western Union signs letter of intent to launch Westar 6S on the Chinese
Long March 3 booster in March 1988.  Formal launch agreement by
December.  Westar 6S is the replacement for Westar 6, which was one of
the victims of PAM malfunctions retrieved by Shuttle mission 51A.
Western Union has not yet made a deposit to reserve a launch slot, and
is still talking with the Chinese about things like reflight rights in
the event of a launch failure.

Terasat Inc, which had booked Long March 3 launches for the two
satellites retrieved by 51A, has hit a snag.  Palapa B2 was bought by
Sattel Technologies before Terasat could complete financing, and
Westar 6 has now been sold to Johnson Geneva (USA) Ltd.  JG is a
high-technology consultant to developing nations; it and Pan Am
Commercial Services are putting together a joint venture to sell comsat
services to Pacific-rim island nations.

NASA agrees to a new division of work between Johnson and Marshall to
appease Congress.  It actually doesn't change things much, but the
wording is different.  The relationships between the two centers and
their contractors remain complicated and potentially troublesome.

[Editorial of the week: The only reason the Johnson/Marshall business is
causing so much fuss is that Marshall -- historically NASA's
launch-vehicle development team -- is at loose ends now.  Clearly the
Space Station should be 100% Johnson, and Marshall should be doing
launch-vehicle development instead.  An obvious job for Marshall would
be replacing the SRBs with liquid-fuel boosters, a desirable change for
many reasons.  Don't hold your breath waiting for it to be funded,
though.  -- HS]

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 11 Nov 86 16:28 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Powersats, Orbital Bummers, Causes of War, Etc.
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa

 In SPACE Digest V7 #41 "Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu" engages in a long
combination of comclusion-jumping, flaming and ad hominum attacks.  Such
behavior is NOT what I had hoped for as a response to my original line
of inquiry. The length and low information density of
"Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu"'s message prohibits quoting it, but I'd like to
challenge some of his statements.

1. You can design a powersat as a collection of independant modules,
each containing a reflector, power converter, and a microwave
transmitter. The transmitters on the units are coordinated by a
redundant central control system into a large phased-array transmitter.
Advantages of such a powersat : you use a lot of small, cheap components
instead of a few big, expensive ones; you can start small and expand it
easily; you can take portions down for service without shutting down
everything; and it is very robust ( loosing subunits doesn't cost you
the whole thing ).  If you think about it, this makes it a survivable
weapon also.

2. The USA did not ( hasn't yet ? ) conquered England because North
America is rich in natural resources and England is ( generally ) poor
in them.  The same CAN NOT be said of space.

3. A space-based installation is only vulnerable to attack by a weapon if:
	a. It allows the groundhogs to build it.
	b. It allows the groundhogs a launch facility for it.
	c. It allows it to survive the LONG trip from Earth.
You can do A or B by blackmail or pre-emptive strike, and C using
existing machine-cannon or air-to-air technology. Given all this, if you
come up with a list of attacks that space colonies are "very vulnerable"
to, I'll come up with cheap, easy countermeasures.  ( Countermeasure 1 :
" You build a launch pad, we fry New York " ).

4. If the inside of the colonie rotates and the outside doesn't, then
put all the weapons on the outside and don't let any of them get blasted
off ( see 3, above ). If the whole thing rotates do the same but get
better targetting systems. Really BIG weapons mount inside along the
axis of rotation, with a targetting mirror at the end.

5. in re the difference between tanks and cadillacs, more to the point
is the difference between pillboxes and underground parking garages
(pillboxes are cheaper the garages, actually).

6. If I win the war, I will MAKE YOU send me ANYTHING I WANT ( only to
low orbit, I'll take it from there, but YOU DO THE HARD PART ), and I
WON'T PAY FOR IT, and IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT I WILL FRY YOU because I CAN
HIT YOU BUT YOU CAN"T HIT ME.  Beyond that, you can govern yourselves.
This is called GUNBOAT DIPLOMACY. Yes, goverments do act ( have acted )
this childishly.

7. A thriving, expanding space culture doesn't hold any fear for me.
Rather, a desparate, struggling, just-getting-started culture is the
real threat. They NEED to get things cheap/free.

8. If people are going to adapt to low gravity in only a few generation,
the ONLY way it will happen ( genetically ) is if you refuse to allow
people who aren't well adapted to breed. Period. There is no other form
of adaptation possible ( unless your going to splice genes yourself, but
beleive me, that isn't a cheap thing with people. It's not even cheap
with E. Coli ). And what about bone-mass loss ?

9. If one of the MAJOR causes of war is scarce resources, then Space
Colonies will have a lot of cause for war. The list of important
resources that ARE NOT AT ALL AVAILABLE ( much less "scarce" ) in space
runs like a CRC Handbook. And if an ambitous politician can exploit
these multitudinous shortages ...

I think everyone on the net would appreciate if entries to it were well
thought out, not just knee-jerk reactions. I am trying ( I'll admit I
may not be suceeding ) to adher to this rule.

				Dennis O'Connor

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

Date:     Tue, 11 Nov 86 17:58 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Lunar He-3

About concentrations of He-3 in lunar soil...

The concentration of helium ranges from 1 to 35 ppm, with 15 ppm being the
mean value for lunar maria soil.  The ratio of He-4 to He-3 ranges from
2200 to 3000.  Given those figures, the average concentration of He3 is
around 5 ppb.  One kilogram of He-3, currently worth $700,000 dollars,
would require the processing of 200,000 metric tons of soil, at a cost
of < $3.5/ton.

Note that at 50% efficiency and $.05/KWH, one gram of helium-3 can generate
$4100 worth of electricity.  Higher efficiencies may be possible.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #42
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06507; Thu, 13 Nov 86 03:02:26 PST
	id AA06507; Thu, 13 Nov 86 03:02:26 PST
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 03:02:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611131102.AA06507@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #43

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 03:02:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #43

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 43

Today's Topics:
		   Three cheers for Dave Newkirk|||
	      Computer responses to National Commission
			    Re: Powersats
			    Re: Powersats
			    Re: Powersats
			    Re: power sats
			    Re: Phil Dietz
				 X-29
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Nov 86 13:49:37 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Three cheers for Dave Newkirk|||

All praise to Dave Newkirk for his "Chariots for Apollo" articles.  I am
enjoying them immensely.  Dave, after you are finished with "Chariots
for Apollo", you might consider Michael Collin's book, "Carrying the
Fire".  Thanks Again.
                                       Gary Allen

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

Date:  Wed, 12-NOV-1986 09:22 CST
From: <HIGGINS%FNALCDF.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:  Computer responses to National Commission

Look in the back of *Pioneering the Space Frontier*, in the
Acknowledgements section, where the National Commisssion on Space lists
in tiny tiny print the many people who contributed to their effort.
There's a list called "Letters and Computer Responses."  Among the
hundreds of people listed there are an extrordinary number from around
here, especially Naperville, Illinois, which is down the road.

When I think of Naperville, I think of Bell Labs, which makes me think
of UUCP.  Does anybody in this newsgroup know where all those Naperville
responses came from?  If there's somebody in my neighborhood generating
this much activity on space travel, I'd like to know about it.

Did somebody collect opinions over the networks and forward them to the
Commission? The text of the report mentions Compuserve, Astronet (the
Young Astronauts' BBS system), something called Terra Nova
Communications, and something called the Boulder Center for Science and
Policy.  No mention is made of Usenet or Arpanet.

It has been suggested to me that a local teacher or two might have
organized a letter-writing project, and certainly that would skew the
distribution of responses toward a particular locality.  This theory is
supported by the presence of a lot of Jennifers, Jessicas, and Ryans in
the list, who could well be the children of Eighties parents.  Even if
this is the explanation, I'd like to know who the teachers are.

Any light that readers can shed on this question will be appreciated.


				Bill Higgins
				Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
				HIGGINS@FNALCDF

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

Date: 11 Nov 86 19:38:25 GMT
From: crowl@rochester.arpa
Subject: Re: Powersats
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <1310@ttrdc.UUCP> levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy) writes:
>In article <7278@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>(The reasons to use microwaves from powersats rather than just
>>settling for normal sunlight are (a) much higher conversion
>>efficiencies, and (b) the powersat beam is there day and night and
>>largely ignores clouds.)
>
>There day and NIGHT?  Where does it get its night power (I am presuming
>a solar power source)?  It would have to be in a pretty durn high orbit
>( :-), and synchronous orbits are kinda low, aren't they? ) for the
>earth not to block the sun from the powersat at night!

The earth is inclined 23 degrees off the earth's orbital plane.  So, any
powersat in (geosynchronous) orbit around earth will be out of the
earth's orbital plane almost all the time, so could not possibly be
blocked from the sun.

Even if the powersat were in the earth's orbital plane, it will probably
be sufficiently far from the earth so that for most (95%?) of its orbit
it will not be blocked from the sun.  To see this, place a cup on your
desk and draw a large circle around it.  From how many points on the
circle can you see your doorknob?

Remember, how many lunar eclipses happen?  Certainly no where near one a
month, let alone one a month for half the month. 
  Lawrence Crowl		716-275-5766	University of Rochester
			crowl@rochester.arpa	Computer Science Department
 ...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl	Rochester, New York,  14627

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

Date: 11 Nov 86 19:33:59 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Powersats
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Clarke (geosynchronous) orbit is 40000 km up; for much of the year, the
tilt of the Earth's axis means that the Earth's shadow misses Clarke
orbit completely.  In spring and fall there will be a few weeks when
there is a short interruption in the power feed at local midnight, as
the satellite passes through the Earth's shadow.  This will need to be
planned for, but midnight is not a time of high power demand.
Otherwise, no problem.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 12 Nov 86 01:54:06 GMT
From: rutgers!clyde!cuae2!ltuxa!ttrdc!levy@lll-crg.arpa  (Daniel R. Levy)
Subject: Re: Powersats
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Oh, boy.  Matt Crawford pointed out the fallacy of that one to me right quick.
I'm chowing down on the ol' crow here, people.  Synchronous-orbit satellites
ARE high enough to get the sun most of the time.
	Dan Levy

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

Date: 12 Nov 1986 18:17-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: power sats

OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa:

Out of fear you would apply draconian controls. You are applying the
same paranoia that pollutes the world we already live on. Paranoia and
fear breed deeper paranoia and fear. And once they reach a certain
point, the reality of hatreds and weapons no longer allows other paths
to be taken.  Can't we ever consider stopping the cycle? Let others
alone and they will leave you alone too.

Prior to this discussion, I had thought that arming a space colony was
a foolish idea, and I had told friends so. If the mentality of jealousy
and fear already exists a hundred years before the fact, I may have to
eat my words. You may be right: we should indeed consider moving
colonies far from nuthouse Earth, as soon as it is feasible to do so.

I do wonder if such an escape will require a bloody revolt, since you
suggest that the earliest colonists will be held under oppressive
control by fearful ground based authorities.

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

Date: 12 Nov 1986 18:44-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Phil Dietz

I wished to comment on your statement about the nature of L5 literature.
What you say is to a great extent true, and for very good reasons.

We are not targeting highly trained engineers. We are aiming for the
general public. All of us (Space Digest) know that these things can be
done. We might argue about the particulars, but most of us agree that
our civilization will move into space over some disputed time frame.

The average housewife, insurance salesperson, officeworker, doctor,
nurse, or mill worker doesn't know any of this. They are not educated to
understand the technical arguments even if we made them. And yet these
are the people who really control where the government side of the space
program will go, and at the very least will decide whether the
government will allow private enterprise to even try. Regardless of what
DC wildlife thinks, they only run things so long as the grass roots
don't get too terribly annoyed by them.

If we gave out the info that would excite you, we would not reach this
audience. You, Paul, already know the importance of the issues. You know
even enough about the details and the problems to have valid
disagreements with my stands. So we don't need to target you with our
literature.

I'm sure that if you think about it, you'll see that we are taking the
right approach for our market. You have to make it exciting enough at a
gut level and splashy enough to make uninformed nontechnically trained
people WANT to learn more. Given that they start the learning process,
they will eventually understand the deeper issues. NOBODY does this
better than we do.

It is our (L5's) ability to get the average Joe where he lives that is
one of the major reasons NSS is interested in a merger.

I'm sorry you don't like our materials, but I'm sure you will do active
things toward a strong space program whether you are one of us or not.
Just the fact of your taking the time to HAVE positions on the issues we
argue about makes you more like one of us than you probably think.

Our job is to get a few million people to the same level as you.  It's a
hard job, and nobody else is doing it.

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

Date: Thu, 13 Nov 86 01:30:48 EST
From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: X-29


	I appreciate the comments H Thomas Sharp has on the X-29, but
I have one question about something he said:

>   o While wing sweep, either fore or aft, postpones the drag rise near
>     Mach 1, a FSW has a lower wing profile drag than a ASW.  Therefore,
>     one can obtain higher lift coefficients under transonic conditions.
>     This translates into a greater payload capacity for a given aspect
>     ratio.

	I'm by no means an expert, but isn't profile drag simply the
sum of the skin friction and form drag of an object?  How could the
wing being forward or backward swept have anything to do with it, do
you mean the FSWs are generally of a different shape?  

			-Chris

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #43
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02040; Fri, 14 Nov 86 03:02:10 PST
	id AA02040; Fri, 14 Nov 86 03:02:10 PST
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 86 03:02:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611141102.AA02040@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #44

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 14 Nov 86 03:02:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #44

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 44

Today's Topics:
		  Courtesy, Arguments, and Powersats
		      Electromagnetic launchers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Nov 86 15:03 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Courtesy, Arguments, and Powersats
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa

    When I originally put forth the question of Powersats as Weapons,
which evolved into Space Installations as Military Oportunities, I ( in
my naivete about network newsgroups ) was looking forward to speculation
on the practicality or impracticality of using "commercial" space
resources as "military" ones, much as is already the case in
communications satelites.

    Instead, I've mainly gotten flames and ad-hominum attacks from
"Dale.Amon", whoever he is. This person doesn't realy respond to what
anyone says, he just flames. And if his flaming doesn't succeed, he
starts insulting people. He has claimed I am paranoid, but gee,
"Dale.Amon", WHEN THE HELL DID YOU EVER EVEN MEET ME?  "Dale.Amon" ( is
that your real name? ) has about as much cause to call me paranoid as I
have of calling him an evangelical dogmatic knee-jerk fanatical
idealogue.

    He has also essentially stated that people who prefer to live on
Earth ( when they could go to space ) are inferior in some way. This is
essentially the "IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH ME YOU MUST BE A MORON" view of
life, which is generally only held by morons.

    "Dale.Amon", from now on please try to respond in kind to people on
the net. When a message is trying to conduct a dispassionate technical
argument, DO NOT respond with FLAMES, PERSONAL ATTACKS and FALLACIOUS
INACURATE INCOMPLETE ANALOGIES. ( And yes, I know your not doing this to
me personally, since you seem to do it to everyone. See, I'm not
paranoid. ) If someone wants to flame and counterflame with you, fine.
BUT I DON'T WANT TO.

    Yes, this message is a flame, and contains ad-hominum attacks. But
hopefully it will act as a "vacine", generating mental "anti-bodies"
through-out the SPACE net, to help stop this "plague" of discourteous,
counterproductive and annoying flames before the net deteriorates.

	    With apologies,
			    Dennis O'Connor

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

Date:     Thu, 13 Nov 86 15:28:02 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Electromagnetic launchers

Thought SPACE readers might find this item of interest:

From DEFENSE ELECTRONICS, Nov. '86, p. 18, "Focus" column:

KAMAN'S COIL GUNS PORTEND HEAVY-LOAD LAUNCH ROLE

Kaman Corp. of Bloomfield, Conn., plans to build and demonstrate an
electromagnetic coil gun under an $8.5-million Army/DARPA anti-armor
contract. Using coils instead of rails, Kaman expects to achieve muzzle
velocities of 13,000 feet per second and rates of fire of three
projectiles per minute. Dr. Henry Kolm, president of Kaman's
Electromagnetic Launch Research subsidiary, believes that the coil, not
the rail, has the greatest technological potential. He predicts that
electromagnetic coils will someday launch aircraft from carriers and
spacecraft from launch pads. Aboard cariers, the coils would save space
and weight by replacing steam catapults. At the launch pad, according to
Kaman's Kolm, electromagnetic coils would initially eliminate
first-stage boosters and eventually permit the direct launching of
payloads into space.
*** End of article ***

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #44
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA05127; Sun, 16 Nov 86 03:01:56 PST
	id AA05127; Sun, 16 Nov 86 03:01:56 PST
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 03:01:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611161101.AA05127@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #45

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 16 Nov 86 03:01:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #45

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 45

Today's Topics:
		 Re: The vestibular system in rotati
		    Re: Electromagnetic launchers
		   space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Nov 86 01:55:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: The vestibular system in rotati
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


/* Written 11:12 am  Oct 31, 1986 by henry@utzoo.UUCP in
uiucdcsp:sci.space */
/* ---------- "Re: The vestibular system in rotati" ---------- */
>> There has been some discussion about rotating space colonies lately,
>> mostly concerned with the reliability of bearings.  My recollection
>> was that the idea of rotating structures to produce pseudogravity was
>> out because of problems with Coriolis forces and the human vestibular
>> system.  I have not seen this point made in print...
>
>If you check out Gerry O'Neill's original book "The High Frontier"
>(1978?), you will see it in print.  The problem has been known since
>quite early in the history of the space-colony concept.  This is why
>O'Neill's definitive large-colony designs spin at 1 RPM or less.  This
>does make for troublingly large structures; he suggested that a small
>first colony, with crew selected for resistance to such problems, might
>be able to spin at 2-3 RPM.  --
>				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
/* End of text from uiucdcsp:sci.space */

How about a small colony at the end of a l-o-n-g tether?  Put your labs at the
other end, and a micro gravity environment in the middle.  This would provide
the necessary radius for "artificial gravity" without the huge structure.


        -- Ken Jenks
		jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
		{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp
			VAXing Poetic At
		              	Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

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

Date: 15 Nov 86 06:11:42 GMT
From: hplabsc!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic launchers
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


Re: offbeat launching schemes, sometime back I saw an article in
a technical rocketry journal about using a space based laser to
lift a vehicle using an electromagnetic field and MHD forces.
Does anyone know what happened to this idea? 
	Jim Kempf	hplabs!kempf

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

Date: 16 Nov 86 02:04:54 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Space station operations task force formed within NASA to plan how to
operate the station.  One particular issue needing attention is how the
existence of a permanently manned space facility will affect the design
of other projects.

Brazilian National Institute of Space Research (INPE) building prototype
for a series of four experimental weather/Earth-sensing satellites, to be
launched on Brazilian-made boosters starting perhaps 1989.

NASA begins full-scale SRB assembly tests using rounding tools to prevent
some of the assembly problems discovered during the Challenger investigation.
Looks like the new tools work.

First shuttle payload manifest since 51L emphasizes military payloads
heavily for first two years, partly to bolster USAF early-warning-satellite
capability.  SDI Spacelab also expected early in second year.  Two TDRSs
and two DoD payloads expected to precede Space Telescope.  Only one semi-
commercial satellite is present in the first two years:  the British/NATO
Skynet comsat.

[I believe the full manifest is in the next issue of AW&ST, and will thus
appear in the next summary.  -- HS]

Brookings Institution forum on US space program directions concludes that
the outlook for space commercialization is dim for the next little while.
The Challenger accident and the confused state of federal policy have
messed up a lot of plans.

Plan to validate Shuttle handling equipment at Vandenberg with a full-dress
assembly exercise has been cancelled, mostly because of cost.  Orbiter
Columbia was to have moved to Vandenberg this month, after several delays.
Justifications for cancellation are that much of the support equipment will
have to be replaced anyway before the earliest date when Shuttle launches
from Vandenberg could start, and that it is too risky to fly one of only
three surviving orbiters across the country twice (!!).

Support building in White House and Kremlin to revive cooperative space
activities, notably exploration of Mars and space-adaptation studies, but
there is debate within the US government about this.  NASA supports it,
as do intelligence agencies, but DoD and parts of the State Dept. are
alarmed about technology transfer.  Significantly, it looks like the 
Soviets are interested enough that they will not make US abandonment of
SDI a precondition (!) for such cooperation.  Next official step is to
negotiate a new general agreement on space cooperation, replacing the old
one that the US allowed to lapse in 1982 in the middle of the Poland uproar.
Preliminary work on this is in progress.

Plans for joint US-USSR work are emphasizing cooperative planning and
operations, plus data exchange, rather than joint hardware construction,
partly to placate the DoD paranoids.  High on the agenda is simultaneous
operations by the 1988 Soviet Mars/Phobos mission and the 1990 US Mars
Observer orbiter.  With any luck, the Soviet probe will still be active
when Mars Observer arrives -- *if* Mars Observer launches in 1990.  NASA
is now under pressure to scrap its early suggestion to save money by
slipping Mars Observer launch to 1992.  US scientists already have informal
invitations to participate in the Mars/Phobos mission.

The Soviets appear to have shifted attention from Venus to Mars; their
earlier Vesta Venus/asteroid mission is now a Mars/asteroid mission.
Tentatively, once on the surface the Soviet landers would deploy balloons
carrying imaging systems.  With the aid of solar heat, the balloons would
drift at an altitude of a few thousand feet.  US scientists attach high
priority to US participation in Vesta planning, since Vesta is still in
its formative stages where changes could be made easily, and data from it
would be important to rover or sample-return missions.

Various other cooperative activities have been proposed, including use
of US tracking and communication facilities for the Mars/Phobos and Vesta
missions, data exchange on space adaptation, use of US CAT scanners to
look at calcium loss in Soviet astronauts, coordinated study of data from
Venera 15 and 16 for planning the Magellan mission, and assorted general
exchanges of people and information.  One area the Soviets are interested
in is joint work on closed-cycle life support, but technology transfer
paranoia rears its ugly head here.

DoD, as usual, believes the Soviets would not know the sky was blue if
they hadn't stolen the information from the US, and they are upset about
technology leakage from the US Shuttle to the Soviet one.  NASA says this
is nonsense, that the important technologies (e.g. main engine design)
have been protected and that the rest aren't worth protecting.  US analysts
[probably DoD] expect launch of the Soviet Saturn 5-class booster with an
unmanned cargo pod within a year, and first launch carrying the Soviet
shuttle in maybe 1988.

Arabsat to decide this month [Oct] whether to allow Geostar Corp. to use
Arabsat 1C temporarily.  If this is approved, the satellite would be
launched by Ariane 4 in May 1989, and positioned over the US for Geostar
use until Arabsat needs it.  Arabsat is expected to drive a hard bargain,
and approval is not assured.  Use of Arabsat 1C would permit Geostar to
begin position-fixing operations, and allow limited data traffic to and
from mobile terminals.

Hughes and Boeing have rethought the Jarvis booster to reduce cost and
schedule risks by greater use of Shuttle components.  Use of Saturn 5
engines has been abandoned due to major uncertainties about manufacturing
processes and tooling.  The new design uses a pair of Shuttle SRBs flanking
a modified External Tank with a single SSME on its base.  The top of the
tank is replaced by a payload platform and shroud.  Hughes is studying
various possibilities for the payload platform, including the Centaur
variants developed for the cancelled Shuttle/Centaur.

One significant asset of the new Jarvis is that it can use Shuttle launch
sites and test facilities; Hughes is talking to NASA about this.  An early-
1987 decision to develop Jarvis would yield first launch early in 1990.
This is about the same schedule as before.  Hughes is considering private
financing if Jarvis is not picked as the USAF Medium Launch Vehicle.  The
first phase of MLV studies ends in February with a design review.

Hughes is obviously concerned about the price tag for SSMEs, and is looking
at the possibilities of recovering them or building a cheaper variant by
accepting short engine lifetimes (since Jarvis wouldn't re-use them).
Hughes is studying the possibility of igniting the SSME after launch, to
avoid the possible problem with hydrogen trapping in the exhaust duct of
the Vandenberg shuttle pad.

Jarvis capacity would be about 80,000 lbs into low orbit, down slightly
from the Saturn-based design.  Since this is about double the Shuttle's
actual payload record to date, and further shuttle payload increases are
not likely soon due to safety concerns, Jarvis could be a useful thing to
have.

[If Jarvis is picked as the Medium Launch Vehicle, the USAF will be in
the slightly ludicrous situation of having a "medium" launcher with twice
the payload of its "heavy" launcher, the Titan 4.  -- HS]

[Editorial of the Week:  It's too early to say whether Hughes has done
the right thing with the redesign.  It is probably a smart move in terms
of reducing development and production uncertainties, and of increasing
the probability of winning the MLV competition.  It is probably a bad move
in terms of long-term costs, where the all-liquid design with older and
simpler engines would win handily.  We'll see.  Either way, Jarvis is
clearly just the thing to launch major Space Station subassemblies. -- HS]

Space Industries Inc has signed a partnership agreement with Westinghouse
for detailed design and marketing of SII's man-tended Industrial Space
Facility.  Westinghouse will be prime contractor.  Both companies will
invest in its cost, estimated to be $250-300M through construction of
the first operational unit (not including launch).  SII will remain
separate and privately-held, and will be responsible for overall program
management and marketing.  The partnership will need outside funding,
which will be a joint responsibility.  Ex-astronaut Joe Allen, SII VP,
says SII's highest priorities in the next two years are doing detailed
design, sorting out the government's real intentions about commercial
use of the Shuttle, and obtaining user commitments for the first ISFs.
Then it's time to build the first ISF, for launch in late 1990 if shuttle
space can be had.  Maxime Faget, SII president and CEO, says Westinghouse
is a logical choice because it has extensive experience with robotics in
hostile environments, and ISF will rely heavily on robotics in between
Shuttle visits.  He also says that Westinghouse has the major advantage
of not being a big government contractor, so "chances of keeping the
costs under control are a lot better".  [For those who don't know who
Faget is, he can claim some experience in such matters.  He sketched the
basic design for the Mercury capsule, was chief engineer at Houston for
the Apollo spacecraft, and did the first rough designs for the Shuttle
orbiter. -- HS]  Faget is optimistic about the market for ISF despite the
recent setbacks to commercial space activities, but admits that marketing
will be easier once the Shuttle flies again and customers can see the
program as real.

Federal Express is terminating its ZapMail electronic document-transmission
service due to high costs and technical problems.  It is evaluating future
offerings in the area, and in particular feels that the satellite part of
ZapMail performed extremely well.

Comsat Corp [primary US international satellite-communications carrier] and
Contel Corp [one of the fragments of Ma Bell] plan to merge, subject to
approval from various people including the Justice Dept.  The intent is to
give Comsat the muscle to compete effectively with other carriers like AT&T.
Although Contel is five times the size of Comsat, the merger is being set
up as an acquisition of Contel shares by Comsat due to legal limits on
ownership of Comsat by common carriers.

Critics slam NASA 1988 budget on the grounds that NASA is abandoning US
leadership in space research.  Organized recovery efforts for the shuttle
and expendable boosters have not been matched by a similar effort for
space science.  There is major debate about whether it is a good idea to
slow important missions to keep smaller, less visible programs alive;
proponents say it keeps key technologies alive, opponents say it delays
internationally-important science results.  NASA FY1988 space science
budget changes just sent to OMB affect:

- Planetary missions.  Comet rendezvous/asteroid flyby (CRAF) will not be a
new start in FY1988, despite its high priority.  NASA continues to scheme
a two-year delay for Mars Observer, claimed by critics to be the only major
science project so far unaffected by 51L; see earlier for comments on the
problems this creates for resumed US/Soviet cooperation.

- Vitality package.  This is a pool of money to support a variety of science
needs, particularly Spacelab data analysis and Explorer work.

- Cosmic Background Explorer.  Goddard has begun a near-total redesign to
convert the Explorer from a 10,500-lb shuttle payload to a 5,000-lb Delta
payload.  Redesign will cost $15M, the Delta will add another $50-60M.
The major gain will be a polar-orbit launch in late 1989, not much later
than the original schedule.  Little science impact will result from the
redesign; the weight loss is not as big as it sounds, since over a third
of it will come from deleting a propulsion stage needed for Shuttle launch
but not for Delta.  The completed Shuttle-compatible structure will have
to be abandoned, but the major experiments should not need redesign.

- New start for the Global Geospace Science solar-terrestrial satellite.
This is the major new science mission, $25M in FY1988, $102M in FY1989.
Solar-terrestrial scientists think this is about right, scientists from
other space-science disciplines say the mission lacks the leadership
potential of more visible missions.

- High Resolution Solar Observatory, a smaller version of the original
Solar Optical Telescope proposal.  NASA asks $12M to get it started.

- Advanced X-ray Astronomical Facility to get $25M in technology-development
money, with an eye on a new start in FY1989 or FY1990 (depending on the
fate of CRAF).

These changes give an overall increase from $1426M to $1531M in the space
science budget for FY1988.

NASA to measure loads on SRBs during rollout to pad 39B as part of the
rollout and pad tests of Atlantis.  There is some concern about possible
stresses resulting from the relatively sharp turn that the mobile launch
platform takes to reach 39B.  Marshall and Morton Thiokol do not expect
anything significant, but the instrumentation that has been placed on
the right booster should settle the matter.

Contraves (Swiss aerospace company) shows off inflatable space-rigidizing
structure concept for use in large antennas etc.  It cures by exposure to
solar radiation after inflation.  Contraves has built several models of a
3.2-m-dia reflector weighing less than 3 kg, under an ESA study contract.
The company says that tests of geometrical accuracy and electrical
performance look good.

JPL is studying a mission dubbed TAU, Thousand Astronomical Units, for a
nuclear-ion probe to travel well beyond the solar system.  A megawatt
nuclear reactor would power ion engines for about 10 years, giving a
velocity of 225,000 mph at a distance of 6 billion miles.  The 50,000-lb
propulsion system would be shed after fuel exhaustion, leaving the
11,000-lb spacecraft to continue on for up to 40 more years.  It would
incorporate a 1.5-m telescope and a laser communications system; one
major mission would be direct measurement of distances to stars.

[Mini-editorial:  a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by newer
probes with better engines long before the end of its mission.  Planning
for such long missions needs to consider in-flight obsolescence.  -- HS]

Western Union expects to complete negotiations for launch of Westar 6-S
by the Chinese Long March 3 booster late this year.  Launch would be in
March 1988, probably.  The US State Dept has to approve shipment of the
satellite to China, but this doesn't look like a major problem.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #45
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA09420; Mon, 17 Nov 86 03:02:18 PST
	id AA09420; Mon, 17 Nov 86 03:02:18 PST
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 03:02:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611171102.AA09420@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #46

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 03:02:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #46

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 46

Today's Topics:
laws of optics, footprint of sun on Earth after reflection from orbit
			In-flight obsolescence
			   Spinning cables
	  Fusion power via exploding decommissioned H-bombs
	 Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 November 16 04:43:48 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "weltyc%cieunix"@csv.rpi.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: laws of optics, footprint of sun on Earth after reflection from orbit

CAW> Date: Thu, 30 Oct 86 11:24:54 EST
CAW> From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty)
CAW> Subject: Mirrors is [SIC] space

>...The drawback to the scheme is that the finite angular size of the
>sun makes the reflected footprint on the Earth rather large.

CAW> Couldn't you just make the mirrors slightly concave? 

Nope, you misunderstand how mirrors work. The angle of incidence
equals the (negative of the) angle of reflection. So, considering the
incoming rays converging on a infinitesimal piece of mirror, they come
in over a range of angles determined by the Sun's angular diameter,
which is half a degree from anywhere near Earth, and go out over an
equal range of angles, i.e. half a degree again. With a flat mirror,
the outgoing beams produced by reflection from all the parts of the
mirror are mis-registered by the separation between mirror elements,
so in worse case they mis-register by the diameter of the mirror. Over
long distances, the mis-registering is a constant but the basic
diameter of the images is linear with the distance, and from orbit the
mis-registering is only a tiny fraction of the overall "footprint"
(image).

If you make the mirror concave just enough that all the images exactly
match when they hit Earth, you have eliminated that little
mis-registration (diameter of mirror, say a hundred feet), but have
done nothing about the basic angular diameter of Sun causing
half-degree fanout of the beam, which is SIN(half degree)*distance =
0.0087*distance. For satellite (mirror) 100 miles up that's 0.87 miles
in diameter, while for satellite at geosynchronous position that's
20,000 miles up which gives a footprint diameter of 170 miles, and
from L-4 or L-5 or Moon that's 200,000 miles which gives footprnt
1,700 miles across. (Hope you don't mind single significant digit,
actually moon is 205,000 miles away or somesuch. But that doesn't
affect my point.) With a mirror even a few miles across, making it
concave to eliminate that few miles of footprint width while retaining
the half-degree fanout doesn't help any significat amount at
geosynchronous or beyond.

To reduce fanout below half a degree, thus decrease footprint
significantly, you need to actually absorb the sunlight, and
re-radiate over a more narrow beam by microwave or laser etc.  A
simple mirror (of reasonable size; flat or concave), from anything
other than Low Earth Orbit, can't possibly be used as a weapon against
Earth targets except perhaps to slightly warm the tropical ocean to
enhance a hurricane or some such subtle effect.

(In case you next argue that you can put a mask between the Sun and
the mirror to cut out all but a tiny portion of the Sun and thus
reduce the angular diameter: Yes, but you merely decrease the total
energy reflected, you don't change the density of energy at all. You
still end up with a little bit of energy spread over a large area, or
a teensy bit of energy over a small area. Only by an extremely large
mirror could you reflect enough energy to burn something on Earth.
It's cheaper to re-transmit using microwave or laser.)

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

Date: 17 Nov 86 00:37:19 GMT
From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Void where prohibited)
Subject: In-flight obsolescence
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <7325@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>JPL is studying a mission dubbed TAU, Thousand Astronomical Units...
>...propulsion system would be shed after fuel exhaustion, leaving the
>11,000-lb spacecraft to continue on for up to 40 more years...
>
>[Mini-editorial: a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by newer
>probes with better engines long before the end of its mission.
>Planning for such long missions needs to consider in-flight
>obsolescence.  -- HS]

Good point.  But better engines will result, at least in part, from
experience gained by flying the current idea of "new" engines.  I also
wonder if the probe might not return some data significant for the
planning of a follow-up mission during the first few years.

Perhaps this probe could wind up as a long-term, deep space exposure
experiment when it is found by one of the later craft.  Think of how
much fun it would be to check it for dings and graffiti.

		--Craig
		...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good

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

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 00:05:59 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Spinning cables
To: Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

         For quite a while I've considered that putting a space habitat on
    the end of a cable and spinning it (with either a big rock, or another
    habitat on the other end) would be the easiest way to provide gravity
    for a space colony.

  Right.  Such spinning space stations are useful not just for
habitation but also for momentum transfer.  If a large number of these
were placed in strategic orbits throughout the solar system, the need
for rockets would be drastically reduced, as one could play a sort of
celestial pinball and go bouncing from place to place.
								...Keith

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

Date: 1986 November 16 05:05:05 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Fusion power via exploding decommissioned H-bombs

NOTE: This topic is straying from SPACE into ARMS-D and I'd like to
switch it there, except that last time I did that I got bitched at
badly by the author of the message I was replying to, so for the
moment I'll CC to SPACE. Feel free anyone to switch this conversation
to ARMS-D if it continues.

<GL> Date:         Sun, 02 Nov 86 16:11:03 EST
<GL> From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<GL> To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
<GL> Subject:      fusion energy

PFD>  There's a form of fusion power that is possible today....
PFD> Fill [a] cavity with high pressure steam...
PFD> and detonate about 100 kilotons of bombs per day.

<GL>      Yes, that's an old idea of Teller's, abandoned about the
<GL> middle of the sixties when it seemed that *nobody* would take
<GL> it seriously.  Bombs have too bad a rep.  Sounds like a good idea
<GL> for what to do with old H-bombs after they become "impotent and
<GL> obsolete"

Yes, I assume you're comparing Teller's idea to our stockpile of
weapons, saying it'll be an improvement, using old H-bombs for mining
or artificial geothermal energy etc. is better than using them to
vaporize cities, thus it would seem the idea would now be acceptable.
But realize that H-bombs for vaporizing cities is supposed to be
merely a last resort in case of attack from the USSR, not something we
do by choice, a deterrent we hope we will never use, not something we
actually plan to use during normal times. Thus comparing deliberate
artificial geothermal energy to deliberate thermonuclear attack is not
relevant. The comparison is between deliberate artificial geothermal
energy and deterrence, where it's not obvious which is more
acceptable. Perhaps never using H-bombs for any reason (except when
our world is ending anyway and we don't care any more) is more
acceptable than using them for specific purposes which effectively
tests them to see if they still work thus would be a violation of the
proposed total test ban.

Perhaps a more valid comparison would be between testing H-bombs in
artificial geothermal facilities vs. testing H-bombs in Nevada for SDI
research. In both cases we're actually detonating H-bombs rather than
just holding them for emergency use, but one way we're getting some
legitimate use out of them to help society whereas the other way we're
just building more war machine. Eliminating conventional Nevada tests,
replacing with actually using H-bombs for practical use such as
energy, would be an improvement in our way of thinking, treating
H-bombs as a tool that can be used for multiple purposes rather than
as a weapon with no other use. Unlike the Orion spaceship, it wouldn't
pollute the environment with detonation byproducts and direct
radiation, thus might have a chance of being acceptable to the general
population.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 09:52:33 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle?

This note concerns Henry Spencer's posting in Vol. 7, No. 45  in Space

Digest.  I would like to begin by offering my thanks to Henry for his

distillations from Aviation Week.  I'm located in Goettingen, West

Germany (AVA-DFVLR).  The DFVLR library doesn't receive Aviation Week

until fairly late, so Henry's efforts are greatly appreciated.  Also it

seems that Henry does a much better job of reading Aviation Week than I

do, since he's always finding tidbits that I missed.  Henry's last

postings raised two questions in my mind.  Why is it, that to

remanufacture the old F-1 engines is more expensive than using SSMEs?

It seems ludicrous to be throwing a reuseable SSME into the sea when a

cheaper and higher performance F-1 (which is designed to be

use-once-throw-away) is the obvious choice.  Admittedly there is an

initial tool up expense.  However it is hard to believe that this

expense couldn't be quickly offset by the lower launch cost for an F-1

based Jarvis.  I've always thought that the F-1 engine was one of the

more important technologies to come out of the Apollo program, and

its premature obsolesence was a serious error.  On another

subject the TAU (Thousand Astronautical Unit) spacecraft smacks of being

a boondoggle.  Who in his right mind would want to fund a multimillion

dollar spacecraft that literally goes nowhere?  If you want to argue

that it is a test bed for a high preformance nuclear-ion propulsion

system, then my snappy comeback is the money could be better spent

on a comet rendevous using the same technology.  An even better mission

would be a Pluto orbiter.  I've always thought that Pluto might well be

an example of a "rogue planet" which was created outside of the solar

system.  The theory is that Pluto approached the solar system on a

hyperbolic trajectory, (which by definition means it would have escape

velocity), but was captured because it had a near miss with the moon

Triton orbiting Neptune.  Both Triton and Pluto have very irregular

orbits, and Pluto does intersect with Neptune's orbit. Therefore this

theory isn't as nutty as it first sounds.  When Voyager flies by Triton,

we'll have more evidence to fuel or quench speculation.  On any event

this TAU mission strikes me as a misuse of limited planetary exploration

funds.

                       Gary Allen

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #46
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12661; Tue, 18 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST
	id AA12661; Tue, 18 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611181102.AA12661@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #47

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 03:02:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #47

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 47

Today's Topics:
    thousand astronomical units via ten-years of ion rocket thrust
       Tethered space colonies -- The reason why it won't work.
			Space Industries, Inc.
		       Re: Is TAU a boondoggle?
			  Re: TAU is useful
	 Australian bulk-payload delivery & spaceport nearby
       Re: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 November 17 03:07:55 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: thousand astronomical units via ten-years of ion rocket thrust

<HS> Date: 16 Nov 86 02:04:54 GMT
<HS> From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986

<HS> JPL is studying a mission dubbed TAU, Thousand Astronomical Units,
<HS> for a nuclear-ion probe to travel well beyond the solar system.  A
<HS> megawatt nuclear reactor would power ion engines for about 10 years,
<HS> ...

This excites me! More info please if available.

<HS> [Mini-editorial: a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by
<HS> newer probes with better engines long before the end of its mission.
<HS> Planning for such long missions needs to consider in-flight
<HS> obsolescence.  -- HS]

That's what I thought about Voyager 2. By the time it gets to Uranus,
much less Neptune, it will have been passed by an ion rocket with
improved telemetry, so the whole Uranus/Neptune mission is a waste. As
it turns out, delays in the whole space program, especially the ion
rocket, have turned Voyager 2 into a note in a bottle not likely to be
exceeded by any new mission for many years. I say we should go ahead
and put up our ion rocket, with state-of-art telemetry virtually
guaranteed for 20 years, and note in the bottle for additional time if
our space program falls on its face again.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 11:44:37 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Tethered space colonies -- The reason why it won't work.

Both Geoffrey Landis in Vol. 7, No. 37 and Ken Jenks in Vol. 7, No. 45
suggested using tethered space habitats to avoid Coriolis effect
problems.  This idea is a good one (though not very original) for
interplanetary spacecraft with mission duration times on the order of a
year.  However it doesn't work for space colonies.  The problem (as
mentioned in an earlier anti-L5 flame) is radiation shielding.
Shielding mass for many of these space colony dreams is around 30
megatons.  You are not going to be able to construct a tether that can
support this sort of mass.  If you don't shield your colony with fairly
thick walls of stone it will eventually die from cosmic radiation
poisoning.  These dream colonies work by spinning **within** a
stationary stone shield.
                                  Gary Allen

P.S. Apologies again for the double spacing.  It's a system bug in
either the EARN or SMTPUSER software and beyond my control.

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

Date: Mon, 17 Nov 86 11:48:07 EST
From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Space Industries, Inc.

 From A summary of AW+ST:
>Space Industries Inc has signed a partnership agreement with
>Westinghouse for detailed design and marketing of SII's man-tended
>Industrial Space Facility.

	Is this as incredible as it sounds???  Does anyone know anything
more about this?  Or where this company is located?

	And incidently, three cheers should also go to Henry for the
summaries from AW+ST!!!

				-Chris

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

Date: 17 Nov 86 18:40:23 GMT
From: husc6!cfa!willner@mit-eddie.arpa  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Is TAU a boondoggle?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <8611171047.AA09235@s1-b.arpa>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> On another subject the TAU (Thousand Astronautical Unit) spacecraft
> smacks of being a boondoggle.  Who in his right mind would want to
> fund a multimillion dollar spacecraft that literally goes nowhere?

My understanding was that a prime objective of TAU would be to measure
stellar parallaxes, thus directly determining the distance for any
visible object in the Milky Way Galaxy (or at least a good fraction
thereof).  This seems to me to be a worthwhile objective.

>  An even better mission would be a Pluto orbiter.  

This would also be a good mission.  Setting priorities is hard.  I would
want to see adequate studies to determine costs and benefits of these
and any competitive missions.

> I've always thought that Pluto might well be
> an example of a "rogue planet" which was created outside of the solar
> system.  ...
>  Both Triton and Pluto have very irregular
> orbits, and Pluto does intersect with Neptune's orbit. 

Actually, the current orbits do not intersect, because Pluto's orbit
plane is inclined by about 16 degrees with respect to Neptune's.
There has been speculation that the orbits might have intersected in
the distant past, but the calculations are very difficult and in any
event depend on knowledge of any massive bodies in the outer solar
system.  It seems unlikely that the orbits could ever have
intersected, but I don't think it can be ruled out completely.

> On any event this TAU mission strikes me as a misuse of limited
> planetary exploration funds.

If TAU is primarily an astrophysics mission, I assume it would be
paid for out of very limited astrophysics research funds.  Balancing
research funding between these scientific areas is certainly a
difficult job.

Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

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

Date: 17 Nov 1986 22:30-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: TAU is useful

I think Gary Allen's point about Pluto might be a good one. It would be
interesting to have such a long distance probe give it a quick pass.
Shouldn't really matter that much, except for a bit of DV used for
getting a bit off the ecliptic.

However, I disagree that it is a boondoggle. There is a great deal to be
learned by getting a longer astrometric baseline. We hardly know where
things really are in our local neighborhood. I would also say that we
will need a lot more accurate position information on the nearer stars
if we are going to consider sending probes to them in the next century.
The current errors are probably FAR too large to do an REAL orbit for
even a star as close as Alpha Centauri. I've heard a great deal of
discussion about star probes, but no one has ever brought up the
difficulty of navigating to something whose x0,y0,z0 and dx,dy,dz are so
poorly known. Pointing a telescope is a bit different from aiming a
spacecraft for a close pass 40 or 50 years later. I would say this
mission is an important pre-requisite for such a flight.

Additionally, there are very interesting question to be answered about
the plasma/particle environment of intersteller space. There have been
recent suggestions that we are entering a small molecular cloud. It
would be extrememly interesting to see if this is true, and if so, to
learn more about the actual chemistry/composition/dynamics of such
clouds. It would be the collection of 'ground truth' for astronomers.
Corresponding to this there are questions about where the heliopause
actually is, and what it's structure is like.

If such a craft carries a radio antenna of any capacity, we would have
the resolution of a TAU-LBI radio telescope system available to study
and settle very basic questions about the central structure of the
driving engine of quasars, Seyfert galaxies, peculiar galaxies, etc.
Not to mention highly detailed pictures of our own galaxy core.

I would also love to see a photograph that shows the solar system as a
single entity. This would be possible if the mission did indeed have
photographic equipment for Pluto was consequently was off ecliptic and
still had enough power to take pictures when it got that far out. I
realize it wouldn't necessarily show more than a number of bright dots,
but let your imagination take hold of it. It's the closest any of us
even has a shot at getting to the childhood dream's of starflight.
Dreams do count.

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

Date: 1986 November 17 08:45:26 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Australian bulk-payload delivery & spaceport nearby

<HS> Date: 14 Oct 86 18:46:27 GMT
<HS> From: adelie!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ll-xn.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: recursive compressive members as alternative to filling with gas

> ...Still, you have to transport from the Sahara, it would be nice to
> be able to deliver to some point on Earth not near Libya,

<HS> Actually, the Australian desert is probably better than the Sahara for
<HS> a number of reasons, political stability among them.

And wasn't there some recent article about Australia setting up a
multinational spaceport, the first in the world, on their northern
coast? Having the launch&return port and also a large desert landing
area for payloads in the same general area (and under the same
government) would seem to have economic advantages.

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

Date: 17 Nov 86 22:43:49 GMT
From: hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!adamsd@hplabs.hp.com  (Adams Douglas)
Subject: Re: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <8611171047.AA09235@s1-b.arpa> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>...On any event this TAU mission strikes me as a misuse of limited
>planetary exploration funds.
>                       Gary Allen

I attended the original lecture on the TAU proposal over a year ago, and
I can assure you it would be neither a waste of funds nor a boondoggle.
The primary mission of TAU is to permit very precise astrometry of
nearby stars orders of magnitude better than any we can achieve now.
With a 1000 AU baseline, we will be able to determine accurate stellar
distances for stars all the way to the galactic center ('nearby stars'
being a relative term here). Add to this the fact that TAU essentially
involves putting a HST grade telescope outside our solar system, thus
giving us the capability for a useful perspective on our own system form
a very different vantage point.

One should also not ignore the fact that this ion-powered bus gliding
out of our system gives us the perfect opportunity to do good hard
science in near-interstellar space (5 times the distance at which we
will lose contact with Voyagers 1 and 2). Many intruments besides the
telescope can be hung on the platform, which--unlike Voyager--is
designed to be talked to at that distance.

TAU 'goes nowhere' only in the same sense that the Voyagers or the
Pioneers do. It's what it'll gather on the way that makes it so
valuable.

Oh, yes, I don't have any personal interest in the project here at
JPL. My comments are strictly from my own interest in seeing the best
use made of the limited planetary exploration budget.
=======================================================
Adams Douglas	ARPA:crash!adamsd@nosc.arpa  AT&T:818-354-3076
JPL/NASA	UUCP:{akgua | hplabs!hp-sdd | sdcsvax | noscvax}!crash!adamsd

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #47
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15548; Wed, 19 Nov 86 03:02:17 PST
	id AA15548; Wed, 19 Nov 86 03:02:17 PST
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 03:02:17 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611191102.AA15548@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #48

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 03:02:17 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #48

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 48

Today's Topics:
    Rebuttal on TAU and further remarks on Pluto as a rogue planet
		       picture of Solar System
			 Upcoming convention
		    Re: Industrial Spacce Facility
		    Re: Electromagnetic launchers
		      Re: In-flight obsolescence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 16:40:33 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Rebuttal on TAU and further remarks on Pluto as a rogue planet

My assertion that the TAU may be a boondoggle induced response from many
readers.  Steve Willner correctly states that the prime mission for the
TAU is to measure stellar distances by parallax.  Accuracy through this
method can be achieved through either having a large and accurately
known base leg with a telescope of modest resolution, or a short and
even more accurately known base leg with a high resolution telescope.
It seems to me that limited space and astrophysics funds are better
served with a high resolution telescope which can do something other
than astrometry.

Also the comparison of TAU with Voyager is a specious argument.  It is
true that the Voyagers 1 & 2 and Pioneers 10 & 11 are going "nowhere".
However in their endless journey they did pass some extremely
interesting places, i.e. Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and (hopefully)
Neptune.  It's my understanding that TAU goes directly into interstellar
space.  If the planetary program of JPL and NASA Ames were adequately
funded I wouldn't raise a peep about TAU.  However when the government
won't even fund a lunar polar orbiter it seems ludicrous to study
something with as bad of a science-vs-cost tradeoff as the TAU.

Also on my admittedly crazy idea about Pluto being a rogue planet, Steve
brought in some misconceptions.  Pluto's orbit **does** intersect with
Neptune's orbit along the line of nodes in Neptune's orbital plane.
During this month Pluto has an inclination of 17.1362 degrees to the
eciliptic while Neptune has the much more nomial inclination of 1.7696
degrees.  Pluto's perihelion is within Neptune's orbit.  One would
expect Pluto to have a highly inclined orbit if it was a rogue planet
that was captured through a near miss with Neptune's Triton.  I should
emphasize that this crazy theory of mine is **not** "respectable
science".  Main stream views on Pluto reject a Neptune connection
because Pluto has a resonant orbit with Neptune.  However the
gravitational interactions between Uranus, Neptune and Pluto are very
strong.  Take a look at the longitude of perihelion for Neptune and
you'll be amazed by how much it varies.  Long term computer projections
are impossible because round-off error will invalidate any result.  We
don't even have accurate mass values for Pluto, so this subject is wide
open to speculation.

However there is circumstantial evidence supporting my crazy idea.
Pluto is a double planet.  It has a large moon named Charon.  One would
expect Pluto to be broken up by tidal forces when it passed Triton.
Triton is larger in size than Pluto.  Therefore it could have provided
the necessary kinetic energy sink to capture Pluto.  Triton has an
absolutely wacky orbit that is retrograde at 159.0 degrees to Neptune's
equator and is remarkably close to the planet's surface.  Neptune's
second moon Nereid has the highest eccentricity of any moon tabulated in
the 1986 Ephemeris and is also highly inclined.  The crazy orbits of
Pluto, Nereid and Triton are evidence that something strange has
happened.  If Pluto was a rogue planet its scientific impact would be
incalculable.  For this reason I think a Pluto orbiter is a mission
worth considering.
                        Gary Allen

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

Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 12:55:42 est
From: anderson@nrl-csr.arpa (Paul Anderson)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: picture of Solar System

  A statement in the last SPACE Digest made me think of something
interesting: Has there been any effort to have either Voyager I or
Voyager II take a picture of one or more planets, or of the solar
system, as they are flying away from it, looking back at it?  Of
particular interest would be pictures of Pluto; even though these
spacecraft may be a long way away from it, they still might be closer to
it than we are here.
  Anybody know anything about this?

Paul Anderson
anderson@nrl-csr

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

Date: 18 Nov 86 12:59:03 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (Rick Kolker)
Subject: Upcoming convention
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


                            Coming January 16-18, 1987.....

                  C O N V A L E S C E N C E ,  T O O

Place: Embassy Suites Hotel, Crystal City, VA (just across the river from
       Washington, DC)    Suite (every room's one) $69/night

Membership : $3   (that's no typo)

Don't worry about missing the programming, there is none (well almost none)

Convalescence is a relaxicon, just friends and fun and food.

1. Friends - sf fen, startrekkers, whoites, space program supporters
             (many all the same people)

2. Fun - well, outside of the city just over the river with all it has,
	 we'll be showing the first episode of just about every show we
	 can find (including a lot of 1960's stuff), a murder mystery
	 where you're the detective, maybe a few informal discussions
	 with interesting people (know any?)
	 
         Also, see Hotel

3. Food - Saturday night's con suite is a real meal.  Last year was deli,
          this year we're doing Chinese.  Munchies the rest of the time.

          Also, see Hotel.

Hotel - The Embassy suites is the best con hotel we've ever found,
	except for the fact there's no programming space.  Every room's
	a suite, with either a king or double-double in the bedroom, and
	a fold out couch in the sitting room.  Every suite has 2 tv's, a
	fridge, and many have microwaves.  The hotel has an indoor pool
	and jacuzzi.  The room rate includes a full breakfast in the
	morning and a happy hour in the afternoon.
	
If you're interested, please send in your three bucks so we have some
idea how many to expect.  Make your reservation directly with the hotel,
mention the convention to get in our block (and so we get credit for
your room)

The purpose of this series of cons is to use up the money the 10th
Anniversary August Party made.

Any questions, email me.   See you there!

Rich Kolker
8519 White Pine Dr.
Manassas Park, VA 22111
(703)361-1290

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

Date: 18 Nov 1986 14:41-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Industrial Spacce Facility

The Westinghouse Corporation side is being run from their office in
Gateway Plaza here in Pittsburgh. I have contact information, but I
won't post it generally. Got to let the poor SOB get some work done...
If someone is specifically interested, drop me a line.

Space Industries side is being run from Houston Texas, by Maxime Faget
as Henry noted previously.

Read this week's Space Calendar for more info. Three of the units are
going up on the Shuttle before about 1993, and are already manifested,
according to that article.

PS: I too like the AvLeak summaries. With the conference planning work
driving me towards raving mania, I rarely have time to drop by the
university library to catch up. Thanks Henry!!!

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

Date: 19 Nov 86 02:01:12 GMT
From: jtk@s1-c.arpa  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Electromagnetic launchers
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <869@hplabsc.UUCP> kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf) writes:
>
>Re: offbeat launching schemes, sometime back I saw an article in
>a technical rocketry journal about using a space based laser to
>lift a vehicle using an electromagnetic field and MHD forces.
>Does anyone know what happened to this idea? 
>	Jim Kempf	hplabs!kempf

This may refer to Dr. Leik Myrabo's Apollo Lightcraft project.
Myrabo has designed (under contract to the Air Force) a series
of laser-propelled vehicles that use several different modes
of thrust generation, all powered by a laser beam incident from 
above.  One mode is an "MHD Fanjet", where the laser drives
a hydrogen-fuelled "rocket" (laser light passes thru a window and
is absorbed in hydrogen gas, which exits thru a nozzle), but the
rocket exhaust is used to generate electricity via an MHD system
(rather than providing direct thrust).  The electricity drives
an "electric fan" around the rim of the vehicle: arcs are established
between the vehicle rim and an outer shroud ring; blades between rim 
and shroud contain coils to generate a magnetic field; j x B forces
push the arc (and associated air) down and the vehicle up.  The advantage
is that one gets more thrust than a pure laser rocket per unit 
laser energy and per unit fuel mass, but can run at higher velocities
than any chemical-fuelled jet.

	Myrabo's systems are ingenious, but complex and untested, with
stiff requirements for the driving laser's properties.  I recommend
his book, "The Future of Flight" (with Dean Ing, Baen Books) for a
good collection of exotic propulsion techniques.  There are some even
more extreme suggestions around (e.g. using the photon pressure
of a laser beam in a resonant cavity formed between a vehicle and
the ground), but there are also some very simple (though not 
necessarily straightforward) versions of laser propulsion which
may be available quite soon.  For instance, a ground-based 
laser system capable of
launching a one ton payload into low earth orbit, at a maximum 
acceleration of six gees, EVERY 15 MINUTES (uh, lessee, four tons an 
hour, 96 tons a day, do maintenance on weekends, call it 30,000 tons
a year)... System cost less than the Space Transportation System ...
unit cost under $50/lb in orbit... When?  Maybe before the end of
the century.  Stay tuned...

		Jordin Kare	jtk@mordor.uucp  	jtk@s1-c.arpa

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

Date: 18 Nov 86 20:54:01 GMT
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com  (Jay Freeman)
Subject: Re: In-flight obsolescence
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <260@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.UUCP (Void where prohibited) writes:
>In article <7325@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>>JPL is studying a mission dubbed TAU, Thousand Astronomical Units...
>>...propulsion system would be shed after fuel exhaustion, leaving the
>>11,000-lb spacecraft to continue on for up to 40 more years...
>>
>>[Mini-editorial:  a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by newer
>>probes with better engines long before the end of its mission.  Planning
>>for such long missions needs to consider in-flight obsolescence.  -- HS]
>
>Good point.  But better engines will result, at least in part, from experience
>gained by flying the current idea of "new" engines.  I also wonder if the
>probe might not return some data significant for the planning of a follow-up
>mission during the first few years.
>
>
>
>-- 
>		--Craig
>		...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good


Furthermore, there is reasonably good science to be done at order of 100
AU -- nominal distance for the (presumed) shock front at which the
solar wind slows down abruptly due to interaction with the interstellar
medium.  A mission would presumably study this region, as well as study
the nature of the unperturbed interstellar medium not far beyond.  It is
probably worth developing an advanced engine just to get to there, and
if it doesn't cost too much more to make the vehicle last longer, so
much the better.

Besides, direct measurement of stellar distances benefits in proportion
to the distance traveled.  At 100 AU one would be only 10% as well
off as at 1000 AU, but 50 times better off than here (our baseline
is 2 AU, the diameter of the Earth's orbit).

One might indeed need some of those interim measurements as an aid to
mission planning for the interstellar missions to be launched with
the advanced engines developed during the next 40 years ...

					-- Jay Freeman

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #48
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA18361; Thu, 20 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST
	id AA18361; Thu, 20 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611201102.AA18361@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #49

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #49

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 49

Today's Topics:
	  The romantic view of the solar system from 1000 AU
		 Re: space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986
		      Re: In-flight obsolescence
       Re: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 19 Nov 86 14:16:43 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The romantic view of the solar system from 1000 AU

Once more I must play the role of "spoiler".  If one had this romantic
view of the solar system from 1000 AU, all he would see is the sun.  A
simple "back of the envelope" calculation reveals that the brightest
planet from this vantage point would be Jupiter.  However it would have
an apparent magnitude of 9.13.  For comparison the planet Uranus being
viewed from the Earth has an apparent magnitude of 5.7 (the smaller the
number the brighter it is).  Uranus is in theory, just barely visible to
the naked eye.  I've tried to see it without a telescope and failed.
Even with a telescope it's hard to find.  Since Jupiter is much dimmer
at 1000 AU, I don't think the view from that lonely outpost would be
very interesting.
	Gary Allen

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

Date: 18 Nov 86 18:31:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: space news from AW&ST 6 Oct 1986
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


In article <7325@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>[Mini-editorial:  a probe with a 50-year mission will be passed by newer
>probes with better engines long before the end of its mission.  Planning
>for such long missions needs to consider in-flight obsolescence.  -- HS]
Then good@pixar.UUCP replies:
>Good point.  But better engines will result, at least in part, from experience
>gained by flying the current idea of "new" engines.  I also wonder if the
>probe might not return some data significant for the planning of a follow-up
>mission during the first few years.

More to the point, the fact that a probe is obsolescent doesn't mean
that it's necessarily useless.  A case in point are the early Pioneer
spacecraft.  As of two years ago (the last I heard from any of the
Ames people on the project), all of the civilian Pioneers (the first
four were built while JPL was still a military shop) were still
functioning and returning useful plasma-physics data.  The oldest is
nearing 25 years of service.

Kevin Kenny			     UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign	       CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET
NSA line eater food:               ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA)
    Bomb, secret, terrorist, cryptography, DES, assassinate, decode, CIA, NRO.

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

Date: 20 Nov 86 00:01:02 GMT
From: eugene@ames-titan.arpa  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: Re: In-flight obsolescence
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Various comments about technological obsolesence. Space craft
> overtaking one another.

Oh yeah?

Reminds of Achilles and the Tortiose.

Tell me this the next time I go to Washington DC and I sit on the steps
of the Capitol. (December/January)

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA (aurora's back up)
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

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

Date: 19 Nov 86 19:14:15 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why not F-1s for Jarvis? -and- Is TAU a boondoggle?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ...  Why is it, that to
> remanufacture the old F-1 engines is more expensive than using SSMEs?

My guess would be that the problem is not so much cost as uncertainty.
The F-1 production line shut down a long time ago, and it's not clear that
the tooling and plans were preserved properly.  (To say nothing of the
analogous problem with subcontractors, e.g. the people who used to supply
small quantities of very precisely formulated alloys -- they may not even
be using the same production processes nowadays, which would make it very
hard to be sure that the resulting alloys are exactly the same.)  There's
no doubt that production could be restarted; the hard part is restarting
it accurately enough that you don't need to start engine testing all over
again.  Even small variations in materials could affect things enough to
make it a gamble to fly new-production F-1s without a thorough test program.
Hughes can't afford such a test program if it's going to make the deadline
for the USAF MLV contract; as it is the Jarvis will be a bit late, although
Hughes hopes that the large payload will make up for this.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #49
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA01766; Fri, 21 Nov 86 03:02:11 PST
	id AA01766; Fri, 21 Nov 86 03:02:11 PST
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 03:02:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611211102.AA01766@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #50

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 03:02:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #50

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 50

Today's Topics:
		     Re: picture of Solar System
		   TAU and exploring the heliopause
				 TAU?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Nov 86 23:48:15 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!andrew@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Re: picture of Solar System
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <8611181755.AA25367@nrl-csr.ARPA> anderson@NRL-CSR.ARPA (Paul Anderson) writes:
>Has there been any effort to have either Voyager I or Voyager II take a
>picture of one or more planets, or of the solar system, as they are
>flying away from it, looking back at it?  Of particular interest would
>be pictures of Pluto; even though these spacecraft may be a long way
>away from it, they still might be closer to it than we are here.
>Anybody know anything about this?
>Paul Anderson
>anderson@nrl-csr

The Voyagers have taken departing shots of every planet they went by,
including the Earth and Moon (in the same frame, a first!).  Pluto is
just a *bit* too far away for it to appear any larger than it does from
Earth, remember the Voyager's cameras are < 8 (?) inches in diameter,
and Pluto will still be some A.U.'s away at 'closest approach'. I still
think the shots of a cresent Saturn were the most remarkable.

Andrew Folkins    ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

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

Date:     Thu, 20 Nov 86 08:29 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  TAU and exploring the heliopause

It was mentioned that TAU will be able to explore the heliopause, the
region where the solar wind gives way to interstellar gas.  While I
believe exploring the local interstellar medium is a great idea, you
don't need a HST-class telescope to do it.  Nor does one need nuclear
powered ion engines.  A recently proposed idea is to drop a vehicle in
an aeroshell through Venus's upper atmosphere to put it onto a sun
grazing orbit.  At perihelion you fire a rocket and get a nice big
boost.  The probe could then sail to Neptune in 1.9 years, and could
reach the heliopause not too long after.  A spacecraft with plasma
measuring instruments and low data rates would doubtlessly be much less
expensive than a full blown astrometric scope.

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

Date:     Thu, 20 Nov 86 17:35 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  TAU?

Additional comments on TAU and astrometric scopes...

There's an astrometric scope, Hipparchos, that will be able to get down
to 1 to 2 milliarcseconds accuracy (as will the HST).  That should be
good enough to determine distances of stars out to perhaps a thousand
light years.  After that, the Astrometric Telescope Facility (New
Scientist, 11/13/86) will have an accuracy approaching 1 microarcsecond
(!), which should, for bright objects, be able to measure distances out
to perhaps a million light years, detect "Jupiters" out to thousands of
light years and "Earths" about nearby stars.

[Short editorial: they plan to mount the ATF on the space station.  This
seems to me to be an incredibly stupid idea.  Do they really expect
microarcsecond pointing accuracy with astronauts banging around inside,
shuttles docking, spacewalking astronauts firing nitrogen gas all over
the place, etc., even with a (no doubt expensive) vibration isolation
system?  Once again, valid scientific projects are being perverted to
help support needless human activity in space.  I hope the ATF is being
designed so it can fly free also.]

It would seem that the ATF (or a larger version thereof) could perform
the major task being touted for TAU: calibration of the distance scale
used in computing the Hubble constant.  This should not be suprising.
The idea of fly-by interstellar probes has always struck me as pretty
silly.  The farther the probe has to go, the bigger the advantage of
stay-at-home space telescopes.  A solar-system-wide microwave
interferometer, for example, has the entire universe in its near field,
returns data almost immediately, is cheaper, and can be used on more
than one target.

Also, a comment was made that, even if TAU is passed by faster
spacecraft, it will give valuable experience with its propulsion system.
This is true only if nuclear ion engines are not a dead-end technology.
I would think that radically different systems, such as nuclear pulse
rockets, would be the long term choice (Hyde would say that long term =
30 years).

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #50
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA04024; Sat, 22 Nov 86 03:02:02 PST
	id AA04024; Sat, 22 Nov 86 03:02:02 PST
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 86 03:02:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611221102.AA04024@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #51

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 51

Today's Topics:
			       Re: TAU?
	 Comments on the Astrometric Telescope Facility (ATF)
			     publications
			Probes vs Large scopes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 21 Nov 86 18:01 EST
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: TAU?
To: space@s1-b.arpa

<Fnord>
>Also, a comment was made that, even if TAU is passed by faster
>spacecraft, it will give valuable experience with its propulsion system.
>This is true only if nuclear ion engines are not a dead-end technology.
>I would think that radically different systems, such as nuclear pulse
>rockets, would be the long term choice (Hyde would say that long term =
>30 years).

Nuclear ion engines will certainly be a dead-end technology if we never
try to build one.  And if we always wait for the "better" thing that
will be around in only a few decades, we'll never get anything done,
'cause there will always be something else on the horizon.

       Mark
^.-.^  Purtill at MIT-MULTICS.ARPA    **Insert favorite disclaimer here**
(("))  2-229 MIT Cambrige MA 02139

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

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 86 16:09:11 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Comments on the Astrometric Telescope Facility (ATF)

Paul Dietz is right (as usual) about the ATF being seriously compromised

by mounting it on the Space Station.  The thing is designed to be a free

flyer and **not** man tended.  Also its whole mission is based on high

precision pointing which is completely compromised by mounting it on the

Station.  I see this as a classic example of engineering ethics being

compromised for the sake of flakey, short term politics.  This is the

same sort of stupidity that NASA Headquarters was doing with the

Shuttle and ELVs.  If they can't find enough legitimate projects to

justify the Space Station then they need to reevaluate why they're

building the thing in the first place.  Paul did have one minor

glitch in his last posting (probably his source was faulty).  Paul

claimed that the ATF can detect earth-like worlds.  However the AIAA

1986 report "Astrometric Telescope Facility: Status Report" written by

the NASA Ames people running the project states:  The ATF can "detect

Uranus/Neptune-class planets (i.e. masses as small as 15 Earth masses)

through astrometric measurement of the star's motion."  ATF doesn't have

the resolution for earth-like worlds.  My own opinion is that the ATF

may actually be redundant, since the HST could in principle be

retrofitted with astrometry equipment after it has performed its primary

mission as currently configured.  Since the HST is designed to be

recovered, returned to Earth and easily modified, this strikes me as

a much more cost effective approach to the important work of astrometry.



                                Gary Allen

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

Date: 21 Nov 86 19:48:00 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: publications
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

A friend asked me for the addresses of interesting journals, and it
occurred to me that other people might be interested in the answer.
Here's what I sent her, edited slightly.

L5 Society
1060 East Elm
Tucson, AZ 85719
Much the most effective of the activist space groups.  THE group to join
if you want to see action, rather than pretty pictures or descriptions of
dreams.  Publications are unimpressive; if you want glossy color pictures,
join the Planetary Society instead.  $30/yr basic rate, lower for students.
There is a life-membership rate, which was $200 a few years ago when I paid
it.  They take Mastercard, Visa, American Express.  JOIN!!

Aviation Week & Space Technology
PO Box 1505
Neptune, NJ 07754  USA
Write for qualification card; you get significantly better rates if you
can convince them that you're a pro in aerospace or something related.
Not cheap, say $75/yr maybe.  Space news is only a modest fraction of the
material, the rest is aviation and missile news and the detailed doings of
the Pentagon.  Ads for jet fighters and cruise missiles.  Weekly.

Flight International
Business Press International Ltd.
Quadrant House
The Quadrant
Sutton, Surrey SM2 5AS, UK
The British counterpart of AW&ST.  Fewer color photos, less coverage of
Pentagon minutiae.  Mostly aviation news, spaceflight coverage modest.
Better coverage of European activities.  Generally better in-depth
coverage than AW&ST.  Weekly.  Expensive -- maybe $100/yr, even more if
you get it airmail.

Science
AAAS
1333 H Street NW
Washington DC 20005
Comes with AAAS membership only.  Not bad reading, although a lot of the
stuff is only for specialists in the particular areas.  General emphasis
on the biological sciences, but often the place where definitive papers
from planetary missions are published.  Membership is $65/yr in US.  Weekly.

World Spaceflight News; Planetary Encounter
Box 98
Sewell NJ 08080
Two newsletters for people who want the nitty-gritty data.  WSN focuses
on Shuttle and such, and publishes things like complete Shuttle mission
timelines and NASA after-mission final reports.  Of late, naturally, 51L
has been the major topic, including things like a complete copy of Joe
Kerwin's medical report on the deaths of the Challenger crew; even
AW&ST only published a summary.  Planetary Encounter is the same thing but
for planetary probes, e.g. a whole issue on the ICE encounter with comet
Giacobini-Zinner:  drawings of spacecraft, details on experiments, drawings
and descriptions of findings, interview with the top technical man for ICE,
etc.  No glossy color pictures (line drawings only, in fact), but a great
place to find all the little details that the glossy media never publish.
WSN and PE are $30/yr each, and are nominally monthly.  The same people
also put out a large number of special reports, at extra cost, covering
things like details of Shuttle subsystems or the complete mission plan
for Apollo 11.

British Interplanetary Society
27/29 South Lambeth Road
London SW8 1SZ, UK
Two journals, Spaceflight and JBIS (Journal of the BIS).  The BIS is the
only one of the three original rocket societies that has survived as a
group of enthusiasts (the American Rocket Society eventually turned into
a professional group, the AIAA; the German Rocket Society, the VfR, died
out in the 30s after getting people like Willy Ley and Wernher von Braun
interested in rockets and doing the basic engineering development of the
modern liquid-fuelled rocket [Freeman Dyson has pointed to the formation
of the VfR as the specific event that began the Space Age]).  The BIS was
unable to do actual rocket experimenting because of strict British laws
on such matters, and so they turned their eyes further ahead.  They're
still doing it; JBIS is the single best source of technical information
on interstellar flight, for example.  Spaceflight is general-interest,
JBIS is formal and technical (although still largely readable to a
knowledgeable layman).  Both monthly.  Write for membership rates (the
journals are members-only) (I see the rates only when I renew my own
membership, so I don't have them on hand).  Expensive (maybe $100/yr to
get both journals) but worth it.

I would also highly recommend Scientific American
and Astronomy, which any good newsstand should have.  Sky & Telescope is a
more technical version of Astronomy, aimed at the real telescope hackers.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 21 Nov 1986 22:30-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Probes vs Large scopes

I find myself in disagreement with Paul on the value of an interstellar
flyby, but he does bring up an interesting point.

Let us assume there exists an earth like planet around another star
with interesting structures on it's surface, be they water, mountains,
cities, or what have you.

What are the theoretical limits to the distance at which they can be
seen by an optical scope? Are there quantum effects that will limit
resolution? How much effect does intersteller dust and gas between us
and the object have on theoretical resolution? What is the relationship
between the scope size and the distance to the interesting surface
feature?

Given that a scope could be built that could detect a city or town at a
distance of Alpha Centauri, what are the cost comparisons?

I don't expect to find a city anywhere nearby, but I expect that things
such as cratering and surface history of objects around other stars,
particularly of varied spectral class, would tell us very interesting
general things about planetary evolution, and would no doubt give us
some surprises. Is plate tectonics common? Is it truly dependent on the
presence of oceans? Is a large moon(s) helpful in driving it?

My gut feel is that it might be easier to build the probe. Not to
mention, it is as good a test bed for really advanced engines as just
about anything, and will probably grab the 21st century imagination
because it will prove that IT CAN BE DONE.

Once a probe proves it, it is only a matter of time (within 50-100 years of
the probe pictures coming back) before people do it. But then, the
people might well pass it up, as someone noted about obsolete
propulsion systems.

Gary: Too bad about the solar system picture. Maybe we need a high
inclination shot to get the inner solar system from 10 AU's or so over
the solar pole. Maybe ISPM could get an interesting shot, if it had
cameras. (Although it is not going to be all that high above the
ecliptic)

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #51
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA07944; Sun, 23 Nov 86 03:01:55 PST
	id AA07944; Sun, 23 Nov 86 03:01:55 PST
Date: Sun, 23 Nov 86 03:01:55 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611231101.AA07944@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #52

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 52

Today's Topics:
   TAU avoids granularity in Oort mascons, Pluto may have collided
		       Will ATF Detect Earths?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1986 November 22 02:53:22 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: TAU avoids granularity in Oort mascons, Pluto may have collided

<GA> Date: Tue, 18 Nov 86 16:40:33 cet
<GA> To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
<GA> From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Gary Allen)
<GA> Subject: Rebuttal on TAU and further remarks on Pluto as a rogue planet

<GA> My assertion that the TAU may be a boondoggle induced response from many
<GA> readers.  Steve Willner correctly states that the prime mission for the
<GA> TAU is to measure stellar distances by parallax.  Accuracy through this
<GA> method can be achieved through either having a large and accurately
<GA> known base leg with a telescope of modest resolution, or a short and
<GA> even more accurately known base leg with a high resolution telescope.

On the other hand, even with a "perfect" telescope located near Earth,
curvature of space in this vicinity may invalidite the results beyond
a certain accuracy. This curvature may be systematic due to the Earth
and Sun etc., or a uniform granularity below a certain resolution
caused by the Oort cloud. Having some telescopes way out there in flat
space, where we have a large baseline hence don't need such high
angular accuracy, may be useful as a check against our near-Earth observations.

Therefore the TAU seems intrinsically valuable and irreplacable, thus
worthy of consideration. As you say, we must weigh the relative merits
and costs with finite monetarily and manpower resources. But I dismiss
your claim that TAU is a boondoggle from the outset.

<GA> Also on my admittedly crazy idea about Pluto being a rogue planet, ...

If as somebody said Pluto and Neptune are currently in stable
resonance, that means before they fell into this potential well they
could have been just about anywhere in the vicinity. Thus the fact
they are currently in such a well strengthens rather than makes
impossible the possibility that they could have been in a completely
different orbit, namely colliding, in the distant past. What it DOES
rule out is that they may collide in the future, since things fall
into wells but don't spontaneously rise back out of them. (This
paragraph rebuts somebody whose identity I forgot who used the
resonance to claim collision in the past is thereby ruled out.)

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

Date:     Sat, 22 Nov 86 08:51 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject:  Will ATF Detect Earths?

According to what I've read, the ATF will be able to detect
earth-like worlds out to about 30 light years, and gas giants
out to about 1000 light years or so.  Maybe Gary meant that ATF
will not be able to get a statistically significant sample of
earth-like worlds?

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #52
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA12469; Mon, 24 Nov 86 03:02:22 PST
	id AA12469; Mon, 24 Nov 86 03:02:22 PST
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 86 03:02:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611241102.AA12469@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #53

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 86 03:02:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #53

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 53

Today's Topics:
				Re: AU
	   Re: How about using liquid ozone as an oxidizer?
		     space news from 13 Oct AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 86 20:17:02 GMT
From: rutgers!husc6!cfa!wyatt@lll-crg.arpa  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: AU
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
>  Could some one tell me how far an AU
> is?
>
AU stands for Astronomical Unit, which is the mean distance from the
earth to the sun, about 93 million miles.
  
-- 


Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu

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

Date: 23 Nov 86 03:47:27 GMT
From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@lll-crg.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: How about using liquid ozone as an oxidizer?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 	Has anyone ever thought about using liquified ozone (O[3]) as an
> oxidizer for rockets?  ...

It's been looked at a bit, I believe.  It's not that hard to make.  It is
toxic, but nitrogen tetroxide -- already in large-scale use as a rocket
oxidizer -- is much worse, comparable to most WW1 poison gases.  The
performance improvement from using ozone rather than oxygen is modest,
but it might be worthwhile, were it not that liquid ozone is dangerously
explosive.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 Nov 86 03:35:58 GMT
From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@lll-crg.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from 13 Oct AW&ST
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

MITI asks Japanese government to reduce corporate taxes on space-related
investments to help accelerate commercial space development.

Circa 30% of processor time on the Cray 2 at Ames is now going to hypersonic
research for the Aerospace Plane, aerobraking, etc.

Delta launch of GOES-H (Clarke-orbit weather satellite) delayed from Nov
to Dec to replace imaging device in satellite; similar system failed in
testing.

Nov 6 Atlas-Centaur launch of Navy FleetSatCom may be delayed due to
questionable electronic components.  There was some thought that software
problems might force a delay, but they have been cleared up.  Launch is
still officially on schedule, payload test on Oct 23 will settle the issue.

Soviet manned spaceflight activity is on hold briefly to prepare for full-
scale operations aboard Mir.  Soviets say no more cosmonauts will visit Mir
until early 1987, at which point a crew will go up and the first big add-on
module will follow.  They plan to continue extending the stay time of their
long-stay crews; the next step is 10 months, with still longer times to
follow.  The first specialized module to be added to Mir will be an astro-
physics facility, including the multinational Complex X-Ray Observatory
which has major European participation.  More multinational projects are
to fly on Mir in the next few years, and the Soviets are open to proposals
for yet more.  US delegate to the International Astronautical Federation
meeting (at which these plans were discussed) comments:  "I think the
message is clear:  Soviets are prepared to fire the starting gun for a new
period of intensive manned space flights...  More and more people are
starting to beat down the Soviets' doors to get in on the action on board
Mir, while we in the West find ourselves literally grounded and arguing
over details on how we are going to develop our own international space
station facility."

Glavkosmos, formed last year in a reorganization of the Soviet space
program, is basically in charge of coordinating between hardware builders
and customers (Soviet space users, international cooperative missions, and
commercial activities).  Essentially Glavkosmos is in charge of engineering
while Intercosmos (part of the Academy of Sciences) is in charge of science.

France is evaluating an uprated Ariane 4 to keep Ariane competitive if US
expendables get serious, and as a backup in case Ariane 5 development is
slow.  Nothing very special, just adding more small solid strap-ons to the
normal Ariane 4.

China is looking at multi-payload launches for the Long March 2, carrying
2-4 small satellites into low orbit.  One concept puts a 300-1000 kg
satellite on top of a cylindrical housing containing three 50-300 kg
satellites.  The bigger satellite would be deployed forward by a spring
system, while the three smaller ones would deploy sideways using the
"frisbee" launch scheme already demonstrated by the US.  Orbits for such
missions would be either 63.4 degrees (geophysics research) or 98.9 degrees
(Sun-synchronous orbits for remote sensing) with perigee 175-300 km and
apogee 800-1000 km.  The transfer orbit module being developed jointly by
Beijing Wanyuan Industries and the Swedish Space Corp. could be used to
boost the small satellites to higher orbits if necessary.  One of the first
TOM applications will be SSC's Mailstar satellite, which will ride piggyback
on a Long March 2 launch carrying a larger Chinese satellite.

Japan is studying a three-stage solid rocket as a launch vehicle for a very
small custom-designed satellite.  It would basically be built out of sounding-
rocket stages (like the larger US Scout booster) and would launch a 17-kg
satellite into a 200x1000 km orbit.  (The orbit is chosen to provide several
days in space even with fairly large guidance errors.)  The 17-kg satellite
would have an instrument payload of about 5 kg.  It would be box-shaped and
spin-stabilized, with power from solar-panel paddles.  Body 28x28x25 cm.

China has defined a series of Long March 2 versions suitable for various
missions.  The high end is a souped-up version with stretched tanks and
4-8 liquid strap-on boosters; it could launch 9000 kg into a 200-km 28.5-
degree parking orbit with 4 boosters, 13000 kg with 8.

New Space Shuttle payload manifest is making a lot of payload sponsors
unhappy, and it's not clear that even it can be met.  Comsat operators are
threatening to sue and foreign governments are applying diplomatic pressure.
Major science payloads go up early, because by 1993 DoD and the Space Station
will tie up most of the capacity.

First launch is set for 18 Feb 1988.  Program managers and astronauts say
that there isn't enough momentum to make this, citing mid-88 or early 89
as more realistic.  Truly agrees that there are problems, and says that
the target date will not be met unless some changes are made in the recovery
effort.  There are coordination problems, the effort is not focussed well
enough on the specific objective of getting the Shuttle flying again, and
there are too many committees (both inside and outside NASA) making decisions.

[Editorial of the Week:  The possibility of Shuttle flights not starting
again until 1989 is not just bad, it is an outrage.  This is criminal.
If an aircraft company had a fatal crash during tests and announced that
the result would be a three-year delay before test flights resumed, we
would unquestionably think that the company was:

	(a) grossly underfunded,
	(b) grossly short of management support for the project, or
	(c) grossly incompetent (as a whole, notwithstanding the probable
		presence of competent people in some subordinate positions).

	Or (d), all of the above.				-- HS ]

The manifest assumes flight rate starting at 5/yr, going to 10/yr in the
second year and gradually building to 16/yr.  NRC report to House Appro-
priations Committee, however, says that even with a fourth orbiter the
maximum sustainable rate is 11-13/yr except for short surge periods.
11 of the 30 missions through mid-1991 are DoD dedicated, 7 others have
major DoD presence.  Several will be spysats in fairly high-inclination
orbits for KSC, affecting the outlook for Vandenberg Shuttle launches.
Belief is widespread that the combination of high-inclination launches
from KSC and the availability of Titan 4 will make the USAF give up on
the Vandenberg Shuttle facility.

West Germany and Japan are irked about the long delay in launch of their
Spacelab missions, which will interfere with preparation for Space Station
participation.  Both are complaining to NASA and the State Dept.; this has
already resulting in the German Spacelab D2 being moved up some.  ESA is
also unhappy about Ulysses delays.

NASA will ask DoD to carry some smaller civilian middeck, Getaway Special,
and Hitchhiker payloads on dedicated military missions.

The manifest was ready for release in July, but there were long delays
because the White House Economic Policy Council insisted on getting into
the act on comsat-related issues, about which it knows little.

Okay, okay, you're all waiting for it, here it is (well, AW&ST's summary
of it, anyway).

1988
Feb 18		TDRS
May		DoD launch to Clarke orbit [early-warning satellite? -- HS]
July		DoD, probably large spysat
Sept		TDRS
Nov		Hubble Space Telescope

1989
Jan		Astro-1 (UV telescope attached payload)
March		DoD to Clarke orbit
late April	Magellan
early June	SDI Spacelab
late June	two USAF Navstars and NASA materials-science pallet
July		DoD
early Sept	DoD
late Sept	again, two Navstars and materials pallet
Nov		Galileo or Ulysses
Dec		Spacelab Life Sciences

1990
Jan		Gamma Ray Observatory
Feb		DoD
April		International Materials Science Spacelab
May		USAF Navstar, McDonnell-Douglas electrophoresis, Space
			Station heat-pipe test
late May	DoD
early July	DoD
late July	British Skynet-4 (military comsat, commercially booked)
late Aug	DoD
Oct		Galileo or Ulysses
Oct		tethered satellite, Insat (Indian comsat), another Navstar
Nov-Dec		Syncom-4, recovery of Long Duration Exposure Facility (at
			last; majority of LDEF's payloads will be ruined
			by spending nearly 5 years longer in space than
			intended)

1991
Jan		Spacelab pallets:  atmospheric data, large structures control
Feb		Navstar and materials again
March		DoD
April		Eureca (European unmanned platform)

At this point detailed flight assignments stop, although general scheduling
continues by naming high-priority payloads and which quarter they fly.

1991 cont.
2Q		Japanese Spacelab
3Q		German Spacelab D2
3Q		Space Telescope refurbishment visit
4Q		retrieve Eureca

Commercial missions (Intelsat, Inmarsat, etc.) start showing up in 1992.
Space Station construction starts with five flights in 1993.  1994 is almost
entirely DoD and Space Station.

Reagan overruled Shuttle program managers' desire to honor 31 of 44 launch
contracts held by commercial and foreign users, approving only 20.  The
20-payload option includes only shuttle-unique payloads and those with
national-security or foreign-policy implications.  Sources have it that
this option was supported by NSC, DoD, DoC, DoT.  NASA, OSTP, State, and
Treasury supported the 31-payload option, which added satellites that would
be costly to refit for expendables.  The 24 rejected payloads must now
fly on expendables.  This might give one or more US expendable companies
a foothold in the commercial market.  However, the small percentage of
near-term shuttle capacity budgeted for commercial use (12% over next 7
years goes to commercial and foreign customers and misc. civil government
agencies, vs pre-51L 33% commercial) will hurt commercial space activity.

Joe Allen (ex-astronaut, now VP of Space Industries Inc.):  "We are delighted
to be on the manifest three times... We would be more pleased if more of our
commercial brethren were there."  SII's Industrial Space Facility modules
are shuttle-unique, so they're in, although they had hoped for 1990 and are
now looking at 1992.  They hope to be moved up.  Hughes also has shuttle-
unique payloads [presumably the large-diameter Syncom-4s] on the manifest.
The other two commercial customers on the manifest are Geostar and RCA,
included on national-security grounds without further explanation.

The big winners for non-US-government launch slots clearly are the foreign
customers, largely because of influence by the State Dept.  Some of these
foreign slots may get used for other things, since some of those payloads
are double-booked, holding Ariane slots as well.  Ariane already has
contracts for 6 of the 44 original Shuttle payloads and reservations for 8
more.

Commercial expendable suppliers are happy.  Customers pushed off the shuttle
are not; they are skeptical that this will create a thriving US expendable
market.  VP satellite progrmas for GTE Spacenet says he expects only one
US expendable maker to survive, and that only with government business too.
[Long odds he's thinking of Martin Marietta with Titan.  -- HS]  VP space
resources for MCI Communications says the shuttle policy is a long-term
plan for a US debacle in space, since the peak demand for US expendables
will be brief and the realities of European and Japanese competition will
then strike home.

Fletcher orders halt to signing of further Joint Endeavor Experiments,
which provide free shuttle flights for commercial space experiments, until
the large backlog of small payloads can be sorted out.  The hiatus will
last at least several weeks, until the secondary-payload manifest is set.
Active search for JEA partners stopped a little while after 51L, but
negotiations with already-interested companies continued.  The primary-
payload manifest does not set priorities for the hundreds of smaller
payloads intended for the middeck and cargo bay:  60-70 Getaway Specials,
several Hitchhiker payload-bay experiments, and 200 middeck-locker
experiments (60 NASA experiments = 100 lockers, 70 DoD = 50 lockers,
at least 10 JEA = 30 lockers, 35 Shuttle Student Involvement Program
payloads = 20 lockers).  NASA has stopped taking new GAS and student-
experiment applications for the moment.

NASA will be able to take about 500 lb of secondary payloads on each TDRS
launch, about 10 lockers per flight.  Most of the other early missions are
weight-limited dedicated missions.  Mixed-cargo flights offer the best
opportunities for secondary payloads, but most of them use Columbia, which
is heavier than Atlantis or Discovery and will limit the possibilities.
Fletcher has ordered allocation of middeck space, which was in short supply
even before 51L, as:  40% DoD, 30% NASA science, 30% NASA commercial.
Companies with JEAs are finding the manifesting problems very discouraging.

US comsat operators forced off the shuttle are talking to their lawyers
about filing suit for the extra costs involved.  Many of them had already
put money down in partial payment for launches.  They like Ariane a lot
as an alternative; Troy D. Ellington, VP satellites for GTE Spacenet:
"We know how to do business with them.  They are good for their word."

Pan Am Pacific Satellite Corp and Sattel Technologies, owners of Westar 6
and Palapa B2, are in a particularly strong position to take legal action
against NASA:  the recovery agreement that covered retrieval of the two
satellites from space guarantees Shuttle space for them and forbids use
of other launchers.  Neither is on the manifest!

Lockheed Space Ops will lay off 1000 workers at Vandenberg, due to the
cancellation of the Vandenberg Shuttle-complex tests and its accelerated
mothballing.  200 military personnel will go elsewhere.  The USAF is looking
at alternate uses for some of the facilities.

NASA plans to end negotiations with Transpace Carriers, which has been
seeking rights to operate private Delta launches.  Fletcher says that
NASA is not in the business of regulating commercial launch vehicles,
and has told the expendable manufacturers that launch facilities are
available if they have customers, so there is no longer any reason for
Transpace to be talking to NASA.  Transpace wanted exclusive commercial
marketing rights for Delta.  NASA says that this is something for them
to take up with McDonnell Douglas (which makes Delta), not NASA.

Geostar Corp will provide satellite position-fixing for classified military
missions under DoD contracts.  This may constitute 25% of Geostar's sales
when the company gets its own satellites up.

Orbiter Atlantis rolled out to pad 39B on Oct 9 for seven weeks of tests.

USAF Titan managers are studying launching up to eight Titan 4s a year
from the Cape, double the initial projections.  Current plans are to start
with 2/yr and build up to 4, but studies are being done in case more are
needed.  This could happen if Shuttle recovery is further delayed, if more
DoD satellites fail in orbit, or if Shuttle weight limits interfere with
future payloads.  These studies do not include possible commercial launches
or planetary missions.  8/yr, or even the 6/yr that some DoD people think
is quite likely, could interfere with commercial Titan plans because of
competition for facilities and workforce.  (The two would use different
pads, but many support facilities are in common.)

A fully-stacked Titan 34D has been removed from Pad 40 at the Cape, after
being there nearly a year in preparation for launch of a Clarke-orbit DoD
payload, so that its boosters can be destacked for thorough checkout.
Other booster segments in storage are also being tested, and some have
been sent back to the manufacturer for further testing.  The insulation
problem suspected to have caused the booster failure in April is a major
headache, since nobody is sure just what it was or how to detect a
recurrence.

Brig. Gen. Kenneth E. Staten, program manager for the National Aerospace
Plane, says that a decision on building and flight-testing the X-30
experimental aerospace plane is expected in 1989.  Technology development
contracts totalling $450M were awarded in April by NASA and USAF.  The
flight-vehicle phase would produce two demonstrators, which might be
anywhere from F-15 size to 747 size.  Staten says that an operational
military aerospace plane might be available by the year 2000, with a
commercial derivative possible by 2010.  Commercial hypersonic transports
will need special treatment in various areas, he says:  they will have
limited maneuverability and will need traffic clearance well in advance.
For example, a trans-Pacific flight bound for LA might need clearances
sorted out 15 minutes in advance, which would put it in the vicinity of
Hawaii.  Ground operations will also be affected.  Staten says that
storage and handling of liquid hydrogen should not be a serious problem;
"The H2 fuel is probably safer than Jet A, and is more environmentally
acceptable."  Spilled hydrogen vaporizes and dissipates more quickly,
needs much higher temperatures to ignite it, and burns more quickly
while affecting a smaller area.  He says that NASA studies of crash
hazards show less danger with hydrogen than with ordinary hydrocarbon fuels.
[As I recall, "Stages to Saturn" said that Apollo experience was that
liquid hydrogen could be treated as unusually volatile gasoline; it was
liquid oxygen that really needed elaborate safety precautions.  -- HS]

[Persons advocating spending the Challenger-replacement money on the
aerospace plane instead should note the expected operational dates in
the above.  -- HS]

Finland will become an associate member of ESA.  Two existing associate
members, Austria and Norway, become full members next year.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #53
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA15918; Tue, 25 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST
	id AA15918; Tue, 25 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611251102.AA15918@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #54

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 25 Nov 86 03:02:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #54

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 54

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Probes vs Large scopes
			  New space-shuttle
		 Chariots for Apollo #9 - The landing
		  TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System
	  Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Nov 86 16:59:53 PST (Sunday)
From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Probes vs Large scopes
In-Reply-To: Dale.Amon's message of 21 Nov 1986 22:30-EST
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu

In reply to Dale Amon's questions "What are the theoretical limits to
the distance at which they [planetary details] can be seen by an optical
scope? What is the relationship between the scope size and the distance
to the interesting surface feature?"
The theoretical limits for optical telescopes:

resolution size = distance/(diam * 46000)
where telescope diam is in inches, and the distance and size are in any
units, so long as they are the same units.

A single object has to be at least the resolution size to detect that it
has any size at all.  A smaller object that is bright is easily seen
(otherwise the night sky would be blank except for the moon), but is
seen as a dot that appears the size of the theoretical resolution.  An
object would have to be twice the resolution size to see the grossest
detail (for example that the left side is black and the right white).
Two objects of equal brightness have to be separated by the resolution
size to even see that they are not a single object.  If one object is
much brighter (as in a star with an orbiting planet), then the
separation may have to be tens or hundreds of times greater, else the
brighter one swamps the dim one with a spread-out overexposed image.

Putting real numbers in, say the largest optical telescope on earth and
the nearest star, we get resolution of 2.4 million miles.  But no
telescope of substantial size on the ground achieves its theoretical
resolution (because the atmosphere messes it up), and we haven't
launched anything of substantial size above the atmosphere.  The space
telescope will be 2.5 times worse than these numbers (because its size
is 2.5 times smaller than the big Russian telescope), but will achieve
essentially the theoretical resolution, much better than the achieved
resolution of bigger telescopes on earth.

So what we are talking about with the space telescope is possibly seeing
very bright planets hundreds of millions of miles from the very nearest
few dozen stars.  To be in the ballpark of seeing continents on planets
of only the nearest star requires a telescope mirror of tens of miles
diameter, something not likely in our lifetimes (historically, since
Galileo, we have taken roughly 40 years for each doubling of the size of
the largest telescope, and there is no indication yet that this rate is
changing even with our present technology explosion).  Remember that a
mirror has to be VERY stiff; no point on it can move more than a few
millionths of an inch from the correct curve, or you lose the
resolution.  The only outside hope I see is some form of interferometry,
in which you use two or more mirrors, and use their separation in place
of the diameter in the above formula.  

Or we could take a reasonable sized telescope and send it closer to the
star in question; but it would require thousands of times closer, which
is essentially a visit to that star.  A visit to a star is energy-wise
roughly 100,000 times harder than the TAU mission, the latter being
barely within our technology soon.

Other questions:
"Are there quantum effects that will limit resolution?"
No, the above formula is an effect of the wavelength and wave properties
of visibile light.

"How much effect does intersteller dust and gas between us and the
object have on theoretical resolution?"
Essentially no effect at the distance of planets of the nearby stars,
which are already beyond our observing limits.  These nearby stars are
in a neighborhood that comprises less than 1/1000 the size of our
galaxy.  At a substantial fraction of the way across our galaxy, in the
dirtiest directions, dust and gas become a problem.  Also, there are a
few small pockets of stuff at distances of hundreds of light years, but
these are still beyond the nearby stars.  Dust and gas do not degrade
resolution, just contrast, and eventually completely block any view.

In conclusion, optical detection of planetary detail is MANY orders of
magnitude beyond what we can do.  So don't hold your breath.  I would
guess rocket probes to stars will happen first, and I don't think we are
close to doing that.  Then we could always try finding the radio signals
of some civilization that might be happy to describe their planets to
us.

/Don Lynn

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

Date: 24 Nov 86 11:57 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: New space-shuttle
To: space@s1-b.arpa

What's the general reaction to Reagan's pocket veto of the funds needed
to build a new Space Shuttle, and his reasons?  My understanding is that
he vetoed the funds because the bill did not give him enough personal
control of NASA.  But wasn't it the presure to get Challenger up before
his press conference the same evening that led to Challenger being
unsafely launched in the first place?  Does he want more personal
control so he can use NASA as a public circus for his own political
purposes?

			Dennis O'Connor

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

Path: mordor!styx!lll-crg!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn
From: dcn@ihuxl.UUCP (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Chariots for Apollo #9 - The landing
Date: 15 Nov 86 00:21:51 GMT

...  The lander was much more fun to fly than the simulator.  Then, five
minutes into the maneuver, the crewmen began hearing alarms.  On one
occasion, the computer told them a switch was in the wrong position, and
they corrected it.  Another time, they could find no reason for the
alarm, but they juggled the switches and the clanging stopped.
	Coping with these alarms, some of which were caused by computer
overloads, lasted four minutes. ... But these nerve-wracking
interruptions had come at a time when the crewmen should have been
looking for a suitable spot to sit down, rather than watching cabin
displays.  They had reached `high gate' in the trajectory - in old
aircraft-pilot parlance the beginning of the approach to an airport in
a landing path - where the Eagle tilted slightly downward to give them a
view of the moon.  When they reached `low gate' - the point of making a
visual assessment of the landing site to select either automatic or
manual control - they were still clearing alarms and watching
instruments.  By the time they had a chance to look outside, only 600
meters and three minutes time separated them from the lunar surface.
	Armstrong saw the landing site immediately.  He also saw that
the touchdown would be just short of a large rocky crater with boulders,
some as large as five meters in diameter, scattered over a wide area.
If he could land just in front of that spot, he thought, they might find
the area of dome scientific interest.  But the thought was fleeting;
such a landing would be impossible.  So he pitched the lander over and
fired the engine with the flight path rather than against it.  Flying
over the boulder field, Armstrong soon found a relatively smooth area,
lying between some sizable craters and another field of boulders.
	How was the descent fuel supply?  Armstrong asked Aldrin.  But
the lunar module pilot was too busy watching the computer to answer.
Then lunar dust was a problem.  Thirty meters above the surface, a
semitransparent sheet was kicked up that nearly obscured the surface.
The lower they dropped, the worse it was.  Armstrong had no trouble
telling altitude, as Aldrin was calling out the figures almost meter by
meter, but he found judging lateral and downrange speeds difficult.  He
gauged these measurements as well as he could by picking out large
rocks and watching them closely though the lunar dust sheet.
	Ten meters above the surface, the lander started slipping to the
left and rear.  Armstrong, working with the controls, had apparently
tilted the lander so the engine was firing against the flight path.
With the velocity as low as it was at the time, the lander began to move
backward.  With no rear window to help him avoid obstacles behind the
lander, he could not set the vehicle down and risk landing on the rim of
a crater.  He was able to shift the angle of the lunar module and stop
the backward movement, but he could not eliminate the drift to the left.
He was reluctant to slow the descent rate any further, but the figures
Aldrin kept ticking off told him they were almost out of fuel.
Armstrong was concentrating so hard on flying the lunar module that he
was unable to perceive the first touch on the moon nor did he hear
Aldrin call out "contact light," when the probes below the footpads
brushed the surface.  The lander settled gently down, like a helicopter,
and Armstrong cut off the engine.

	4 days, 6 hours, 45 minutes, 57 seconds.  Capcom: We copy you
	down Eagle.

	Armstrong: Houston, Tranquility Base here.  THE EAGLE HAS LANDED.

	Capcom: Roger, Tranquility.  We copy you on the ground.  You got
	a bunch of guys about to turn blue.  We're breathing again.
	Thanks a lot.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
From "Chariots for Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Spacecraft", NASA
SP-4205, available from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402, stock number 033-000-00768-0, $12.

This is the last in this series of excerpts.  If anyone has missed an
installment, send mail to ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn for a copy.
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihuxl!dcn

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

Path: mordor!lll-crg!seismo!ut-sally!utastro!yaron
From: yaron@utastro.UUCP (Yaron P Sheffer)
Subject: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System
Date: 19 Nov 86 05:24:33 GMT

*****
Instead of favoring one mission or another (Pluto orbiter vs. TAU), how
about sending that TAU spacecraft equipped with a small probe which would
be deployed a few AU before Pluto's orbit, and then it will go into orbit
around that "planet"? I like having the cake and eating it too.
*****

You have noticed my wording "planet". I always have found the
non-standard origin of Pluto very satisfying in explaining its peculiar
orbit, i.e., Pluto is not a major planet to Sun, but a body which has
suffered a close encounter with the Neptunian system. The fact that
there is a current commensurability with Neptune is not a proof against
such an encounter: Otherwise, a pendulum at rest is a proof that it has
never been swinging!  And as already been mentioned, having a moon
orbiting Pluto doesn't make it a standard major planet either: it could
well be a tidally induced breakup.  Remember that no other REAL major
planet in this solar system is even close to Pluto regarding the
moon/planet mass ratio.

And now for something (completely) different.... shooting the solar
system.  Of course any spacebuff would love to have a postcard from
Voyager showing this SS from afar. But:

1) As it stands now, no Voyager has ever ventured outside of the SS.
   Many years will pass before this will happen (even with Pluto's orbit
   as a definition here of the solar system's "edge"). Hence, while
   still being inside some planetary orbits, any such picture is a
   technical headache, because of the need to cover so many steradians.
   Also, planets will be seen as points of light at the best resolution
   --- and a major problem in figuring out the required exposure times
   for each. It could also happen that some are already too faint to
   shoot. And of course: one thing JPL engineers would be happy to
   avoid, is directing their craft's cameras towards Sun itself. Maybe
   after many years, when it becomes apparently fainter....
   
2) Same with Pluto, resolution-wise: Since the Voyagers' resolution
   element is 4 seconds of arc, and that planet substends 0.1 arcsecond
   at Earth, these craft must come at least as close as 1 AU to Pluto
   before anything is resolved. I am convinced that no Voyager is
   planned to pass that close to Pluto. However, from 10 AU or less, it
   would be possible to resolve that "planet" into two points of light:
   Pluto and Charon. But, indeed, we are doing it already from here,
   using speckle interferometry.
   
And if major mistakes are detected in my remarks, I will be more than
happy to learn about them!

Y. Sheffer
Astronomy Dept, U. of Texas, Austin, TX 78712.

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

Date: Mon, 24 Nov 86 16:12:42 cet
To: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes

I'm going to reduce my already tarnished credibility by describing how
one could construct a telescope for resolving an earth-like planet
orbiting Tau Ceti.  Tau Ceti is a sun-like star that is 11.95 light
years from Earth.  By Rayleigh's criterion (based on diffraction
considerations), one can resolve an earth-like world orbiting Tau Ceti
for light of 5500 Angstroms if the telescope mirror's diameter is 11.89
kilometers.  One can construct such an enormous telescope in space only
if there are no gravity gradiants, and if the telescope is shielded from
the suns light.  I propose building such a telescope by blowing bubbles.
In theory one could construct such a telescope by blowing a bubble with
a radius of 120 km.  One could sliver a small section within the bubble
and place optics at the center to receive the incoming light.  The image
would have to be corrected for spherical aberration.  The silvered
section would have a radius of 11.89 km and have an f-number of f/10.
There are several problems with this approach: Most of the material for
the bubble would be useless.  Manipulating the bubble would be
difficult.  Also, maintaining the receiving station at the center of the
bubble without distorting the bubble's shape would be difficult.  A
better approach would be to have a thin plastic hose with a length of 37
km.  Form this hose into a ring and pressurize it with gas or a liquid
like silicon oil.  You now have a rigid ring.  Now blow a bubble with a
12 km diameter and touch this bubble onto the ring such that the bubble
collapses into a disc membrane supported by the ring. Construct a second
identical membrane disc using the same process.  On one disc, spray
material onto the membrane to build up its thickness and to stiffen it.
Spray a thin layer of metal on one side of this stiffened disc.  With
the other disc, the membrane is allowed to be flexible.  Spray a
uniform, highly reflective surface on one side and on the other side
spray a honeycomb pattern of hexagons of conductive metal which are
separated by the noconductive plastic of the membrane.  Now attach the
two membranes with struts that are 700 meters long.  The telescope is
now a cylinder that looks like a Tom-Tom drum that is 12 km in diameter
and 700 meters long.  Have the conductive surface of the stiff membrane
face the honeycomb surface of the flexible membrane.  Apply a uniform
positive charge on the stiff membrane's surface while providing
selective negative charges on the different hexagons of the flexible
membrane.  Now distort the flexible membrane into a parabolic shape.  At
the focus, 120 km away place the receiving station and position it with
ion thrusters whose beams do not intersect with the mirror.  Raster scan
the mirror with a laser using a light wavelength which doesn't effect
the telescope's astronomy.  Count fringe shifts of the laser beam as it
scans the mirror and use this information for positioning the receiving
station and adjusting the level of charge on the hexagonals of the
flexible membrane.  Charge can be added or subtracted to the heagonals
by using electron guns mounted on the sides.  Between the mirror and the
sun construct a larger third membrane and render this membrane opaque
using it as a sun screen.  Have the whole affair in heliocentric space
with an orbital radius far enough away from the sun that its orbital
motion isn't a factor.  I admit that this idea is crazy but at first
glance it seems workable.
                      Gary Allen

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #54
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19456; Wed, 26 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
	id AA19456; Wed, 26 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611261102.AA19456@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #55

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #55

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 55

Today's Topics:
		       Tethered Space Colonies
		 Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause
	 Re: Powersats, Orbital Bummers, Causes of War, Etc.
			    flying inside
			 Chariots for Apollo
	Re: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes
			     Huge mirrors
		Re: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System
			   Re: Huge mirrors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 24 Nov 86 15:33:21 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      Tethered Space Colonies

Sorry it's taken me so long to respond to this; I've been busy.
> ...Geoffrey Landis in Vol. 7, No. 37...
>suggested using tethered space habitats to avoid Coriolis effect
>problems.  This idea is a good one (though not very original) for
>interplanetary spacecraft with mission duration times on the order of a
>year.  However it doesn't work for space colonies.  The problem ...
>is radiation shielding.  Shielding mass for many of these space colony
>dreams is around 30 megatons.  You are not going to be able to
>construct a tether that can support this sort of mass.
>If you don't shield your colony with fairly thick walls of stone
>it will eventually die from cosmic radiation poisoning.  These dream
>colonies work by spinning **within** a stationary stone shield.

     Radiation shielding is indeed the critical design issue of space
colonies, unless you are satisfied with a "storm cellar" for solar
proton events, and a high cancer rate for the population (which I do NOT
find acceptable for long-term--generations--colonies, although it may be
acceptable for short term "construction shack" habitats.) It is not at
all clear, however, that this rules out tether type colonies.  The
"Stanford Torus" design spun within a stationary shield, but most other
designs (including O'Neill's "Island One Habitat") don't.
     O'Neill colonies are not very efficient in terms of habitible area
to shield area (ratios < 1).  A Multi-level colony would be much better.
Let's assume you need about 100 m2 per person, and a roof height of 3m,
for a total of 300 m3/person.  A ten thousand person colony needs 3
million m3.  In a tether type colony this is a cube about 150 meters on
an edge.  (Do the plants need radiation shielding?  I presume not, or
this means greenhouses with leaded glass.  Or else totally artificial
lighting.)
    How much shield mass do we need?  Don't have figures, and am too
busy at the moment to look them up, but let's assume 100 kg/m2, which
I'm sure is a conservative figure.  6x150**2x100= 15 thousand metric
tons of shielding.
     Now, let's assume a human can accept a rotation rate of .5 RPM
(half the upper limit quoted in the posting the tether posting was a
response to), and again assume 1/3 G pseudo-gravity If f is the
rotational frequency, g the pseudo-gravity (in m/sec2), and r the radius
(from cg to colony center), then g=(2*pi*f)**2*r.  Plugging in numbers
and solving for r, r=(9.8/3)/(2*3.1*(0.5/60))**2= 1200 m = 1.2 km.
Characteristic length for steel is about 50 km; graphite fiber about
1000 km, therefore the mass of cable dedicated to supporting shielding
is (1.2/50), or 2.4% of the shielding mass = 350 metric tons for steel
cable, and (1.2/1000), or .12% of shield mass = 18 metric tons for
carbon cable.  
    Even for 30 megatons of shielding quoted above, if the tether is
only ..12% of the shielding mass, this just is *not* going to be the
critical .12% of the shielding mass, this just is *not* going to be the
critical design issue.  Even 7.5% of the shield mass (steel cable with
factor of three engineering margin) is not unacceptable if we get the
steel from asteroids--2.2 megatons of steel barely makes a scratch in a
reasonably sized asteroid.
   (as always, I disclaim possible arithmetic errors....)


Another way to aproach the shielding problem is magentic shielding, a
concept advocated by Arthur Kantrowitz of Avco Everett.  Basically, a
strong magnetic field is established, presumably by use of a
superconducting loop, which deflects charged particles, which do the
worst of the damage.  A problem is that extremely strong fields are
needed, although I've never seen a complete calculation for how strong.
Shielding from solar proton storms is easy; it's the high energy cosmics
that are tough.  Alternatively, the shield can be electrostatic; either
by simply charging the colony up to a high (positive) voltage and
deflecting the particles away, or using a dipole field which both repels
particles from the colony and attracts them to some beam dump location.
For this to work, though, the charging has to be in the millions of
volts. (I don't know how the plasma situation is at L5, but
electrostatic shields certainly won't work in most Earth orbits!  Talk
about your basic lightning storms in outer space!  Still, maybe you
could use a lightning rod...)

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                      EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu

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

Date: 23 Nov 86 00:30:21 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!lew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Subject: Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> [ ... ] A recently proposed idea is to drop
> a vehicle in an aeroshell through Venus's upper atmosphere to
> put it onto a sun grazing orbit.  At perihelion you fire a rocket
> and get a nice big boost.  The probe could then sail to Neptune
> in 1.9 years, and could reach the heliopause not too long after.

At first I thought this was a fallacious extension of the gravitational
boost concept used by various planetary probes;  the fallacy being that
the sun isn't moving in the solar system frame of reference, so there's
no boost to be had.  However, I saw in the nick of time that this boost
is based on a different principle. Here's my analysis:

Starting from the earth's circular orbit, we send the craft into a sun
grazing orbit with an assumed net energy gain of zero. Note that without
a boost the craft would attain a distance of one AU from the sun. This
is because its semimajor axis must remain at 1 AU if the total energy is
unchanged, but now the sun is near one focus of its elongated orbit.

Now we ask, how big a boost does the craft need to achieve escape
velocity?  The principle here is that the gain in kinetic energy is
approximately v * Dv, so for a fixed Dv (determined by our booster
capability) we can gain larger boosts in kinetic (and hence total)
energy by blasting near the sun, where v will be large. This apparent
freebie is due to the use of the kinetic energy gained by the rocket
fuel in dropping to lower potential.

To continue, in circular orbit near 1 AU we started with:

	E = K + U = U - 1/2 U = - K

so to achieve solar escape we need to add kinetic energy equal to our
orginal kinetic energy. If we let v1 be our speed at perihelion and v0
be our speed at circular orbit near 1AU. I get:

	v1 = v0 * ( 2AU/r1 - 1 ) ^ 1/2

based on the assumption of equal total energy. Then since we require

	Dv * v1 = 1/2 * v0 ^ 2

We have the requirement:

	Dv/v0 = ( 2AU/r1 - 1 ) ^ -1/2

So if we think we can stand to come within, say, .1 AU of the sun we
need Dv = .23 * v0  or about 15000 mph. I think this equation is nice
for a feasibility analysis of the concept. ( Assuming I got it right !)

By the way, I would think that you'd be able to achieve a sun grazing
orbit with increased kinetic energy by using a venusian gravity boost.

Lew Mammel, Jr.

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

Date: 24 Nov 86 20:01:08 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Powersats, Orbital Bummers, Causes of War, Etc.
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> ... The list of important
> resources that ARE NOT AT ALL AVAILABLE ( much less "scarce" ) in
> space runs like a CRC Handbook...

Name a handful, please.  Bear in mind that "in space" includes asteroids
(both nickel-iron and carbonaceous-chondrite), comet nuclei, and the
smaller moons of the outer planets.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date:         Tue, 25 Nov 86 11:28:02 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      flying inside


>>>This is a far cry from idylic visions of landscaped O'Neill cylinders
>>  Yeah, I never really believed in *them*, either.  All that wasted
>> space,* constructed at who knows how many billion dollars?
                                (*read: "pressurized volume")
[extra space is useful to buffer the atmosphere and other things such as]
> ...and to provide volume for birds to fly or trees to grow etc. or even
> for people to fly between workstations instead of having to follow
> congested narrow pathways.

     The sales pitch for space colonies envisions them as like
forests and farms, or at minimum, like suburbs. My opinion is that they'd
be much more like cities. [Cities get a lot of bad press, but keep in
mind that millions of people live in them by choice, (at least the better
cities.  Newark doesn't count.), and I know a LOT of people who would
*like* to live in Manhattan, but don't because it's too expensive.]
Actually, I picture a typical small space colony as feeling a lot like
the inside of a modern, high-tech indoor shopping mall (the type with
trees and bushes and stuff) or perhaps a Hyatt Regency.

    "Volume for birds to fly in"
    "Birds" to a city dweller means pigeons.  City dwellers hate pigeons.
    "for people to fly between workstations"
    In a zero-gee colony, OK.  In a rotating colony, at the ground level,
I doubt it.  Calculate wing areas and power levels needed at, say, 1/3 G.
[hint: power required scales as g**3/2 * (A*rho)**-1/2]
You're talking hobby flying, not practical transportation.
    "congested narrow pathways"
congested and narrow, say, as the corridors of a typical corporate
headquarters in New York.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                      EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu

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

Date: 25 Nov 1986 17:12-EST 
From: Mike.Blackwell@rover.ri.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Chariots for Apollo

Many thanks to Dave Newkirk for posting the excerpts from "Chariots for
Apollo: A History of Manned Lunar Space Flight." Just a warning to
those trying to obtain this book: There is a $18 hardback that can be
found at many book stores entitled "Chariots for Apollo: The Making of
the Lunar Module" which is NOT the same book... The book Dave excerpted
is $12, from your local US Government Bookstore (if you have one), or
you can order it from the Superintendent of Documents in Washington (no
tax or shipping fees, in either case).

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

Date: 25 Nov 86 23:49:22 GMT
From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <8611250200.AA15268@s1-b.arpa> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>I'm going to reduce my already tarnished credibility by describing how
>one could construct a telescope for resolving an earth-like planet
>orbiting Tau Ceti.

   The ideas in this article are about the best that I have seen in this
group.  There are obviously lots of problems; tidal forces, wave motion
in the large membranes, coating the membrane uniformly, etc., etc.
Obviously it is not something that can be attempted tomorrow.  But the
fundamental notion of taking advantage of weightlessness to contruct
large uniform structures seems quite possible.

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 25 Nov 1986 18:02:34-EST
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Huge mirrors
Apparently-To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc

There is a story in Analog magazine within the past few months describing
the construction of an 8 km telescope (a la the Grey Lensman) with an 80km
focal length.  The mirror is made up of millions of optical flats about
a meter in diameter, which at that focal length, sufficiently approximate
a parabolic mirror.  The mirrors are adjusted by bimetallic actuators.
The obvious problem in such a structure is obtaining sufficient stiffness.

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

Date: 24 Nov 86 03:57:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Could some one tell me how far an AU is?

I was just going to mail off a glib reply that an AU is one Astronomical
Unit, or the mean distance from Earth's orbit to the Sun, approximately
equal to 90,000,000 miles.  Then I thought about it a bit: Earth's orbit
is slowly spiralling in toward the Sun (due to friction, tidal forces,
etc.)  The Sun's position is constantly changing (to to perturbations
from Jupiter, mostly).  So that "unit" isn't really a constant.  Is
there a more exact definition for an AU?

        -- Ken Jenks
	   jenks@a.cs.uiuc.edu {ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp
	   Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

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

Date: 26 Nov 86 04:51:15 GMT
From: jtk@s1-c.arpa  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Huge mirrors
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <8611252302.AA04374@gauss.ECE.CMU.EDU> Hank.Walker@GAUSS.ECE.CMU.EDU writes:
>There is a story in Analog magazine within the past few months describing
>the construction of an 8 km telescope (a la the Grey Lensman) with an 80km
>focal length.  The mirror is made up of millions of optical flats about
>a meter in diameter, which at that focal length, sufficiently approximate
>a parabolic mirror.  The mirrors are adjusted by bimetallic actuators.
>The obvious problem in such a structure is obtaining sufficient stiffness.

The story in question unfortunately contains a prize collection of
physics and engineering blunders.  One of the more glaring ones
is that the giant telescope is rendered much cheaper than the NASA
design (for a smaller telescope) because optical flats are so much
cheaper than concave mirrors (at one point the optics company rep
says something like, "sure, we could make you 8 million optical flats, 
but who would want such junk?").  In reality, it is at least as
hard to make a flat as to make a spherical mirror -- harder, in that
there isn't a convenient focal point for doing optical tests.

Incidentally, the proposals for giant telescopes made from bubbles, etc.
are very nice.  Do keep in mind, though, that inflating such a bubble
takes an enormous amount of gas.  An interesting possibility is using
a (clear) bubble as a refracting lens, which has the advantage of
needing much lower tolerances on surface accuracy.

	Jordin Kare	jtk@mordor.UUCP  jtk@s1-c.arpa

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #55
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA22100; Thu, 27 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST
	id AA22100; Thu, 27 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611271102.AA22100@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #56

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 27 Nov 86 03:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #56

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 56

Today's Topics:
		    correction to my TAU followup
		      Re: Probes vs Large scopes
		       More space publications
		Re: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System
			 Image reconstruction
		    Flat mirrors and Analog story
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Nov 86 00:43:01 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!lew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Subject: correction to my TAU followup
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Starting from the earth's circular orbit, we send the craft into a sun
> grazing orbit with an assumed net energy gain of zero. Note that
> without a boost the craft would attain a distance of one AU from the
> sun. This is because its semimajor axis must remain at 1 AU if the
> total energy is unchanged, but now the sun is near one focus of its
> elongated orbit.

This should read:

  Starting from the earth's circular orbit, we send the craft into a sun
  grazing orbit with an assumed net energy gain of zero. Note that
  without a boost the craft would attain a distance of *two AU's* from
  the sun. This is because its semimajor axis must remain at 1 AU if the
  total energy is unchanged, but now the sun is near one focus of its
  elongated orbit.
  
A little mental lapse there. I was confusing the diameter of the earth's
orbit with its semimajor axis.  I think the rest of my article uses the
AU correctly as the semimajor axis of the earth's orbit, that is its
radius in the approximation that the orbit is circular.

Lew Mammel, Jr.

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

Date: 26 Nov 86 02:12:38 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: Probes vs Large scopes
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> In reply to Dale Amon's questions "What are the theoretical limits to
> the distance at which they [planetary details] can be seen by an
> optical scope? What is the relationship between the scope size and the
> distance to the interesting surface feature?" .. [fairly detailed
> response]

> In conclusion, optical detection of planetary detail is MANY orders of
> magnitude beyond what we can do.  ..

> /Don Lynn

Don Lynn's reply is correct, but deserves some qualification.  As a
technical point, it's worth noting that the limits he describes refer to
what the human eye can resolve when looking through a telescope, or at a
photographic image made with the telescope.  They do not strictly apply
to what can be resolved when digital image processing gets into the act.
You can take what is to the eye just a vague blob of light, make
detailed measurements of the intensity distribution of light within the
blob, and compute details about the structure of the source that surpass
the "theoretical limits" of resolution.  The limits of the
reconstruction are set by the accuracy with which the intensity
distribution can be measured, which in turn is limited by statistical
noise in the counting of photons within individual parts of the image.
The accuracy is proportional to the square root of the number of photons
counted in each pixel.

Don's conclusion, while technically correct, is somewhat misleading.
It's true that to form images in which details of a planetary surfaces
are visible at distances of tens of light years you need telescopes that
are orders of magnitude larger than anything we will see until well
after the turn of the century.  On the other hand, if you design it
right and use tricks, you can detect and gather a great deal of
information about planets around the nearer stars with only a 10 meter
aperture telescope!!

If I recall correctly from computations I made several years ago, a ten
meter aperture will recieve something on the order of 10 to 100 photons
of visible light per second from an earth-like planet at 20 light years.
If the aperture is clean, and performance is diffraction limited, and
you use special techniques to control the far field diffraction pattern
of the parent star, then the planetary photons will be detectable
against the diffraction background.  The image processing software will
be able to "see" the planet and record the spectral characteristics of
the light it reflects from its star.  From the amount of light recieved,
you can deduce the approximate size of the planet; from its spectral
characteristics, you can tell quite a lot about its atmosphere.  By
accumulating data over time, you can determine the planet's period of
rotation, and even deduce something about surface features.

Neat, huh?  But to get the level of performance you need from the
optics, you'd better make the telescope a refractor.

- Roger Arnold

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

Date:  Wed, 26-NOV-1986 09:31 CST
From: <HIGGINS%FNALCDF.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:  More space publications

Henry Spencer reviewed space publications the other day, but left out a
few I think are important.  I'd also like to put in a more enthusiastic
plug for *Sky and Telescope*: I think it is a splendid place to get an
overview of professional astronomy, and its space coverage is quite good
too, even though it is aimed at the amateur astronomer.

                                Bill Higgins
                                Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                HIGGINS@FNALCDF.BITNET

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

ESA Journal
ESA Bulletin
both from:
ESTEC
Postbus 299
2200 AG Noordwijk
The Netherlands

These magazines cover the European Space Agency's activities. *ESA
Bulletin* features articles aimed at a general readership, and they are
fairly readable (if a little dry). Each issue also carries a section
called "Programmes under development and Operations," which provides a
brief status report on each ESA project (in English and French!).  The
*Journal* is more technical, and its articles are more specific.
Subscriptions are available free upon request.

Space World
Amherst, WI 54406

A pretty good buy for your space-enthusiast buck.  Articles cover past,
present, and future space activities on a general-readership level, and
there are lots of short news squibs giving the latest poop.  Might be
suitable if you can't afford *Aviation Week*, don't need a lot of
techinical detail, or refuse to pay for all that airliner news between
weapons ads. ("If Napoleon had only had one of our color-graphics
tactical displays, he might have won at Waterloo...") *Space World* is
sent to members of the National Space Society, $30/year I think, from
NSS Membership Department, P.O. Box 7535, Ben Franklin Station,
Washington, D.C. 20044.  (Anybody know what will happen to their
magazines when NSS and L5 merge?)

Aerospace America
1633 Broadway
New York, NY 10019

This is the AIAA's official organ, and it features good, if short,
articles aimed at the non-specialist engineer.  Upcoming spacecraft and
aircraft, and new design principles, are discussed regularly.  I find
its Washington coverage particularly interesting.  I hate the
chauvinistic title, though-- it used to be called *Astronautics and
Aeronautics*.  Free to AIAA members, non-member subscriptions are
$56/year.  But rumor has it that they've started controlled-circulation
subscriptions recently.

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

Date: 26 Nov 86 18:16:14 GMT
From: rutgers!husc6!cfa!mink@spam.istc.sri.com  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: TAU, Pluto, and This Solar System
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <74700003@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> ... Earth's orbit is slowly
> spiralling in toward the Sun (due to friction, tidal forces, etc.)  The Sun's
> position is constantly changing (to to perturbations from Jupiter, mostly).
> So that "unit" isn't really a constant.  Is there a more exact definition for
> an AU?
 
Since I dabble in celestial mechanics and deal with planetary orbits
frequently, this unit is of some interest to me.  I pulled the value
in the Summary line from the JPL DE-96 ephemeris; some of the digits
to the right of the decimal point might be model-dependent; Allen's
"Astrophysical Quantities" gives a value of 1.495979 x 10^13 cm.  
The point is that the AU is not a basic unit; it is defined as the
semi-major axis of the Earth's orbit which will vary with time.

			-Doug Mink, aging hippy astrometer
			 Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
			 Cambridge, Mass.
			 {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink
			 mink@cfa.harvard.edu

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

Date: 26 Nov 86 18:15:52 GMT
From: rutgers!husc6!cfa!willner@lll-crg.arpa  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Image reconstruction
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Don Lynn writes
> In conclusion, optical detection of planetary detail is MANY orders of
> magnitude beyond what we can do.  ..
> 
Then in article <364@telesoft.UUCP>, 
roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) replies:
> Don Lynn's reply is correct, but deserves some qualification.  
> [The limits] do not strictly
> apply to what can be resolved when digital image processing gets into 
> the act.  [One can] compute details about the structure of the source
> that surpass the "theoretical limits" of resolution.  The limits of 
> the reconstruction are set by the accuracy with which the intensity
> distribution can be measured, which in turn is limited by statistical
> noise in the counting of photons within individual parts of the image.

The process is known generically as "image enhancement" or "image
reconstruction" and is indeed very exciting.  But it does _not_ allow
one to achieve resolution better than the true theoretical limit
(obviously).  The process works by trading signal-to-noise ratio for
resolution.  You need to start with fairly high signal-to-noise (say
20 to 30) before it is even worth trying to enhance resolution.
Improving resolution by more than a factor of 2 or so compared to the
naive theoretical limit begins to exact an extreme penalty in signal-
to-noise and is not generally practical. 

By the way, the noise has many contributions in addition to photon
noise.  For real astronomical measurements even of bright objects, it
is very hard to achieve signal-to-noise ratios greater than a few
hundred.  (This is a practical limit set by calibration uncertainties
and is not limited by fundamental physics.  Space observations may 
be much better, though most currently planned space instruments will
not in fact be able to give better signal-to-noise than this.)

-- 
Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

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

Date: Wed, 26 Nov 86 22:51:48 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Flat mirrors and Analog story
To: jtk@s1-c.arpa
Cc: KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: jtk@s1-c.arpa  (Jordan Kare)

    ...  In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make
    a spherical mirror -- harder, in that there isn't a convenient
    focal point for doing optical tests.

  Are you sure of that?  Seems to me one could make a a flat mirror by
grinding it against a flat surface.  In any case, they were competing
against parabolic mirror sections, not spherical mirror sections.
  A much more glaring error, one that spoiled the whole story for me,
was the idea that one could get an image smaller than the area of one
of the flat mirrors.  You obviously can't.  Also, you can't eliminate
vibrations at one frequency by adding vibrations at any other
frequency.  The scope described would have a resolution lower than a
good pair of binoculars.
								...Keith

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #56
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA23961; Fri, 28 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
	id AA23961; Fri, 28 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611281102.AA23961@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #57

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 86 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #57

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 57

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V7 #56
			Re: New space-shuttle
	ion rocket should be developed even if not "ultimate"
		      Re: Probes vs Large scopes
		  Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Nov 86 13:18:25 pst
From: king@kestrel.arpa (Dick King)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #56

   From: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>
   Newsgroups: kestrel.space
   Date: 27 Nov 86 11:17:42 GMT
   Sender: daemon@kestrel.ARPA

   SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 56

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

   Date: Wed, 26 Nov 86 22:51:48 EST
   From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu>
   Subject: Flat mirrors and Analog story
   To: jtk@s1-c.arpa
   Cc: KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

       From: jtk@s1-c.arpa  (Jordan Kare)

       ...  In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make
       a spherical mirror -- harder, in that there isn't a convenient
       focal point for doing optical tests.

     Are you sure of that?  Seems to me one could make a a flat mirror by
   grinding it against a flat surface.  In any case, they were competing
   against parabolic mirror sections, not spherical mirror sections.
     A much more glaring error, one that spoiled the whole story for me,
   was the idea that one could get an image smaller than the area of one
   of the flat mirrors.  You obviously can't.

Things that are obvious are not always true.

You can get an image smaller than the size of a single blank, due to
interference phenomena.  The basic idea is that while any single flat
would "focus" a point to an area the size of the blank, in the image
from two blanks there would be a striped image the size of the blank,
so the area of the image is 1/2 the size of the blank; with three
triangularly placed blanks there would be a hexagonal area the size of
the blank but only 1/3 filled in, ..., and in fact with a solid array
of N blanks, properly aimed, the area of the image would be 1/N times
the area of a single blank; in this case it would be a circle 
(/ blank-diameter (sqrt N)) in diameter.

					  Also, you can't eliminate
   vibrations at one frequency by adding vibrations at any other
   frequency.  The scope described would have a resolution lower than a
   good pair of binoculars.

While I doubt the offered solution would solve the described problem
of the story, I suspect nonlinear effects can occur.

Note that audio casettes are biased, improving fidelity because of
nonlinearities. 

								   ...Keith

-dick

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

Date: 26 Nov 86 06:57:05 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!omen!caf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chuck Forsberg WA7KGX)
Subject: Re: New space-shuttle
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <8611241658.AA14545@s1-b.arpa> OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes:
:wasn't it the presure to get Challenger up before his
:press conference the same evening that led to Challenger
:being unsafely launched in the first place ?

I have heard one bit of evidence (Sen Holling's politically motivated
suspicions don't count as evidence) to suggest there was particular
pressure from the White House to get Challenger off the gound in time
for the State of the Union address: A reference to the Challenger flight
in a draft of the State of the Union address. 

Since several suspicious concidences between Soviet intelligence
activity and the Challenger accident have been pointed out, one must, on
the basis of evidence, mostly suspect the Soviets for causing the
accident rather than the White House. 

There are those that suspect the Soviets/Cubans of engineering JFK's death.
There are those that suspect the Soviets of engineering Challenger's death.
There are those that suspect the White House's current occupants of causing
Challenger's death.

Considering the length of the shuttle grounding, I suspect NASA was riding
for a fall.  If the only problem in the shuttle was low launch temperature,
they would have been launching in a few months, when it was warmer.
By comparision, a Soviet launch failed recently.  Instead of grounding their
whole program for years, they just sent up another rocket not too long
afterwards.

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

Date: 1986 November 26 02:03:37 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: Purtill@mit-multics.arpa
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: ion rocket should be developed even if not "ultimate"

<MP> Date:  Fri, 21 Nov 86 18:01 EST
<MP> From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
<MP> Subject:  Re: TAU?

<Fnord>
>Also, a comment was made that, even if TAU is passed by faster
>spacecraft, it will give valuable experience with its propulsion system.
>This is true only if nuclear ion engines are not a dead-end technology.
>I would think that radically different systems, such as nuclear pulse
>rockets, would be the long term choice (Hyde would say that long term =
>30 years).

<MP> Nuclear ion engines will certainly be a dead-end technology if we never
<MP> try to build one.  And if we always wait for the "better" thing that
<MP> will be around in only a few decades, we'll never get anything done,
<MP> 'cause there will always be something else on the horizon.

If ion rockets and nuclear pulsed rockets were about equally well
developed and had equal chance of success, I'd say go with the one
that looked best in the long run. But ion rockets are presently on the
testbed whereas pulsed rockets are far in the future, so let's go with
ion rockets for a while and see how they develop. There's a difference
between making a few test craft & sending them on a few tryout
missions, and making a major fleet; like the difference between the
V-1 and the 727. We should go ahead and build the ion rocket on
research funds, to see if it can be built, to test how it performs,
and to then deterine whether it'll be a dead-end for technology that
nevertheless was a good learning experience, or it and its successors
of better and better ion rockets will be major work-horses of the
space age for decades like the jet aircraft engine has been. Remember
the old use-once rocket engines haven't been totally replaced by the
shuttle, as we had nievely thought it would be. Maybe even after we
get the pulse rocket working there'll still be uses for the ion
rocket, such as small space missions with delecate equipment that can
afford neither a large shock absorber nor the jarring you get without
one. Ion rockets are nice and gentle and maybe can be built really
teensy for small spacecraft like we build model airplane engines.
Maybe an advanced lightweight ion rocket can send a small payload at
relativistic speeds to nearby stars? We won't know until we build some
ion rockets and see what they can and what they cannot do easily.
<Opinion of REM>

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

Date: 28 Nov 86 07:30:28 GMT
From: rutgers!dayton!viper!dave@lll-crg.arpa  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Probes vs Large scopes
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <364@telesoft.UUCP> roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
>Neat, huh?  But to get the level of performance you need from the 
>optics, you'd better make the telescope a refractor.

Huh?  Why would a refractor be better than a reflector?  It
is certainly easier to make a large mirror than a lens.
-- 
Disclaimer:                       | David Messer 
I'm always right and I never lie. | Software Consultant 
My company knows this and agrees  | UUCP:  ihnp4!quest!viper!dave 
with everything I say.            |        ihnp4!meccts!viper!dave

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

Date: 27 Nov 86 18:06:34 GMT
From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@lll-crg.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>     ...  In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make
>     a spherical mirror -- harder, in that there isn't a convenient
>     focal point for doing optical tests.
> 
>   Are you sure of that?  Seems to me one could make a a flat mirror by
> grinding it against a flat surface...

Trouble is, you are grinding away the flat surface as well!  The result
will not in general be flat.  As I recall -- the more experienced types
may want to correct me on details -- the way you get a *spherical* mirror
is to simply grind two identical mirror blanks against each other.  In
general, one ends up convex and the other concave, both more or less
spherical.  The way you get flat mirrors is to grind *three* identical
blanks against each other (obviously grinding two at a time, but switching
them around frequently); this makes the spherical tendencies cancel out.

For the sort of mass production envisioned in the story, though, it would
be worthwhile to look at unorthodox manufacturing techniques.  Perhaps one
could saw a double-thickness blank into two flats using something like
laser-excited chemical etching or electric-discharge machining as a "saw"
that would produce inherently flat surfaces.  Such methods might not get
you the necessary surface finish, though, which would put you back with
conventional methods for polishing and testing.

Just to keep the pot boiling, a couple more botches in the Analog story:
crew quarters and such were going to be attached to the telescope (!),
and the telescope has no stray-light shields.  For that matter, although
various details in the story clearly indicate that the telescope is in
darkness at all times, there is no mention of how that is achieved.  And
while I'm at it, why bother building an immense telescope tube, with all
the structural problems and stray-light reflections, when the prime-focus
observing platform can be kept at the focus by computer-controlled
maneuvering?  (Of either the platform or the focus!  The focus is under
dynamic control anyway!)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #57
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA27104; Sat, 29 Nov 86 03:01:59 PST
	id AA27104; Sat, 29 Nov 86 03:01:59 PST
Date: Sat, 29 Nov 86 03:01:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611291101.AA27104@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #58

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 58

Today's Topics:
			     Pluto's Mass
		  Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
		      Re: refractor vs reflector
			Re: New space-shuttle
		      Re: refractor vs reflector
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Nov 86 21:49:20 GMT
From: rutgers!husc6!cfa!willner@lll-crg.arpa  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Pluto's Mass
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

This is in response to some earlier discussion of the characteristics
of Pluto in the newsgroup sci.space.

Information on the mass and density of Pluto can be derived from
observations of its satellite.  A recent article by David J. Tholen
(Astron. J. vol. 90, p. 2353, 1985) has the following information in
the Abstract:

"The orbital radius and period imply a total mass for the system of
(6.8+/-0.5)E-9 solar masses.  Density constraints place an upper
limit of 3615+/-90 km on the diameter of Pluto, while observations of
the first mutual events establish a crude lower limit of about 2800 km."

The mass estimate is about .0023 times the mass of the Earth.  The
"density constraints" are the requirement that the density be at
least as great as for solid methane, 0.53 g/cm**3.  

A series of occultations and eclipses of Pluto by its satellite and
vice versa began last year and will continue for the next few years.
Observations of these "mutual events" should produce much better
diameters (and hence densities) for the planet and its satellite.
The albedos will be measured, and even crude surface maps should be
possible.
-- 
Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

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

Date: 28 Nov 86 15:55:07 PST (Friday)
From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
In-Reply-To: Keith F. Lynch's message of Wed, 26 Nov 86 22:51:48 EST
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, jtk@s1-c.arpa, KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu

jtk> "In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make a
spherical mirror"
KFL> "Are you sure of that?"

Yes, flats are harder than spherical.  

The way you make a spherical mirror is to grind one glass blank against
another (the one you don't want to keep can be non-glass, but presents
some difficulties [not insurmountable] if non-glass).  The one on top,
pressed down at the center and allowed to flex, becomes concave, and the
bottom one, being supported fully from underneath but forced to match
the top, becomes convex.  So no, you can't get a flat by grinding
against a flat object, because it becomes non-flat too fast, even if
extremely hard.  The grinding compound, carborundum or similar stuff, is
extremely hard itself, in order to wear away the glass at a reasonable
rate.

The two blanks tend to become spherical if they are of absolutely
uniform consistency, the pressure is applied correctly, the stroke is
not too long or short, they are rotated in a manner that is not
commensurable with the stroke rate or each other, and the gods of glass
like you.  A really quality mirror ALWAYS needs correction in some areas
anyway, even if you wanted spherical, and not parabolic (parabolic is
the perfect shape for focussing images of objects infinitely far away,
but a spherical mirror can be compensated for with a corrector lens,
which may be small and easier to build than parabolizing the primary;
but I digress).  Note that such correction of problem areas can take
longer than making the mirror up to that point.

Flats are made by reversing the positions of the two blanks often enough
that the concaveness cancels the convexness.  It is very tricky to hit
it exactly.  Sometimes three blanks are used, rotating the pairing of
them, to try to cancel out non-uniformities.  Then you test the flats
and correct the problem areas.

KFL> "the idea that one could get an image smaller than the area of one
of the flat mirrors.  You obviously can't."

This bothers me, because theory (and practice) says that if all points
of a mirror are at the correct position within a small fraction of a
wavelength of light (1/8 wavelength is often quoted, but really good
mirrors are better.  HST is something like 1/160), then the image will
reach the theoretical limit.  And flats of diameter 0.4 meter diverge
from the surface of an 8 km f10 mirror by less than 1/8 wavelength.  So
it ought to work.  But as KFL points out, each approximately-meter
mirror should produce a meter size image of a point, which is roughly
100,000 times what you want in the image.  But the sum of the
individuals should by interference result in the finer image, though I'm
worried that the extra edges of all the meter mirrors (millions of them)
would diffract your image to death.  Does anyone out there know of some
results, practical or theoretical, for resolution of multiple mirrors?

/Don Lynn

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

Date: 28 Nov 86 17:17:18 PST (Friday)
From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com
Subject: Re: refractor vs reflector
In-Reply-To: David Messer's message of 28 Nov 86 07:30:28 GMT
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, rutgers!dayton!viper!dave@lll-crg.arpa

"Why would a refractor be better than a reflector?"

Refractors are notoriously better at reaching theoretical resolution
because the secondary mirror or light detector hanging out in front of a
mirror diffracts up the image.  However, an extremely small detector or
secondary has negligible effects, so a reflector can work essentially at
the limit of resolution under this limitation.

/Don Lynn

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

Date: 28 Nov 86 19:26:26 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: New space-shuttle
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Considering the length of the shuttle grounding, I suspect NASA was riding
> for a fall.  If the only problem in the shuttle was low launch temperature,
> they would have been launching in a few months, when it was warmer.

Well, yes and no.  The aftermath of 51L has exposed a number of problems
that badly need correcting, and this partially accounts for the long delay.
The other side of it, though, is that NASA has also been put into utterly-
paranoid mode about safety, and almost certainly would *not* have been
launching in only a few months even if no other major problems *had*
surfaced.  Everybody is being very timid, and pretending that enough work
and effort (and delay) will eliminate all further hazards.

For that matter, you are assuming that NASA would react in an organized and
systematic way, and the reality is anything but.  If you want to see an
organized and systematic reaction to a disaster that uncovered some nasty
underlying problems, check out the recovery after the Apollo fire.  Manned
Apollos were flying 18 months after the fire; the Shuttle delay will be
*at least* two years and probably more.

> By comparision, a Soviet launch failed recently.  Instead of grounding their
> whole program for years, they just sent up another rocket not too long
> afterwards.

The Soviet space program is organized, systematic, and determined, and is
not hampered by timidity or the illusion that perfect safety is possible.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 29 Nov 86 06:36:27 GMT
From: jtk@s1-c.arpa  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: refractor vs reflector
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <861128-171715-5212@Xerox> Lynn.ES@XEROX.COM writes:
>>"Why would a refractor be better than a reflector?"
>
>Refractors are notoriously better at reaching theoretical resolution
>because the secondary mirror or light detector hanging out in front of a
>mirror diffracts up the image.  However, an extremely small detector or
>secondary has negligible effects, so a reflector can work essentially at
>the limit of resolution under this limitation.
>
>/Don Lynn

Another factor, particularly interesting for LARGE space telescopes,
is that the required surface (figure) accuracy for a long focal-length
refractor can be very low.  For a mirror, essentially independent of
f/number, the entire surface must be within <<wavelength of some
specified position -- if one side of your 100 or 1000 meter mirror
drifts by 1 micron, your image goes to hell.  For a lens, the 
absolute deflection of the light is small (assuming large f/no's)
and errors can be correspondingly larger; in addition, only the
lens thickness counts, not (to first order) its position.  Thus
if one edge of your 100 meter gas-filled lens drifts axially
(not radially) by a few microns, you'll never notice.

	Jordin Kare	jtk@s1-c.ARPA	jtk@mordor.UUCP

(P.S. my thanks to all who leaped to my defense regarding flat mirrors...
and I had forgotten the trick of switching pairs among 3 blanks to
get flats!  But it's still hard...  JTK)

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #58
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA02192; Sun, 30 Nov 86 03:01:58 PST
	id AA02192; Sun, 30 Nov 86 03:01:58 PST
Date: Sun, 30 Nov 86 03:01:58 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8611301101.AA02192@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #59

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 59

Today's Topics:
			    Optical flats
		     Sunlight reflected to Earth
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Nov 86 15:56:11 EST
From: Hans.Moravec@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Optical flats
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Couldn't you form flats without grinding by a very careful version
of the floating glass process used to make plate glass windows?
Molten glass floats on molten metal, and gradually hardens. If the
cooling and external disturbances were carefully controlled, I see
no reason most of the surface couldn't be as flat as desired. I'd
try to make large sheets, then slice them up with a diamond
or a laser, and expect a certain percentage of rejects.

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

Date: Sat, 29 Nov 86 16:46:22 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Sunlight reflected to Earth
To: weltyc@cieunix.rpi.edu
Cc: KFL@mx.lcs.mit.edu, Space@s1-b.arpa

    From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty)

    Couldn't you just make the mirrors slightly concave?

  No.  Regardless of the shape of the mirrors or lenses or the
distance from the sun, reflected sunlight will never be brighter per
angular area in the sky than the sun's disk.  To get light as intense
as sunlight the mirror would have to be at least half a degree wide
in the sky.  This would require an extremely large orbitting mirror.
Large enough that tidal stresses would probably tear it apart, unless
it was far from Earth.  And if it was far from Earth it would have to
be even larger.
  Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon.
								...Keith

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #59
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA06757; Mon, 1 Dec 86 03:02:13 PST
	id AA06757; Mon, 1 Dec 86 03:02:13 PST
Date: Mon, 1 Dec 86 03:02:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612011102.AA06757@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #60

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 60

Today's Topics:
	  Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
			 Re: Re: Huge mirrors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Nov 86 01:47:51 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

><RA> ..  But to get the level of performance you need from the 
><RA> optics, you'd better make the telescope a refractor.
> 
<DM> Huh?  Why would a refractor be better than a reflector?  It
<DM> is certainly easier to make a large mirror than a lens.

I was waiting to see who'd nibble at that bait.  Sorry, a private
peeve of mine: everyone just takes it for granted that large space
telescopes will be reflectors, and they proceed to base all designs
around that assumption.  But it's not an examined assumption (in my
opinion)--just a reflex extrapolation from earth-based experience.
 
There are good reasons to consider building large refracting
telescopes in space, especially when it comes to circumstellar
imaging.  It's not possible to build large refracting telescopes for
use on earth, because there's no way to keep a lens much larger than
twenty inches from sagging under its own weight.  But in space, there
is no such limitation.  Nor is there any particular limitation on
focal length.  At f/1000, a 10 meter lens would have to be only about
one tenth of an inch thicker at its center than at its periphery, and
would be dramatically lighter than a 10 meter mirror.  A lens gives
an unobscured aperture, which is mandatory for circumstellar imaging,
and can much more easily be ground to give true diffraction limited 
performance.
 
That last statement may be controversial, but there are a couple of
reasons that I think it's valid.  For a mirror, any error, d, in the
surface finish introduces an error, 2*d, in the optical path length.
For a lens, the same error, d, will introduce an error of only .5*d
into the optical path.  So the mirror must be finsihed with four
times the precision of the lens to achieve the same optical
performance.  But even more to the point, any warping of the mirror
produces first order effects in the image.  Warping of a thin lens,
by contrast, produces only third order effects in the image.  Only
the thickness of the lens as a function of distance from the optical
axis really matters, and that can be controlled through automated
grinding far more easily than the shape of a mirror surface can be.
 
Operating a telescope with a 10 km focal length does present an
interesting set of problems, even in space.  The best way to do it 
is to launch the main objective lens and the focal plane optics as
separate spacecraft, on deep space trajectories.  One or both of the
craft would require ion thrusters for sustained relative maneuvering.
The telescope would be "pointed" by orienting the objective lens in
the general direction of interest, and flying the focal plane optics
to the appropriate position in the focal plane.  When the maneuvering
fuel was used up, the telescope would die.  But in deep space, away 
from significant gravitational gradients, it could operate for many
years.
 
Two alternatives to deep space operation are operation at L4 or L5 in
the earth/moon system, and operation in low earth orbit.  Operation
at L4 or L5 would allow peridic resupply of reaction mass for the ion
thrusters.  Operation in low earth orbit would require use of the
Shuttle to carry the focal plane optics, presumably mounted on the
end of the remote manipulator arm.  Viewing times for any one object
would be limited--probably too limited to allow optical detection of
earth-like stellar planets.  But it would be a cheap way to obtain
ultra high resolution images of objects of special interest.  Operation
near the space station, using the OMV to carry the focal plane optics,
is also a possibility, but extended use in that mode would eat up a lot
of OMV reation mass.  I don't think NASA's current plans allow for the
levels of OMV fuel resupply that would be needed.

- Roger Arnold

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

Date: 28 Nov 86 19:51:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch)
Subject: Re: Re: Huge mirrors
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


In article <17159@mordor.ARPA> jtk@mordor.UUCP (Jordan Kare) writes:
>                                  In reality, it is at least as
>hard to make a flat as to make a spherical mirror -- harder, in that
>there isn't a convenient focal point for doing optical tests.
>

Well... In fact a flat is MUCH harder to do than even a parabolic telescope
mirror.  If you want details, go and look at the three volume series by
the Scientific American Press called "Amateur Telescope Making".

However, let me address the problems of a multi mirror telescope made with
optical flats.  First, a flat can, by itself, generate an image.  In doing
so, it acts as though it were the pinhole in a pinhole camera.  This is a
method commonly used to view eclipses.  The image size is propartional to
the size of the abject, and the ratio of the distances from the object to
the flat, and from the flat to the screen.  No feature smaller in the image
than the size of the flat may be completely resolved.  One would need a very
long baseline indeed to resolve even Mars using a flat.

Second, if the flats are used in a pseudo paraboloid, as though they were a
large mirror, then the mirror will have very bad characteristics.  In order to
work properly, the mirror (in a single surface system) ought to have no mean
surface defects in excess of 1/2 wavelength of the central color of light in
which the telescope is to be used.  A system made of small flats has congruence
to a paraboloid only at a single point or ring of points on the surface of each
flat. The contrast in such a system would be so poor that even a computer could
not ressurrect the image.

A much better way to make a big mirror is to spin a plate of mercury evenly,
and under a constant accelleration (Like gravity).  It will form a nice
paraboloid section.  The problems are; 1. How to freeze it in place. 2. How
to afford that much mercury. And, 3. How to use it assuming you cannot find
a way to freeze it...

-- 
-David B. (Ben) Burch
 Analysts International Corp.
 Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)

"Argue for your limitations, and they are yours"

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #60
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA10090; Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:02:25 PST
	id AA10090; Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:02:25 PST
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:02:25 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612021102.AA10090@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #61

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:02:25 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #61

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 61

Today's Topics:
		     Sunlight Reflected to Earth
		      What's available in space
			   Re: Pluto's Mass
			      refracters
		   Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth
			Re: New space-shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 Dec 86 11:50 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Sunlight Reflected to Earth
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Keith Lynch claims you can't concentrate sunlight with mirrors in space.
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I always though optics was
essentially a question of shape, not size. If so I can disprove Keith's
claim quickly:

1. A 12" fresnel lens can concentrate sunlight at point 12" away enough
   to ignite wood. ( I've done this. You can too )
2. You can build a 12" fresnel mirror that will do essentially the same
   thing as a 12" fresnel lens.
3. If you make the fresnel mirror "N" times as large, but leave the
   shape the same, it will generate the same intensity of light (because
   it has the same "f" number) as the original, but in an area N-squared
   larger.
         
Therefor, if you made a 300 mile across fresnel mirror, and put it in
orbit 300 miles above the surface of the earth, you could ignite a VERY
large peice of wood ( like Hoboken ).  You can get the same effect from
four 150-mile-across mirrors with 300-mile focal lengths, or nine
100-mile-across mirrors with 300-mile focal lengths, et cetera. Matter
of fact, a bunch of infinite-focal-length mirrors ( e.g flat ) would do
almost as well if aimed correctly ( which is not too hard. ).

   This is a simple impractical example. BUT, I could easily draw a
ray-tracing diagram with sun, earth, and, say, 12 flat mirrors WORKING
TOGETHER in HIGH earth orbit to make a system that could produce 10 suns
or better at a target the same size as the mirrors themselves. Easy. So,
Keith, you're wrong.  You CAN concentrate sunlight using multiple
mirrors, and not only that, you CAN use it as a weapon.

			Dennis O'Connor

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

Date:  1 Dec 86 12:03 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: What's available in space
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Henry Spencer writes :
>> ... The list of important resources that ARE NOT AT ALL AVAILABLE
>> ( much less "scarce" ) in space runs like a CRC Handbook...
>
>Name a handful, please.  Bear in mind that "in space" includes
>asteroids (both nickel-iron and carbonaceous-chondrite), comet nuclei,
>and the smaller moons of the outer planets.

My original discussion referenced space around the Earth. It is a LONG
way to the asteroids and outer planet, and quite a feat to catch a
comet.  It might be better to get materials from earth.  To get a
payload to geo-sync orbit from the surface you give it about a 7km/sec
velocity increase.

So I looked up the Hohmann Ellipse Transfer data for Earth to Mars and
Earth to Jupiter. This data gives the minimum amount of delta-vee ( and
therefor energy change ) neccesary to make the trip. However, it makes
for very slow trips.

To get from Earth to Mars ( orbit of Earth to orbit of Mars, not
surface-to-surface ) takes a change in velocity of about 3km/sec, and
the trip back takes a delta-v of about 2.6km/sec. This is a total change
of 5.6km/sec round trip ( and the round trip takes about 72 weeks )

To get from Earth to Jupiter ( orbit to orbit ) takes a delta-v of about
8.7km/sec, and the trip back takes a delta-v of about 5.6km/sec.  This
is a total change of 14.3km/sec round trip ( and the round trip takes
about 284 weeks ).

Admittedly, you only ship your mined "ores" one-way ( towards Earth ).
But you need to get your "miners" and equipment and supplies out there
first. You could build an almost self-sufficient mining station out at
Jupiter, but this takes a LOT of mass given a lot of delt-vee, and most
of this mining-station mass would come from Earth ( or at best the Moon,
after you set up a mining station there, but THAT mining station would
come from Earth ).

The point is that mining the Outer Solar System is a lot of work
(physics definitions of work ). It also takes a lot of time to ship the
materials ( 30 months one-way ) which means you in effect have a huge
amount of stock in transit which makes it economically very expensive.
To me it looks like it is almost as cheap from an energy standpoint to
ship from Earth, and definately cheaper from an economics standpoint.

On comet mining : first you have to catch the comet, then either mine it
in place ( which means sending the equipment ) and then changing the
velocity of the products, or changing the velocity of the entire comet.
Comets in the inner solar system are FAST, and in the Outer, well, see
the previous paragraph. So again, it's probably cheaper and faster to
get the stuff from Earth.

But it still is not AT ALL cheap.

Finally, what's not available EXCEPT down a deep gravity well?  How
about Nitrogen?  And Flourine and Chlorine and Sodium and Magnesium and
Helium and Phosphorous?  I'm not sure, but it seems likely to me that
the elements in the lowest end of the Periodic Table would be rare
ouside of restraining gravity wells.  And wouldn't you know it, these are
the ones life and plastics and chloroflouro- carbons and a lot of other
neat things are based on.  (Oxygen seems to be the oddball here, because
it bonds to heavier stuff so well.  And Hydrogen, because it so very
common. ) Nitrogen especially seems lacking, but, what is life without
protien?

As a disclaimer, my knowledge of space chemistry, especially outside of
what's on the planets, is sparse.  What's the latest data on the
composition of Saturn's rings ( delta-vee 10 km/s to, 5.4 km/s back ) ?

			Dennis O'Connor

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

Date: 1 Dec 86 17:04:40 GMT
From: yale!husc6!cfa!mink@nyu.arpa  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: Pluto's Mass
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <283@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve
Willner) wrote in response to some earlier discussion of the
characteristics of Pluto in the newsgroup sci.space of Dave Tholen's
1985 results.  Last month at the AAS Division of Planetary Sciences
meeting in Paris, he presented his 1986 improvements (actually Tholen,
Buie, Storrs, and Lark (1986), Bulletin of the American Astronomical
Society 18, 821.)  The new best guess for Pluto's radius is now 1145 km
(Charon 640 km) and for the mean density of the Pluto- Charon system,
1.84 gm/cc (Tedesco and Dunbar at JPL get 1.6 +- 0.2 gm/cc).  This gives
a Pluto mass of 1.157 x 10^25 gm or .00194 Earth mass, continuing its
pattern of shrinking over the years.  Note that this density requires
that Pluto contain a significant proportion of rock (well over half by
mass).
 
> A series of occultations and eclipses of Pluto by its satellite and
> vice versa began last year and will continue for the next few years.
> Observations of these "mutual events" should produce much better
> diameters (and hence densities) for the planet and its satellite.
> The albedos will be measured, and even crude surface maps should be
> possible.

Marc Buie at the University of Hawaii has already done some surface
mapping.  Next year's Pluto-Charon mutual events will include total
eclipses of Charon, so for the first time ever we will be able to look
at Pluto by itself.  For further information, look up Volume 18, Number
3 of the Bulletin of the American Astronomical Society, pages 820 and
821.

			Doug Mink
			Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory
			{seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink
			mink@cfa.harvard.edu
			60 Garden St., Cambridge, MA 02138

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

Date: Mon, 1 Dec 86 17:01:32 pst
From: king@kestrel.arpa (Dick King)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: refracters


There is one important problem with a large refracter: chromatic
abberation.  Also, the lens might have absorption lines.

I believe the Hubble Telescope will have infrared and UV gear as well as
visible light.  I don't know of any material that would have as broad a
range in a lens.

-dick

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

Date: 1 Dec 86 16:16:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
>     From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty)
>   Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon.
> 								...Keith

Gosh, then--my solar cigarette lighter must not work, nor the large solar
array in California.

--arlan

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

Date: 1 Dec 86 23:07:16 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: New space-shuttle
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


> 
> > By comparision, a Soviet launch failed recently.  Instead of grounding their
> > whole program for years, they just sent up another rocket not too long
> > afterwards.
> 
> The Soviet space program is organized, systematic, and determined, and is
> not hampered by timidity or the illusion that perfect safety is possible.
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

The Soviet space program also uses a launch vehicle with over 1000
flights to date. By now, they have sufficient experience with the vehicle
to believe that one failure is most likely due to a random manufacturing 
flaw and not a design defect which must be corrected immediately.
This will be the case with the Shuttle system eventually (if it makes it
that far), when we have twenty Shuttles and several hundred flights
behind us.  Until that time, accidents will of necessity delay the
program.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #61
*******************


1,,
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA13042; Wed, 3 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST
	id AA13042; Wed, 3 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612031102.AA13042@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #62

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 3 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #62

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 62

Today's Topics:
		     Intense Sunlight from Space
 compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall
		   Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth
			 Re: Crc handbook...
			 Other Asteroid uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  2 Dec 86 13:55 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Intense Sunlight from Space
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I think I've come up with a way for SMALL mirrors to produce
concentrated sunlight from space. To wit :

1. Build a 1km fresnal mirror in space, with a focal length of, say,
   1.4km ( f1.4 ). This will produce at the focal plane an image of the
   sun 14m across.

2. Place a 14m optical element with a focal length of NEGATIVE 1.4km ( I
   think ) at the focal point.  Now we have a nice image of the sun,
   colimated, at about 5000 suns intensity. However, this image is still
   diverging at the same angle the incoming sunlight was ( about .01
   radians ). If the mirror where 1000km up ( 600 mile ) the image on
   the ground would be about 10km across, very difuse ( about .1 sun ).

3. After the colimating lens, place a disk 14 meters across, and say a
   10 meters thick, of 1 millimeter diameter graded-index optical fibers
   aligned in parrallel. Graded-index fibers cause light entering them
   from slightly off-axis angles to line up with the axis. This big disk
   will reduce the divergence of the image to about .0001 radians or so,
   I think, with small power losses.

Now we have an image only 100 meters across on the Earths surface,
generated by a 1km mirror that's 1000km up. Pretty Neat, huh ? That's
about 100 suns of intensity ( about, what, 100KW per square meter? ).

Would someone who knows optics better than me check this ?

				Dennis O'Connor

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

Date: 1986 December 02 12:33:42 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: "ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: SPACE@s1-b.arpa
Subject: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall

<GAL> Date:         Tue, 25 Nov 86 11:28:02 EST
<GAL> From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<GAL> Subject:      flying inside

<?> This is a far cry from idylic visions of landscaped O'Neill cylinders

<GAL> ...
<GAL> Actually, I picture a typical small space colony as feeling a lot
<GAL> like the inside of a modern, high-tech indoor shopping mall (the
<GAL> type with trees and bushes and stuff) or perhaps a Hyatt Regency.

I sort of like that compromise. I have never really lived in either a
city or a shopping mall, but when I was living in my car many years ago
I usually parked it in a covered parking lot and found that to be nice
and cozy, and once I visited Eastridge shopping mall which was beautiful
inside and probably the kind of place you are referring to and it'd be
neat to live in such a place. How would the cost of such a furnished
place compare to a barebones space habitat, given that both would
require radiation shielding, food&waste processing, etc. etc. If the
extra furnishings and room to hold it would be only say 20% of the total
cost I think it should be done to avoid depression among the
inhabitants. It might be cheaper than frequent R&R on Earth.

 <REM?> "for people to fly between workstations"

<GAL> In a zero-gee colony, OK.  In a rotating colony, at the ground
<GAL> level, I doubt it.  Calculate wing areas and power levels needed
<GAL> at, say, 1/3 G.  [hint: power required scales as g**3/2 *
<GAL> (A*rho)**-1/2] You're talking hobby flying, not practical
<GAL> transportation.

Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution to
decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic
person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev.  At
landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G the
landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone?

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

Date: 2 Dec 86 20:47:02 GMT
From: jtk@s1-c.arpa  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <467@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes:
>> 
>>     From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty)
>>   Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon.
>
>Gosh, then--my solar cigarette lighter must not work, nor the large solar
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>array in California.
>
>--arlan

I suppose a cigarette lighter COULD be considered a lethal weapon :-(

(Not to belabor the point, but cigarette lighters and solar power
arrays have short focal lengths ("fast" optics with low f/no.s), while
it is hard to imagine a useful weapon that has a range not much
longer than its own dimensions... at least, not one much more useful
than a club or a sword.)

		Jordin Kare		jtk@mordor.UUCP  jtk@s1-c.ARPA

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

Date:  2 Dec 1986 18:41-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Crc handbook...
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Tue, 2 Dec 86 03:11:54 PST

Henry Spencer is certainly correct that everything available on earth is
available in free space, and in fact is available from earth crossing
asteroids, of which there are quite a few. Eleanor Helin's work has
already uncovered the orbits of several economically interesting
objects.

No need to go into great detail, but one need only look up the different
meteorite types to see the variety. Nickel-Irons with heavy doses of
Platinum group elements. Stony Irons chock full of minerals.
Carbonaceous chondrites with Carbon, Nitrogen, Hydrocarbons, etc.

The outer moons mentioned are surfaced with clathrates, mixtures of
water and ammonia ices with other good volatiles mixed in.

For a discussion of a feasible scheme of tapping these immense
resources, a barely cost-effective baseline model using current (1983)
technology is discussed in:

"Mining the Earth-Approaching Asteroids for Their Precious and Strategic
Metals", Brian O'Leary, Space Manufacturing 1983, Volume 53, Advances in
the Astronautical Sciences, pg 375-387. (Published for the AAS by
Univelt Inc, San Diego.)

This article also contains some of his early work on the feasibility of
mining Phobos and Diemos for volatiles. Due to their low densities, it
is thought that they may be carbonaceous.

There are other slightly more advanced proposals that bring the
asteroids back into high orbit or into halo orbit using a mass driver
that expends some percentage of the asteroidal mass over 2-5 years. The
actual processing then occurs in a nearby convenient spot. There are
many discussion of this subject available in the literature.

A common approach to the problem is to send the mass driver, power
supplies, consumables, etc via a hohman orbit, then launch the crew on a
high energy trajectory some time later so that they arrive at roughly
the same time. In the case of a nickel-iron, smelting mirrors are used
to seperate out some of the platinum group elements which can be
returned immediately with most of the crew. A skeleton crew (or a
computer) then flies the asteroid into Earth orbit (a few years later).

Note: Platinum group = Platinum, Palladium, Iridium, Rhodium, Ruthenium,
Osmium.  They market at btwn $5K and $10K/kg, and the quanitities
discussed are not enough to cause a significant change in the market
prices, at least not at a low rate of bringing back asteroids that would
certainly prevail for many years.

==============================================================================
	Why Would Any Sane Person Want to Live on a Planet?
	QUICK! Mine them before they fall on your head!
						Dale Amon
==============================================================================

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

Date:  2 Dec 1986 19:15-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Other Asteroid uses

Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up,
focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and
soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the
center.  Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #62
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA16554; Thu, 4 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST
	id AA16554; Thu, 4 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612041102.AA16554@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #63

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 63

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		   re: Intense Sunlight from Space
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		  Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Dec 86 14:30:22 GMT
From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <533952902.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up,
>focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and
>soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the
>center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space.

More likely SPLATTO! and gobs of molten rock flying off every which way.
You'd surely have to inflate the thing slowly and evenly - the surface
tension and cohesion of molten rock isn't that great.  Hint: look at the
size of the cavities in a lump of pumice.

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

Date: 3 Dec 86 16:03:45 GMT
From: jkw@lanl.arpa  (Jay Wooten)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up,
> focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and
> soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the
> center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space.

Yep, it's always been my dream to live in a cozy, warm cavity created by
a nuclear device.

       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       ~ Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare ~
       ~ The lone and level sands stretch far away................. ~
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	  Jay Wooten  Los Alamos National Lab  ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA

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

Date:     Wed,  3 Dec 86 12:08:30 CST
From: David Chase <rbbb@rice.edu>
Subject:  re: Intense Sunlight from Space
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>

I don't know terribly much about optics, but I do know that you will have
a hard time aligning all those fibers in parallel to such a degree that
*they* don't diverge by more than .0001 radians (20 arc seconds), and
then you will have a hard time polishing the ends of the fibers to that
degree of flatness, that perpendicular to the fiber.  Heat the whole disk
unevenly, and it probably flexes out of parallel.

[btw, the proper spellings are "collimating", "diffuse", "fresnel",
"parallel", and "were"]

David

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

Date: 3 Dec 86 22:49:41 GMT
From: hobiecat!myers@csvax.caltech.edu  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <468@aw.sei.cmu.edu.sei.cmu.edu> firth@bd.sei.cmu.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE) writes:
>In article <533952902.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>>Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up,
>>focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and
>>soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the
>>center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space.
>
>More likely SPLATTO! and gobs of molten rock flying off every which way.
>You'd surely have to inflate the thing slowly and evenly - the surface
>tension and cohesion of molten rock isn't that great.  Hint: look at the
>size of the cavities in a lump of pumice.

Yeah, but a bad example.  Pumice gets formed under extreme rapid
decompression, and the gases inside the melt, distributed through
the melt, come out of solution. The size and distribution of the
cavities is more due to the distribution of the expanding gases.
(i.e., distributed throughout the material so that the entire
substance explodes, instead of just one explosion at the middle.
Big difference.)

I still think you'd get gobs of molten rock flying off every which way.

			Bob Myers

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

Date: 4 Dec 86 01:25:13 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!ewiles@seismo.css.gov  (Edwin Wiles)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <533952902.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up,
>focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and
>soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the
>center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space.

Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!)
And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed
to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open:

I'd like to suggest a modification of the old glass-blowers trick for
creating a hollow inside of molten glass.  Simply imbed a container of
highly compressed gas within the asteroid.  Either before heating or
after.  The volume of the heated gas should be a lot easier to calculate,
and a whole whale of a lot gentler in expansion.  The gas, being trapped
inside the molten rock, will be heated by the rock, and will gradually
expand, (hopefully) gently blowing your bubble up for you without blowing
it apart.

As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you
can inhabit it! :-)
-- 

					Edwin Wiles
					Net Express, Inc.
					1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
					Vienna, VA 22180

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

Date: 3 Dec 86 19:21:55 GMT
From: ihnp4!fortune!lowry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Lowry)
Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <861128-155507-5149@Xerox> Lynn.ES@XEROX.COM writes:
>jtk> "In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make a
>spherical mirror"
>KFL> "Are you sure of that?"
>
>Yes, flats are harder than spherical.  
>
>The way you make a spherical mirror is to grind one glass blank against
>another (the one you don't want to keep can be non-glass, but presents
>some difficulties [not insurmountable] if non-glass).  The one on top,
>pressed down at the center and allowed to flex, becomes concave, and the
>bottom one, being supported fully from underneath but forced to match
>the top, becomes convex.  So no, you can't get a flat by grinding
>against a flat object, because it becomes non-flat too fast, even if
>extremely hard.  The grinding compound, carborundum or similar stuff, is
>extremely hard itself, in order to wear away the glass at a reasonable
>rate.
>
>.......
>
>Flats are made by reversing the positions of the two blanks often enough
>that the concaveness cancels the convexness.  It is very tricky to hit
>it exactly.  Sometimes three blanks are used, rotating the pairing of
>them, to try to cancel out non-uniformities.  Then you test the flats
>and correct the problem areas.
>

What if the blank destined not to become the mirror (aka, the tool)
were much larger than the mirror blank, and the grinding process
never resulted in an ovehang?  Seems to me that the tool might become
channeled, but the mirror would end up being flat.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #63
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA19373; Fri, 5 Dec 86 03:02:14 PST
	id AA19373; Fri, 5 Dec 86 03:02:14 PST
Date: Fri, 5 Dec 86 03:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612051102.AA19373@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #64

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 64

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		      Re: refractor vs reflector
Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall
	     "Flying" as transportation in a space colony
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 86 05:54:19 GMT
From: ames!rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!ccplumb@cad.berkeley.edu  (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <533952902.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Another use for a small asteroid that has been suggested is spin it up,
>focus a mirror on it (you can use flats for all I care...) to melt and
>soften it and at just the right moment set off a small nuke in the
>center. Presto, chango: a giant rock balloon living space.

When I heard it, the idea was to put water in the middle of the asteroid
(drill a hole, fill it up, and plug it - a smaller hole than that needed
for a nuke), and boil it with the heat of the melting asteroid.  This makes
for a much gentler and cleaner explosion.  A Nuke would, as others have
pointed out, be like inflating a balloon with a fire hose.

	-Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP)

Zippy says:
Wait..  is this a FUN THING or the END of LIFE in Petticoat Junction??

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

Date: 1 Dec 86 20:43:11 GMT
From: trwrb!sdcrdcf!lwall@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: refractor vs reflector
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I dunno.  I suspect huge reflectors OR refractors will make better meteor
detectors than telescopes.  Somebody say something about leakage and vibration.

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall

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

Date: 3 Dec 86 20:00:25 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Robert Elton Maas writes:
> Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution
> to decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic
> person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev.
> At landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G
> the landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone?

	Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably.  Unfortunately gravity
isn't the problem here - momentum is.  You would still have the same momentum
under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and
generally make a mess of the landscape in precicesly the same manner as if
you had tried such a stunt in high-g.



-- 
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.  
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma Advanced Systems Group, San Diego
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp

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

Date:         Thu, 04 Dec 86 09:38:50 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space digest <space-incoming@s1-b.arpa>
Subject:      "Flying" as transportation in a space colony

REM> Step onto electronic person-launcher which tosses you into the air
REM> towards center of rev.  At landing end, no problem since gravity is
REM> assisting you and at 1/3 G  the landing should be graceful enough.

     I haven't done a calculation, but .33 g sounds to me like it's
a bit high for a safe ballistic landings.
*But*, if you launch the people only in the counter-spin direction,
their "weight" decreases.  In fact, if you launch them in the counter-
spin direction at the spin-speed, they have zero weight (or, what
actually happens, they become stationary and the colony spins under
them).  Of course, they have to land running.  This could be a
nifty form of transportation.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #64
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA21586; Sat, 6 Dec 86 03:01:56 PST
	id AA21586; Sat, 6 Dec 86 03:01:56 PST
Date: Sat, 6 Dec 86 03:01:56 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612061101.AA21586@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #65

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 65

Today's Topics:
	Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
	Re: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes
		   Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth
			  Address Correction
		     Re: Other uses for asteroids
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 86 01:24:05 GMT
From: cbatt!ukma!ukecc!vnend@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. W. James)
Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa


	Would the lenses on a large refracting space telescope need to 
be made of glass (or any other solid for that matter)? In zero G the 
surface tension of a clear liquid could be used to pull it into a lens
shape. And if surface tension wouldn't be enough, how about just enclosing
a clear liquid in a thin plastic membrane of known optical properties? 
Care would have to be taken against vibration, but then, that is esential 
for any space telescope. And this avoids some of the problems with engineering
large solid lenses in space. 

	Just a wild idea...
  
-- 
*******************************************************************************
Later y'all,             Vnend            Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure.
**UUCP:cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!vnend;                CSNET:vnend@ecc.engr.uky.csnet**
************BITNET:cn0001dj@ukcc.BITNET (but only as a last resort)************

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

Date: 3 Dec 86 16:36:52 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Two approaches for building ultra huge telescopes
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> I'm going to reduce my already tarnished credibility by describing how
> 
> one could construct a telescope for resolving an earth-like planet
> 

> orbiting Tau Ceti
.

	With regard to Gary Allen's fun article on big space
telescopes from bubble membranes, I have a few comments.  I assume
that for the tomtom approach you would electrostatically distort the
silvered membrane such that the parabola's axis of symmetry is at an
angle to the axis of symmetry of the tomtom big enough to prevent any
shadowing by the stiffened membrane end. That would mean an assymetric
dish and the angle between the two axes must be less than that of the
tangent at the shallow end of the dish but I suppose that would be
feasible. (I'm visualizing this in my head and haven't worked it out).
Wouldn't you have problems, though with charged particles distorting
the shape? Would your shadow panel take care of this problem
adequately? 

	I'll now reveal my lack of understanding by suggesting another
variation on the theme using Gary's stiff ring, silvered flexible
membrane. Give your collecting station mass equal the the dish and
connect them by a ring of cables essentially hanging them from each
other in the gravity gradient. Wouldn't the weight of the membrane
pull it into a parabolic shape? In any case you could presumably
correct for the shape aberration. (This is what I thought he would get
from the original bubble idea by suspending it in a gravity gradient
but of course the other problems mentioned with a full bubble rule
that out). I suppose you would run into a tensile strength problem
with your cables but maybe the focal length will match the dish
collector distance before your cables break. Of course this all
depends on characteristics of the membrane. Any materials science
people looking for a hobby project? You can select your orbit to get 
the gradient best suited for your purposes. No, wait. I guess that
doesn't matter and the orbit variable could be used to take care of
some other problem.

				Jim Symon
UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA

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

Date: Wed, 3 Dec 86 13:07:10 EST
From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty)
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth

> 
>     From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty)
>   Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon.
> 								...Keith

	Ehhhhhh....did I miss something?  Keith, you may have read
that message out of context (especially since I posted it a long long
time ago).  I was asking if the size of the image of the sun
reflecting to a ground collecting station could be reduced by making
the orbiting mirror concave.  Someone already pointed out to me (it
was so long ago I forgot who) that I was forgetting that the Sun has
an angular size so the concavity of the mirror wouldn't help much.  I
never mentioned weapons....

					-Chris

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

Date:     Fri, 5 Dec 86 13:26:36 EST
From: John Shaver (STEEP-TMAC 879-7602) <jshaver@apg-5.arpa>
To: space@s1-b.arpa
Cc: jshaver@apg-5.arpa, shaver@fth-1.arpa
Subject:  Address Correction

Please stop sending the Space BBB to jshaver @apg-3.  I also get it at 
apg-5 which is more convenient.
Thanbks
John

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

Date:  5 Dec 1986 22:34-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Subject: Re: Other uses for asteroids
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Fri, 5 Dec 86 03:09:13 PST

The use of water in the asteroid scenario is correct. I was remembering
portions of two different papers/talks, one of which was by Dr. Kraft
Ehricke on the use of nukes to hollow out lunar caverns, not asteroids.

Dr. Ehricke's ideas are also worth noting. Due to the low atomic numbers of
typical constituents, and the sealing of heavy materials under a layer
of a solidified melt, such spaces are, according to the late Dr.
Ehricke, inhabitable after a very short time, with a small amount of
hot spot decontamination.

His technique also discussed using the cracking and melting as a method
of ore beneficiation. There is a certain amount of seperation due to
the melting and solidification. There is also the ability to do
efficient mineral leaching by pumping water into the hot cracked rock.
Works just like black smokers at spreading centers.

The explosion will free Oxygen immediately. The Oxygen can be pumped
out. There are evidently no long lived radioisotopes, or if they are
they are easily seperated.

A furthur use was to use the trapped heat as an energy source ala
geothermal. You just keep firing small nukes and withdrawing the heat.
While you do it you are creating 'ores' in the cavern. At some time you
mine it and then use it for living space.

Unfortuneatly all I have are my own notes and a cryptic printed
abstract of his talk from the Lunar Base Symposium, Washington, DC
11/84. I'm sure his material has been fully published else where, but I
don't have it handy. If you have problems with any of this, please look
up the paper and argue against it: I'm not prepared to do a peer
defense of his work: I'm not sure I'm even prepared to move into one of
his caverns...

I had the good fortune to meet him (for a few short minutes) a few
months before his death. He was everything you expect from an old
German rocket scientist, soft spoken accent, viewgraphs and all. (You
all must remember the last words of the ailing elderly rocket
scientist: "Next viewgraph, please..")  The man had more creative
thoughts between his bed and his morning shower than the rest of NASA
had all year long.  Despite the fact that he was dying of leukemia, he
had a light in his eye and gesticulated fervently when he spoke of
colonizing the moon. He also had a great deal of contempt for most of
the existing plans (or maybe lack of existing plans?): he felt it could
be done in the mid 1990's, if anybody still had guts.

It is unfortuneate that in his later years he allowed a number of his
articles to be printed in Fusion Magazine. However, like many who
published in it's pages, he was never really associated with them.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #65
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA24529; Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:02:04 PST
	id AA24529; Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:02:04 PST
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:02:04 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612071102.AA24529@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #66

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
			  no grind refractor
		 Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		      absence of AW&ST summaries
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 86 14:21:00 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Robert Elton Maas writes:
> > Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution
> > to decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic
> > person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev.
> > At landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G
> > the landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone?
> 
> 	Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably.  Unfortunately gravity
> isn't the problem here - momentum is.  You would still have the same momentum
> under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and
> generally make a mess of the landscape in precicesly the same manner as if
> you had tried such a stunt in high-g.


   I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration)
on landing that you felt in the "person launcher". There was a nice 
exploration of the idea of flying down the zero G center (and elsewhere
if you counteract the breeze) in a science fiction novel. I believe it
is by A.C.Clarke and titled Rendezvous With Rama or some such.

				Jim Symon
UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA

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

Date: 5 Dec 86 21:20:20 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
...omissions...

> Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!)
> And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed
> to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open:

... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to
blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted

> As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you
> can inhabit it! :-)

It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
radiation.  I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word 
NUCLEAR.

Biophysicists have had to re-name their most recent diagnostic tool
from Nuclear Magnetic Resonnance Imaging to Magnetic Resonnance...
(which makes less sense - the resonance is nuclear in origin) since
the media was freaking on the use of NUCLEAR.  A particularly ignorant
reaction, since the effect is not radioactive in any way at all - not even
a little. Your flashlight is more radioactive.
-- 
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.  
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma Advanced Systems Group, San Diego
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp

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

Date: 5 Dec 86 14:26:18 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Symon)
Subject: no grind refractor
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa




     I don't understand all this talk about grinding big mirrors
and refractor lenses. As somebody else put it, they'd only make good
meteor detectors. A micro would render it junk, right?

     I still like Gary Allen's membrane stretched over a ring, silvered
and distorted to dish shape by one means or another because micro-
meteor holes should only be a problem after 'many' strikes.

     Now for those that like refractors,(is it true that a reflector
would need to be kept within a few microns of its proper position?)
how about stretching a transparent balloon around the 12 km diameter
ring and pumping the cheapest available gas into it to provide a big
lens? (or whatever diameter lens is required for resolution of planets
at Tau Ceti) As meteor holes increase you would need to provide a 
continuous flow of gas and eventually replace the balloon. You might 
periodically pump in some gaseous leak-stop of transparent type. 

				Jim Symon
UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA

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

Date: 25 Nov 86 06:46:51 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I did some thinking about the gravity-well-boost maneuver a few months
ago, and I believe I've found a good way to understand it intuitively.

The force exerted on a spacecraft by a thruster is independent of the
starting velocity of that spacecraft relative to some inertial coordinate
system (e.g., the one with the Sun at its origin). However, the amount of
kinetic energy imparted to the spacecraft by a given burn depends on the
coordinate system you use. Doing the burn at a higher velocity (relative to
the Sun) results in more energy being imparted to the spacecraft and less to
the propellant.  This is because energy is defined as force x distance, and
the thrust "acts through" a longer distance when the spacecraft is
travelling faster.

Make sense?

Phil

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

Date: 7 Dec 86 01:44:05 GMT
From: rutgers!husc6!husc2!chiaraviglio@lll-crg.arpa  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP>, jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes:
> In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
> ...omissions...
> 
> > Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!)
> > And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed
> > to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open:
> 
> ... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to
> blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted
> 
> > As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you
> > can inhabit it! :-)
> 
> It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
> radiation.  I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word 
> NUCLEAR.

	How do you make a nuke which is clean (let alone make such a thing
easily)?  I would be very interested to know.

	Also, I think Edwin is right about problems calculating the precise
explosive force needed to blow the asteroid apart without blowing it open.
First of all, even if you can calculate exactly how much energy your device is
going to produce, defects in the asteroid might cause it to have weak spots
(even if it is semi-molten -- imagine a bubble that is already present, or a
vein of material of radically different viscosity from the rest).  Second,
nuclear explosions tend to be extremely sudden, and thus would tend to shatter
even a molten asteroid, because of the physical properties of molten rock
(read enough volcanology books, and you will find accounts of even molten
basalt (among the more fluid types of molten rock) shattering when it falls a
couple of meters to the ground at the front of a lava flow, and then proving
it is still molten by spreading out after shattering).

	Also, what do you do to keep the asteroid which has been inflated with
a nuke from collapsing back into a blob as the gas (which is mostly vaporized
rock) cools and condenses?  Inflating an asteroid with water would not have as
much of this problem, because the asteroid will solidify before the water
condenses, although the steam will contract as it cools (but you can have a
pipe already in place to pump in more water, since you don't have to worry
about the excessive violence and heat of a nuclear explosion).  In any case,
cracking during cooling might be a serious problem.

-- 
	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu
	   seismo!husc4!chiaraviglio

Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out
of this system is unreliable).  Please send only to the address given above,
until tardis.harvard.edu is revived.

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

Date: 7 Dec 86 01:38:35 GMT
From: jkw@lanl.arpa  (Jay Wooten)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> 
> It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
> radiation.  I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word 
> NUCLEAR.
> 

Hmmm. Please elaborate on this most intriguing assertion.


       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       ~ Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare ~
       ~ The lone and level sands stretch far away................. ~
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	  Jay Wooten  Los Alamos National Lab  ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA

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

Date: 7 Dec 86 01:17:53 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: absence of AW&ST summaries
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

People may have noticed a lack of Aviation Week space-news summaries of
late.  It's not permanent.  My schedule has been unsettled of late and I
haven't had a convenient opportunity to work on them.  I expect to resume
within a week, and will make an effort to catch up on the backlog.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 6 Dec 86 23:25:32 GMT
From: ames!rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!ccplumb@cad.berkeley.edu  (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes:
>It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
>radiation.  I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word 
>NUCLEAR.

I've no objection to the word "nuclear" (I'm full of nucleic acid, aren't I?
:-) ), but I can't see how to force stable fission products.  Can you be
more specific?

Thanks.

	-Colin Plumb (ccplmb@watnot.UUCP)

Zippy says:
The Korean War must have been fun.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #66
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27218; Mon, 8 Dec 86 03:02:20 PST
	id AA27218; Mon, 8 Dec 86 03:02:20 PST
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 86 03:02:20 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612081102.AA27218@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #67

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 8 Dec 86 03:02:20 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #67

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 67

Today's Topics:
		  Flat mirrors and ... sandblasting?
			Large Telescope ideas
			 SPACE Digest V7 #66
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Dec 86 18:37:49 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Flat mirrors and ... sandblasting?
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

As an irrelevant aside, there was the fellow at Reed College about 15
years ago who hooked a PDP-8 up to a numerically controlled table and
a sandblaster.  He would load coarse grit, grind out a rough parabola
according to smoe arcane movement algorithm, measure the deviations,
enter them into the computer, load fine grit, and finish the mirror.
He claimed 1/10 wavelength on 12 inch mirrors, and it took only hours.
I did not see the resultant mirrors - there must have been something
wrong or this would be a commercial process now.

The IDEA is fascinating, though.  I guess you could finish cheap
flats this way, though it would be just as easy to put a bit of
curve on them.  It shows that we could have quite different techniques
by the time of the Analog story.  I would postulate light-sensitive
silica-excreting artificial bacteria, myself... but SF has gotten too
tame for someone to throw in that many speculations!


-- 
Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

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

Date: 7 Dec 1986 11:21:25-EST
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Large Telescope ideas
Apparently-To: Space-Enthusiasts@mit-mc

I have a concern about the large telescope ideas where one element maneuvers
to maintain the focus.  If the telescope is a reflector, then the reaction
engines are spewing junk into the field of view.  This may obscure the view,
or worse, may float around and deposit on optical surfaces.  This may also
be a problem with a reflector.  The problem may not be too bad if the
engines are just gas jets, but the problem can't be ignored.

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

Date: Sun,  7 Dec 86 14:13:34 PST
From: <>
Reply-To: @Forsythe.Stanford.Edu@lindy.STANFORD.EDU
To: space@s1-b.arpa

Received: by s1-b.arpa id AA24661; Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:10:42 PST
	id AA24661; Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:10:42 PST
Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 03:10:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota@s1-b.arpa>
Message-Id: <8612071110.AA24661@s1-b.arpa>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Reply-To: Space@Angband
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #66

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 66

Today's Topics:
Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
			  no grind refractor
		 Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		      absence of AW&ST summaries
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Dec 86 14:21:00 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

> Robert Elton Maas writes:
> > Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution
> > to decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic
> > person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev.
> > At landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G
> > the landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone?
>
> 	Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably.  Unfortunately gravity
> isn't the problem here - momentum is.  You would still have the same momentum
> under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and
> generally make a mess of the landscape in precicesly the same manner as if
> you had tried such a stunt in high-g.


   I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration)
on landing that you felt in the "person launcher". There was a nice
exploration of the idea of flying down the zero G center (and elsewhere
if you counteract the breeze) in a science fiction novel. I believe it
is by A.C.Clarke and titled Rendezvous With Rama or some such.

				Jim Symon
UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA

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

Date: 5 Dec 86 21:20:20 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
...omissions...

> Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!)
> And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed
> to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open:

... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to
blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted

> As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you
> can inhabit it! :-)

It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
radiation.  I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word
NUCLEAR.

Biophysicists have had to re-name their most recent diagnostic tool
from Nuclear Magnetic Resonnance Imaging to Magnetic Resonnance...
(which makes less sense - the resonance is nuclear in origin) since
the media was freaking on the use of NUCLEAR.  A particularly ignorant
reaction, since the effect is not radioactive in any way at all - not even
a little. Your flashlight is more radioactive.
--
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma Advanced Systems Group, San Diego
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp

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

Date: 5 Dec 86 14:26:18 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Symon)
Subject: no grind refractor
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa




     I don't understand all this talk about grinding big mirrors
and refractor lenses. As somebody else put it, they'd only make good
meteor detectors. A micro would render it junk, right?

     I still like Gary Allen's membrane stretched over a ring, silvered
and distorted to dish shape by one means or another because micro-
meteor holes should only be a problem after 'many' strikes.

     Now for those that like refractors,(is it true that a reflector
would need to be kept within a few microns of its proper position?)
how about stretching a transparent balloon around the 12 km diameter
ring and pumping the cheapest available gas into it to provide a big
lens? (or whatever diameter lens is required for resolution of planets
at Tau Ceti) As meteor holes increase you would need to provide a
continuous flow of gas and eventually replace the balloon. You might
periodically pump in some gaseous leak-stop of transparent type.

				Jim Symon
UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA

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

Date: 25 Nov 86 06:46:51 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: TAU and exploring the heliopause
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

I did some thinking about the gravity-well-boost maneuver a few months
ago, and I believe I've found a good way to understand it intuitively.

The force exerted on a spacecraft by a thruster is independent of the
starting velocity of that spacecraft relative to some inertial coordinate
system (e.g., the one with the Sun at its origin). However, the amount of
kinetic energy imparted to the spacecraft by a given burn depends on the
coordinate system you use. Doing the burn at a higher velocity (relative to
the Sun) results in more energy being imparted to the spacecraft and less to
the propellant.  This is because energy is defined as force x distance, and
the thrust "acts through" a longer distance when the spacecraft is
travelling faster.

Make sense?

Phil

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

Date: 7 Dec 86 01:44:05 GMT
From: rutgers!husc6!husc2!chiaraviglio@lll-crg.arpa  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP>, jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes:
> In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
> ...omissions...
>
> > Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!)
> > And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed
> > to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open:
>
> ... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to
> blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted
>
> > As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you
> > can inhabit it! :-)
>
> It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
> radiation.  I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word
> NUCLEAR.

	How do you make a nuke which is clean (let alone make such a thing
easily)?  I would be very interested to know.

	Also, I think Edwin is right about problems calculating the precise
explosive force needed to blow the asteroid apart without blowing it open.
First of all, even if you can calculate exactly how much energy your device is
going to produce, defects in the asteroid might cause it to have weak spots
(even if it is semi-molten -- imagine a bubble that is already present, or a
vein of material of radically different viscosity from the rest).  Second,
nuclear explosions tend to be extremely sudden, and thus would tend to shatter
even a molten asteroid, because of the physical properties of molten rock
(read enough volcanology books, and you will find accounts of even molten
basalt (among the more fluid types of molten rock) shattering when it falls a
couple of meters to the ground at the front of a lava flow, and then proving
it is still molten by spreading out after shattering).

	Also, what do you do to keep the asteroid which has been inflated with
a nuke from collapsing back into a blob as the gas (which is mostly vaporized
rock) cools and condenses?  Inflating an asteroid with water would not have as
much of this problem, because the asteroid will solidify before the water
condenses, although the steam will contract as it cools (but you can have a
pipe already in place to pump in more water, since you don't have to worry
about the excessive violence and heat of a nuclear explosion).  In any case,
cracking during cooling might be a serious problem.

--
	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu
	   seismo!husc4!chiaraviglio

Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out
of this system is unreliable).  Please send only to the address given above,
until tardis.harvard.edu is revived.

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

Date: 7 Dec 86 01:38:35 GMT
From: jkw@lanl.arpa  (Jay Wooten)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

>
> It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
> radiation.  I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word
> NUCLEAR.
>

Hmmm. Please elaborate on this most intriguing assertion.


       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
       ~ Round the decay of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare ~
       ~ The lone and level sands stretch far away................. ~
       ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
	  Jay Wooten  Los Alamos National Lab  ARPA:jkw@lanl.ARPA

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

Date: 7 Dec 86 01:17:53 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: absence of AW&ST summaries
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

People may have noticed a lack of Aviation Week space-news summaries of
late.  It's not permanent.  My schedule has been unsettled of late and I
haven't had a convenient opportunity to work on them.  I expect to resume
within a week, and will make an effort to catch up on the backlog.
--
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 6 Dec 86 23:25:32 GMT
From: ames!rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!ccplumb@cad.berkeley.edu  (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes:
>It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
>radiation.  I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word
>NUCLEAR.

I've no objection to the word "nuclear" (I'm full of nucleic acid, aren't I?
:-) ), but I can't see how to force stable fission products.  Can you be
more specific?

Thanks.

	-Colin Plumb (ccplmb@watnot.UUCP)

Zippy says:
The Korean War must have been fun.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #66
*******************

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #67
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00242; Tue, 9 Dec 86 03:02:42 PST
	id AA00242; Tue, 9 Dec 86 03:02:42 PST
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 86 03:02:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612091102.AA00242@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #68

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 9 Dec 86 03:02:42 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #68

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 68

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V7 #66
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall
		   Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth
			Need Subsrciption Info
			mailer changes at S-1
		  Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
	Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
		   Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth
	       Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs
	       Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cra
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 7 Dec 86 11:26:27 pst
From: Scott Holladay <scott%atlas.physics.uoft.cdn%ubc.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
To: Space@s1-b.arpa
Mmdf-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at RELAY.CS.NET
In-Reply-To: <inbox*4@atlas.physics.uoft.cdn>
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #66
Return-Receipt-To: Scott Holladay <scott%atlas.physics.uoft.cdn@ubc.csnet>

Concerning the "inflation" of an asteroid:

 Has anyone worked out how long it would take to melt even a small
(perhaps 1 km diameter) nickel-iron asteroid?  Remember that the
efficiency of radiation as a heat transfer mechanism increases as the
fourth power of the temperature!  Getting the temperature up from 1400 K
to 1500 K (or whatever it takes to melt nickel-iron) might take far more
effort than the first 1400 degrees... Then, of course, there is the heat
of fusion--another big energy sink.  I guess we're talking about really
BIG mirrors!

 I have to agree with the suggestion that local inhomogeneities in even
a molten asteroid would lead to unpredictable behavior during explosive
"inflation" The constituents of even a very uniform asteroid will not be
distributed evenly, and zones of weakness could easily form during
heating.  The comment about "shattering" of fluids by sudden stresses is
also well-taken--remember the ball of "Silly Putty" (an extremely
viscous silicone-based liquid) that you shattered with a hammer in days
gone by?  A nuclear explosion is a far sight more sudden than any hammer
blow.  No, it's better to do the inflation very slowly indeed, to allow
"healing" of cracks to occur.  If gas leakage after cooling of the
bubble were found to be a problem, it would be easy to spray a coating
of foam plastic (NOT urea-formaldehyde, please :-)) on the inside to
seal it.

 What about spinning up the asteroid before beginning to heat it?  The
inflation could be handled by pumping a gas (water or ammonia would do
nicely for this) down a refractory borehole casing from one of the poles
of the spinning body into its center.  The nicest thing to have would be
a huge bag of some high-temperature material that would contain the gas
completely: losses of gas might be excessive otherwise.  The rotation of
the asteroid would accomplish two things: it could be heated evenly by a
single mirror, and centripetal acceleration combined with
self-gravitation would tend to deform the originally irregular body to a
flattened ellipsoid, which would be easier to work with later on.

Scott Holladay		Bitnet SCOTT@UTORPHYS
Geophysics Laboratory
University of Toronto

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

Date: 8 Dec 86 00:24:18 GMT
From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes:
>It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
>radiation.

   Where did you get this amazing notion?  If you have some secret design
which no one else knows about, perhaps you can share it with us?

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 8 Dec 86 00:44:22 GMT
From: cartan!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cramped, rather like a shopping mall
Sender: space-request@s1-b.arpa
To: space@s1-b.arpa

In article <361@unc.unc.UUCP> symon@unc.UUCP (James Symon) writes:
>>Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably.  Unfortunately gravity isn't the
>>problem here - momentum is.  You would still have the same momentum
>>under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and
>>generally make a mess of the landscape in precisely the same manner as if
>>you had tried such a stunt in high-g.
>
>   I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration)
>on landing that you felt in the "person launcher."

   The problem is that if you decelerate over a shorter distance than
the distance in which you accelerated, you will feel a correspondingly
greater force.  Landing on your feet allows a deceleration distance of
only about .5 meter.
   The greatest distance which a human can fall and land comfortably on
his feet is about 2 meters.  The kinetic energy that he must absorb is
equal to 20 m^2/s^2 times his mass.  If this is done in a deceleration
interval of .5 m, he must apply a force of 40 m/s^2 times his mass, plus
the force to counteract gravity during the landing.  So it seems that
the maximum landing acceleration is about 5 g.
   This gives a maximum rate of travel of about 7 m/s, or 15 mph.  Not
too bad at all, even if you include a safety margin.

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: Sun,  7 Dec 86 23:42:18 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth
To: Space@angband.s1.gov

    From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)

    >Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon.

    Gosh, then--my solar cigarette lighter must not work, nor the large solar
    array in California.

  I know all about the solar array in California, having helped design
it.  Neither it nor your lighter would make a useful weapon.
							...Keith

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

Date: 8 Dec 86 00:28:04 GMT
From: ritcv!cci632!walden!jjg@ROCHESTER.ARPA  (John Grana)
Subject: Need Subsrciption Info
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

! ! ! H e l p ! ! !

	In the past, I have noticed references to a magazine named
AW&ST. I believe this stands for Aviation Weekly and Space Technologies
(???).  Anyways, if any kind soul could e-mail me information on how to
get a subscription to AW&ST I would be in their debt! I plan on giving
this as a Christmas present to a friend.

						thanks much
                                ..!seismo!rochester!cci632!walden!jjg

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

Date: Mon, 8 Dec 86 14:50:01 PST
From: John Bruner <jdb@mordor.s1.gov>
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: mailer changes at S-1

The name of the host formerly known as S1-B.ARPA has changed to
ANGBAND.S1.GOV.  This change has been accompanied by a new mailer which
uses the resolver instead of a static host table.  I have been trying to
minimize the problems caused by this changeover, but some have slipped
past me.  I apologize for the inconvenience that this may cause to some
SPACE digest readers.

  John Bruner (S-1 Project, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory)
  MILNET: jdb@mordor.s1.gov		(415) 422-0758
  UUCP: ...!ucbvax!decwrl!mordor!jdb 	...!seismo!mordor!jdb

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

Date: 8 Dec 86 23:00:03 GMT
From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <163@fortune.UUCP>, lowry@fortune.UUCP (John Lowry) writes:
> 
> What if the blank destined not to become the mirror (aka, the tool)
> were much larger than the mirror blank, and the grinding process
> never resulted in an ovehang?  Seems to me that the tool might become
> channeled, but the mirror would end up being flat.

If the large tool is on the bottom and is ground evenly, then the tool
will become concave and the mirror will become convex.  Large telescope
mirrors (like the Hale mirror) were ground with the mirror on the bottom
and using a smaller diameter tool on top.

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

Date: 8 Dec 86 23:06:28 GMT
From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <871@ukecc.UUCP>, vnend@ukecc.UUCP (D. W. James) writes:
> 
> 	Would the lenses on a large refracting space telescope need to 
> be made of glass (or any other solid for that matter)? In zero G the 
> surface tension of a clear liquid could be used to pull it into a lens
> shape. And if surface tension wouldn't be enough, how about just enclosing
> a clear liquid in a thin plastic membrane of known optical properties? 
> Care would have to be taken against vibration, but then, that is esential 
> for any space telescope. And this avoids some of the problems with engineering
> large solid lenses in space. 
> 
> 	Just a wild idea...

How about a gas?  It would have refractive properties in a vacuum.  I
suspect the problem would be with the corrector element (for chromatic
aberration) which has at least one side which is concave.

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

Date: 8 Dec 86 22:51:07 GMT
From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Re: Sunlight reflected to Earth
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <17284@mordor.ARPA>, jtk@mordor.ARPA (Jordan Kare) writes:
> In article <467@inuxm.UUCP> arlan@inuxm.UUCP (A Andrews) writes:
> >> 
> >>     From: weltyc%cieunix@rpics.arpa (Christopher A. Welty)
> >>   Reflected sunlight is not useful as a weapon.
> >> 								...Keith
> >
> >Gosh, then--my solar cigarette lighter must not work, nor the large solar
>                       ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >array in California.
> >
> >--arlan
> 
> I suppose a cigarette lighter COULD be considered a lethal weapon :-(
> 
> (Not to belabor the point, but cigarette lighters and solar power
> arrays have short focal lengths ("fast" optics with low f/no.s), while
> it is hard to imagine a useful weapon that has a range not much
> longer than its own dimensions... at least, not one much more useful
> than a club or a sword.)

Reaching back into my vague memory, I remember reading about a light
weapon which was first used in Biblical times!  I believe I read this
in "Sky and Telescope" many years ago.  The reference was to a "burning
glass" that was used to ignite invading ships in a harbor.  Someone
proved that such a weapon was feasible and demonstrated it.  He rounded
up several hundred volunteers and gave each a large mirror.  On his
signal, everyone focused the reflected sunlight of each mirror on a small
boat.  Within a few seconds, the boat caught fire.

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

Date: 7 Dec 86 19:09:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


/* Written  7:24 pm  Dec  4, 1986 by vnend@ukecc.UUCP in
uiucdcsp:sci.space */

>	Would the lenses on a large refracting space telescope need to
>be made of glass (or any other solid for that matter)? In zero G the
>surface tension of a clear liquid could be used to pull it into a lens
>shape.

[...]

>
>	Just a wild idea...


I don't want to pop your bubble (teh-heh-heh) but liquids like to boil
away in the absense of atmosphere.  Said atmosphere would undoubtedly
wiggle your soap film (or whatever) all out of alignment as the air (or
whatever) moves around due to thermal effects.


>  
>-- 
>****************************************************************************
>Later y'all,             Vnend         Ignorance is the Mother of Adventure.
>**UUCP:cbosgd!ukma!ukecc!vnend;             CSNET:vnend@ecc.engr.uky.csnet**
>****************************************************************************
/* End of text from uiucdcsp:sci.space */


        -- Ken Jenks
		jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
		{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp
			VAXing Poetic At
		              	Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

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

Date: 7 Dec 86 19:00:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cra
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


/* Written  8:21 am  Dec  5, 1986 by symon@unc.UUCP in uiucdcsp:sci.space */
>> Robert Elton Maas writes:
>> > Just an idea: climb a staircase to closer to the center of revolution
>> > to decrease G force, then take flight. Or step onto elecronic
>> > person-launcher which tosses you into the air towards center of rev.
>> > At landing end, no problem since gravity is assisting you and at 1/3 G
>> > the landing should be graceful enough. Rebuttal/discussion anyone?
>> 
>> 	Graceful - perhaps, lethal - probably.  Unfortunately gravity
>> isn't the problem here - momentum is.  You would still have the same momentum
>> under low-g conditions - and would break your legs, crush your spine and
>> generally make a mess of the landscape in precicesly the same manner as if
>> you had tried such a stunt in high-g.


Now wait a minute!  Momentum is mass * (velocity^2).  If your velocity
doesn't get as high under low-G as it would under high-G, then your
momentum wouldn't be as great.  This applies to VERTICAL momentum &
velocity.  Momentum does not depend directly on gravity, but gravity
does affect HORIZONTAL velocity because the lift needed to counter
gravity is directly proportional to forward velocity.  This means that
the total momentum would be lower in a low-G area than a high-G area.


>
>
>   I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration)
>on landing that you felt in the "person launcher".

[...]


That would only apply under frictionless conditions -- this is
definitely not frictionless.  You're confusing ideal, frictionless,
text-book problems with the "real" world.


>
>				Jim Symon
>UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
>symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA
/* End of text from uiucdcsp:sci.space */



        -- Ken Jenks
		jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
		{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp
			VAXing Poetic At
		              	Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #68
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02116; Wed, 10 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST
	id AA02116; Wed, 10 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 86 03:02:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612101102.AA02116@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #69

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 69

Today's Topics:
		   Re: Other Asteroid uses (upset)
		     space news from Oct 20 AW&ST
	       Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cra
	Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 86 23:28:26 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!ewiles@seismo.css.gov  (Edwin Wiles)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses (upset)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In art. <2111@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP> jnp@calmasd.CALMA.UUCP (John Pantone) writes:
>In article <207@netxcom.UUCP>, ewiles@netxcom.UUCP (Edwin Wiles) writes:
>...edited...
>
>> Being basically paranoid about nuclear weapons (Ye' can't tell me it ain't!)
>> And somewhat dubious of being able to calculate the precise yield needed
>> to expand the asteroid into a balloon shape, without blowing it open:
>
>... extremely clever suggesstion re: glass blowing art as applied to
>blowing bubbles out of asteroids...omitted
>
>> As a bonus, you don't have to put it through decontamination before you
>> can inhabit it! :-)
>
>It's actually very easy to make a nuke which is clean - i.e. no residual
>radiation.  I wish people would stop wigging out whenever they hear the word 
>NUCLEAR.
>
>Biophysicists have had to re-name their most recent diagnostic tool
>from Nuclear Magnetic Resonnance Imaging to Magnetic Resonnance...
>(which makes less sense - the resonance is nuclear in origin) since
>the media was freaking on the use of NUCLEAR.  A particularly ignorant
>reaction, since the effect is not radioactive in any way at all - not even
>a little. Your flashlight is more radioactive.
>-- 
>These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.  
>John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma Advanced Systems Group, San Diego
>...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp   

Mr. Pantone,

I have nothing against the word nuclear.  I even still call NMR, Nuclear
Magnetic Resonance.  I saw the 'freak out' you mentioned and felt the
same way you appear to feel about it.

I also thank you for the kind word about my suggested technique.

However, You seem to imply that since I feel paranoid about nuclear WEAPONS,
that I'm also paranoid about anything nuclear.  This is NOT TRUE!

Since the implication was made publicly, I ask you to publicly retract it.
I also ask that you be a bit more circumspect in what you assume about
another person, of whom you have no knowledge other than a single posting.

				Signed,
					Edwin Wiles
					Net Express, Inc.
					1953 Gallows Rd. Suite 300
					Vienna, VA 22180

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

Date: 9 Dec 86 02:37:24 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Oct 20 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

NASA is looking into using a split-S maneuver to get the Shuttle back to
the KSC runway in the event of a multi-engine-failure abort.  Keeping the
orbiter close enough to the launch site to make this feasible would mean
a steeper trajectory, costing maybe 5000 lbs of payload.

NASA is talking privately to various Shuttle ex-customers bumped from the
new Shuttle manifest, in an attempt to head off lawsuits over launch-delay
costs.  The launch-services agreements provide for immediate refunds of
payments for launch services after cancellation, but NASA is balking at
the idea of refunds for services already performed or for hardware already
bought that cannot now be used.

NASA is behind its summer schedule for Shuttle recovery.  Badly.  Virtually
none of the things that were supposed to happen by Oct 1st did.  They may
be done by the end of October.

Transpace is considering legal action against NASA over NASA's decision to
terminate commercial-Delta negotiations with Transpace.  NASA now says that
McDonnell-Douglas, which makes Delta, is the only group that NASA has any
reason to talk to.  Transpace may still get involved, as McD-D's agent.
They are angry at NASA's abrupt turnabout, after months of assuring Transpace
that everything was fine.

Congressional committee approves the latest version of the Space Station
work reshuffle.  Rep. Nelson slams NASA for proceeding with international
negotiations on station operations while having no clear plan for said
operations.

Goddard starts procurement of an Explorer Platform satellite bus designed
for in-space exchange of payloads by Shuttle visits.  The original plan
was that Solar Max was to become this bus after retrieval late this decade,
but the 51L aftermath delayed that retrieval drastically.

Some glossy pictures of Mir, exterior shots in orbit and some pre-launch
interior photos.  Soviets say typical Mir crew size will be 5-6.

Atlantis rolled out to pad 39B on Oct 9th, for a variety of tests.  No
other rollouts are planned until flights resume.

China launches and recovers a small photographic Earth-resources satellite.

Astronauts slam NASA for not getting its act in gear on Shuttle recovery.
Early-1988 launch date said unrealistic unless NASA makes changes to get
things moving.  There is also concern about the planned post-recovery flight
rates, which they think too high for the fleet and too high for the
current training and simulation resources.

Report on crew-escape options has gone to Truly for review.  Astronauts
feel that the better escape systems cannot be ready for flight resumption,
and there may have to be an interim system.  The program is maintaining a
1000-lb reserve for escape systems.  The long-term option most favored is
an extraction system that would get about six crew out of the top of the
orbiter, all roughly simultaneously to avoid queueing up in a crisis.
Simple roof bailout hatches and parachutes might be a workable interim method.

Astronauts claim that the number of things they would like to see fixed
before first flight far outstrips available time and funding between now
and Feb 1988.  They say NASA needs to look hard at what it is trying to
accomplish, and revise the schedule accordingly.

SRB redesign is well underway, but astronauts are disappointed with general
program recovery.  After the Apollo fire in 1967, the command module was
significantly redesigned and flown in 18 months.  Unnamed astronaut:
"Management has either got to cut back what they want to do before restarting
flights, or get a 'tiger team' approach to pick up on momentum.  We are going
on nine months now [since 51L] and have some things being fixed, but a lot
more things are still just being studied or talked about."

NRC oversight panel endorses NASA's general approach to SRB fixes, but
urges more testing and development of alternatives in case the selected
design doesn't pan out.  They say horizontal testing looks okay, given
a new test stand that can reproduce dynamic loads properly.

NASA names astronaut Frederick D. Gregory, a USAF colonel, to the new
position of agency-wide safety boss.

Soviet 1988 Mars/Phobos probe to use new modular interplanetary spacecraft,
now entering final development.  Design features include a liquid-fuel
propulsion system adaptable to various missions, a separate terminal-
maneuvering system for use after the main propulsion unit is jettisoned,
provision for use in landing missions (given suitable legs), and modular
design of upper section to allow mission-specific payloads.  [Can you
say "Mariner Mark 2"?  Sure you can.  Only the Soviets are *building* it
instead of talking about it.  -- HS]

France will perform medical and industrial experiments during the long-
duration flight of a French cosmonaut aboard Mir late in 1988.  Final
planning approval is imminent.  Activities will include an EVA to deploy
supports for a satellite-to-satellite-communication antenna, testing of
a new solar-array mechanism aimed at the second-generation Spot, an
eye/hand coordination experiment aimed at the Hermes spaceplane, and
life-science work on adaptation to space.  The French flight is expected
to last about four weeks, with some possibility of an extension.
[Can you say "Space Station"?  etc etc as above.  -- HS]

France prepares to start development work on the Spot 4 and 5 second-
generation Earth-resources satellites.  Changes will include a new
vegetation-humidity band in the high-resolution cameras, a new radiometer
for large-scale work, a simpler solar-panel array, and general upgrades
and improvements.  Improvements to the ground-based systems are also
planned.  Spots 2 and 3, identical to Spot 1, are scheduled to launch
in mid-1987 and mid-1989 resp., with Spot 4 production starting early in
1988 for launch in mid-1992.  Approval for Spot 5 would permit it to
launch about a year later.

Spacehab, Inc. has begun accepting non-binding agreements for middeck
locker volume in its Spacehab module, which will function as an annex to
the orbiter middeck.  Spacehab doesn't yet have a flight slot, but hopes
to find enough high-priority experiments to get aboard in 1989.  Payments
from customers won't start until a launch-services agreement with NASA is
signed.  Preliminary agreement is expected late this year.  Spacehab is
close to picking a systems-engineering/integration contractor.  Aeritalia
is building the primary structure and control systems, using its Spacelab
experience.  A full-scale Spacehab mockup is now at NASA Ames, for use as
a testbed for robotics development.

Glavkosmos, the Soviet space-engineering agency, calls on US to end legal
restrictions that prevent most Western satellites from using Soviet launches.
Continuous customer surveillance of payloads against unauthorized technology
transfer is possible, they say, and the lack of commercial infrastructure at
Soviet launch sites can be remedied given demand.  They are currently aiming
their marketing efforts mostly at international organizations like Intelsat
and Inmarsat, which they see as easier customers.

Optical-fiber communications are beginning to present a serious threat to
satellite links for fixed-point operators in populated areas.  It is admitted
that satellites will always have an edge in remote areas and will dominate
long-range mobile communications.

Intelsat is building first examples of a new Earth station design, smaller
and cheaper than its current standard, to make satellite communications
affordable for smaller countries.

Letter from the Kettering Group questions the widespread assumption that
high Soviet launch rates are due to unreliable satellites that need frequent
replacement.  Communications monitoring has shown that "retired" satellites
can be, and are, reactivated when the need arises.

[Editorial of the Week:

The slow pace of Shuttle recovery continues to be an outrage.  The Apollo
fire is a good example of how it should be done.  Another comes from the
early 1950s:  the early development history of the F-100 supersonic fighter.
This was the first US supersonic fighter, and events were similar in certain
ways to the Shuttle.  Tests went pretty well, with the exception of some
warnings from the senior test pilot about stability problems.  After it
was decided not to court-martial him [!] for this, the conclusion was that
the problems were off in obscure corners of the flight envelope that had
no relevance to normal service use.  The F-100 was officially declared
operational.  There were a few ominous signs, notably some unexplained
crashes, but things mostly seemed okay.  Then a fairly routine high-speed-
pullout test ended abruptly when the aircraft disintegrated, killing the
pilot.

Unlike the Shuttle, this was not the result of a relatively minor design
flaw:  the problem was a fundamental rule of aircraft dynamics that was
not understood until this crash was investigated.  That is, the problem
was deeper and scarier.

Determining the cause of the crash took about three months, roughly the
same time it took the Rogers Commission to do the same thing.  So far
so good.

The F-100s then *RESUMED FLYING* immediately, with restrictions on missions
and maneuvers to avoid trouble.  The final fixes to eliminate the problem
took a while longer, since of course they required a deeper understanding,
plus considerable design and development effort, plus the retrofitting
of all existing F-100s.  Elapsed time from crash to completion of retrofit
program:  nine whole months.

					-- HS]
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 9 Dec 86 09:20:52 GMT
From: jade!tart11!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: compromise, neither O'Neill nor cra
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <74700005@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:

[Re: low gravity person-launcer in an O'Niell colony.]

>Now wait a minute!  Momentum is mass * (velocity^2).  If your velocity
>doesn't get as high under low-G as it would under high-G, then your
>momentum wouldn't be as great.  This applies to VERTICAL momentum &
>velocity.  Momentum does not depend directly on gravity, but gravity
>does affect HORIZONTAL velocity because the lift needed to counter
>gravity is directly proportional to forward velocity.  This means that
>the total momentum would be lower in a low-G area than a high-G area.

	Bullshit!  LEARN FRESHMAN PHYSICS.  What on Earth do you mean
by "horizontal" and "vertical" in regard to someone flying through the
middle of an O'Niell colony?

>>   I think actually you would feel the same acceleration (deceleration)
>>on landing that you felt in the "person launcher".
>[...]

>That would only apply under frictionless conditions -- this is
>definitely not frictionless.  You're confusing ideal, frictionless,
>text-book problems with the "real" world.

	Actually, air resistance is pretty minimal.  E.g., if I throw
a tennis ball up in the air, it will come down fairly hard.  When you
move at slower speeds, air friction becomes even less noticible.

Adam J. Richter					adamj@lime.berkeley.edu

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

Date: 9 Dec 86 09:26:30 GMT
From: jade!tart11!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

	1. To the best of my knowledge, there is no liquid that exists in
a vacuum (they all boil at there "critical pressure" regardless of
temperature).

	2. A gas would dispurse.  Indeed, space is just a *very* thin
gas cloud.  For example, there is no "surface" of a planetary
atmosphere; it just gets thinner and thinner.

		-- Adam
Adam J. Richter					adamj@lime.berkeley.edu

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #69
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05576; Thu, 11 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST
	id AA05576; Thu, 11 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612111102.AA05576@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #70

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 11 Dec 86 03:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #70

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 70

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
		  Ancient use of mirrors as weapons
	      Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Dec 86 23:22:28 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Flat mirrors and Analog story
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>     From: jtk@s1-c.arpa  (Jordan Kare)
> 
>     ...  In reality, it is at least as hard to make a flat as to make
>     a spherical mirror -- harder, in that there isn't a convenient
>     focal point for doing optical tests.
> 
>   Are you sure of that?  Seems to me one could make a a flat mirror by
> grinding it against a flat surface.  In any case, they were competing
> against parabolic mirror sections, not spherical mirror sections.

Optical flats can be validated by use of Newton's Rings, an interference
fringe phenomenon that involves putting the optical flat into a shallow
bath of water, with the surface of the water being presumed to be flat
because of gravity squeezing everything to level.  (Clearly there are
some problems using Newton's Rings to determine the flatness of objects
a few miles across because the surface of the water becomes non-flat.)

Clayton E. Cramer

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

Date: Tue 9 Dec 86 18:40:04-CST
From: Larry Van Sickle <CS.VANSICKLE@r20.utexas.edu>
Subject: Ancient use of mirrors as weapons
To: space@angband.s1.gov

bl@hplabs.hp.com (Bruce T. Lowerre) writes:

> Reaching back into my vague memory, I remember reading about a 
> light weapon which was first used in Biblical times!   The 
> reference was to a "burning glass" that was used to ignite 
> invading ships in a harbor.  Someone proved that such a weapon 
> was feasible and demonstrated it.  He rounded up several hundred 
> volunteers and gave each a large mirror.  On his signal, everyone 
> focused the reflected sunlight of each mirror on a small boat. 
> Within a few seconds, the boat caught fire.

Bruce is quite right.  The reference is to Archimedes and an incident
which was reported to have occurred during the siege of Syracuse by the
Roman consul Marcellus during the Second Punic War in 212 B.C.  From the
Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology, Volume I, London,
1844, page 270:

    [Archimedes] constructed for Hiero various engines of war . . .
    Tzetzes (about 1150) gives an account of the principal
    investigations of Archimedes, and amongst them of this burning
    machine, which, he says, set the Roman ships on fire when they
    came within a bow-shot of the walls . . . The subject has been a
    good deal discussed in modern times, particularly by . . .
    Buffon, who .  . . actually succeeded in igniting wood at a
    distance of 150 feet, by means of a combination of 148 plane
    mirrors.  . . .  The most probable conclusion seems to be, that
    Archimedes had on some occasion set fire to a ship or ships by
    means of a burning mirror, and later writers falsely connected
    the circumstances with the siege of Syracuse.

This does not contradict the points made by others that such a weapon
would work only for very short focal lengths.  However, I would commend
Dennis O'Connor for bringing this subject up - ideas for any such
structures should be examined for their potential as weapons.  The idea
that mankind is going to leave weapons behind when it moves into space
is wishful thinking.

Larry Van Sickle
cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu.#Internet
Computer Sciences Department
U of Texas at Austin

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

Date: Tue, 9 Dec 86 19:41:12 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Announcement of Opportunity (NASA Jargon)

[leq: in a nearby by galaxy, close, closer, closest.....]

It's time for university students to realize they MUST start preparing
resumes if they want the best summer opportunities: outside of NASA as
well as inside.
	--eugene


If you are a student looking for employment next summer, now is the time
to prepare a resume and fill out the application form for NASA summer
employment.  This message is being posted for those with dreams from
youth.  This is your chance.  Do not delay.  This is a crude posting,
but time is running out.

Unfortunately, each of the NASA Centers is recruiting summer students
using different policies from the past due to budgetary contraints.
NASA Ames and Lewis are using local Universities to hire summer
students, other Centers are doing other things.

The window for submitting SF 171s is January 1 to February 1.  If you
are interested, you should have your resume and forms filled out before
January 1.  Also, for mailing to other NASA centers: YOU MUST BE A
CITIZEN OF THE UNITED STATES to apply.  We have received several resumes
from non-US citizen, sorry, we cannot take you.  Do not forget to state
that you are seeking summer positions!  Foreign nationals with a green
card are okay for JPL.  NASA and its contractors are equal opportunity
employers. (usually)

NASA is the US civilian space agency [we are not part of the DOD].  If
you have ethical qualms about working for the DOD, but want to work in
high tech, consider NASA.  Technically for instance, all of Ames funding
is from the civilian pot.  Approximately 10% of our programs have some
interest to the military and are reimbersed by them.  This Center does
NO SDI work.  I learned this information for Computer Professionals for
Social Responsibility [CPSR].  Note that several Centers (Ames, Johnson,
Kennedy, Langley) share land with military bases. (Other Centers do not:
Goddard with USDA, Lewis with Cleveland Airport, etc.)  JPL is a
contracted lab to Caltech.  They have choosen limited military
contracts, but in all cases, it is possible to positions away from joint
or direct military work if you choose.  As a reminder, we have projects
which deal with manned and unmanned space, near Earth orbit as well as
deep space, aeronautics, and many aspects of air research.  NASA is in
desparate need of young computer types [You're our only hope...].

The resources within NASA vary from supercomputers such as Crays to PCs.
The problems and people are interesting; I have worked with varying
problems: from Voyager (computer graphics and image processing with Carl
Sagan) to most recently, nuclear winter with Tom Ackerman.

What we are looking for: [not specific titles]
>	exposure to numerical methods
>	General operating systems background
>	Parallel processing
>	Computer graphics
>	Simulation
>	Expert systems and other forms of AI.
>	Computer aided design
>	General software engineering

Additionally, there are non-computer openings, but I am unable to
provide any special help, so you have to take pot luck.

Standard Form 171.
To apply (with the exception of JPL), please fill out a standard Form 171.
This is the form used for all employment within the Federal Government.
If you are uncertain about anything regarding summer hiring, you can
mail me (preferred) or phone me before the end of December at (415)-694-6453.
[Better to send me net mail as I need to take some vacation.]

Problems working with NASA.  Let's be truthful.  Salary can be a
problem, so if you would prefer working for a contractor, state that on
your cover letter.  We will try to forward resumes if possible. Another
problem is locale.  Sorry, we bought land where it was cheap (at the
time).  Some positions sound like they use obsolete equipment (in some
cases this is true, but we recognize the problem and are buying
state-of-the-art equipment, manpower is our biggest problem).

The following descriptions are obviously biased to the Centers I have
worked at and toward contacts I have.  If you are not interested in a
computing position, either the contact or myself should try to help you.
[If you are mailing to specific people, mail ASAP, don't wait for Jan. 1.]

E. N. Miya
MS 233-14
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA 94035
Including the Dryden Flight Research Facility (Ames/Dryden) located at
Edwards AFB where the Space Shuttle lands.  We also have numerous
contractors including the Research Institute for Advanced Computer
Science.  We can forward a resume if so indicated (171 for RIACS is not
necessary).  Ames has a Cyber 205, Cray XMP and a Cray 2, and numerous
other machines.  Located in the heart of Santa Clara Valley.
Aerodynamics, chemistry, life sciences, SETI, space station work (AI).
Our summer hires will become employees of San Jose State University.  A
SF 171 is unnecessary for applying to Ames, send a resume and we will
mail you an additional application packet.

Barry Cooper
MS 125-123
Jet Propulsion Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, CA 91109
Work at JPL includes VLSI CAD, image processing, general purpose
computing on IBMs, Univacs, and the normal complement of VAXen and PDPs.
JPL is involved in deep space missions and communications.  A form 171
is not necessary.  Barry no longer has a net address.  NASA's Deep space
center, the DSN (Deep Space Network), the Mission Control and Computing
Center (MC^3), various planetary and imageing facilities, robotics and
other AI.  {Note Barry is currently on vacation but will be back in
January.}

E. Flynn
NASA Headquarters
Washington DC 20546
Dr. Flinn is with the Office of Space Sciences.  There is limited use of
computers at NASA HQ, but I do know people who have summer jobbed in WDC.
Dr. Flynn no longer has a net address.

Joe Bredekamp
Code 630.1
NASA Goddard Space Flight Center
Greenbelt, MD 20771
GSFC has a Cyber 205, Amdahls soon to be running UTS, and performs work
on unmanned near Earth space missions.  They are located just outside
Washington DC.  Landsat, massively parallel processor, and other sats.
Joe has a BITNET address k3jhb%scfvm.bitnet@wiscvm.edu.

Bob Steinberg
NASA Lewis Research Center
21000 Brookpark Rd.
Cleveland, OH 44135
LeRC does work on aerodynamics.  They have a Cray-X-MP.
Bob can be reached via our internal UUCP net.

NASA Johnson Manned Space Center
Houston, TX 77058
The heart of all manned space operations.  One of the largest NASA
centers.  They run on IBMs and Univacs on the large-end to HP 9000s on
the small end.  Gearing up for the space station.  They are reachable
thru rice.edu.

NASA Kennedy Space Flight Center
Titusville, FL 32899
The Eastern launch complex for major flights.  Many small minis and
other computers such as IBMs.  Gearing up for the space station.

NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, AL35812
The largest NASA Center.  It does work on manned and unmanned space.
They have a separate facility known as the McCloud Computer Center which
houses large IBMs.  Gearing up for the space station.

Sue Voigt
NASA Langley Research Center
Hampton, VA 23665
LaRC has a Cyber 205 and VAXen.  Those interested in numerical analysis
should know that ICASE (Inst. for Comp. Appl. in Sci.  and Eng.) is
located at Langley.  Send your resumes (if interested in ICASE) to Bob
Voigt.  They are doing lots of aerodynamics and space work.  Gearing up
for the space station. (suev%icase.csnet)

If I did not indicate a point of contact, mail me your resume and a copy
to the Office of Personnel at that site.  I will try to help you out as
best as possible.

There are also several other NASA sites under the control of the above
Centers.  For instance: at the Ames Research Center, we have the Dryden
Flight Research Facility 100 miles N of Los Angeles at Edwards AFB.  If
you are not interested in the above, perhaps there are other NASA
offices nearer than you think.  Ask me using the net.  Some sites I can
think about are near VAFB, White Sands, NM, the McCloud facility in LA,
the Wallops Island facility, and the Goddard Space Institute near NY
(uncertain about their summer policies).

COOPerative work with a university or college is possible.  If you have
an interest in this, make this clear in your cover letter and check with
your local work-study office.  You must be a college student [I checked
for a high school student earlier: no go.]

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Res. Ctr.
  {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,menlo70,icase}!ames!aurora!eugene
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA (note we are moving some machines and net may
  go down for a while)

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #70
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01296; Fri, 12 Dec 86 03:02:21 PST
	id AA01296; Fri, 12 Dec 86 03:02:21 PST
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 86 03:02:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612121102.AA01296@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #71

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 12 Dec 86 03:02:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #71

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 71

Today's Topics:
	Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
	Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
		      Re: Large Telescope ideas
			  Mercurial Mirrors
		   Re: Intense Sunlight from Space
		     re: Dale and historic trivia
			 Re: Flat mirrors ...
		       Re: Sunlight as a weapon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Dec 86 04:03:00 GMT
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com  (Jay Freeman)
Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

    I seem to recall that what is responsible for both reflection and
refraction is the interaction of light with electrons in the material in
question.  Perhaps anyone thinking about *large* space telescopes should
consider using electromagnetic means of manipulating a cloud of plasma.
No, I haven't any idea how, just thinking aloud.

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

Date: 9 Dec 86 14:23:36 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Large Refractors (was Re: Probes vs Large scopes)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> How about a gas?  It would have refractive properties in a vacuum.  I
> suspect the problem would be with the corrector element (for chromatic
> aberration) which has at least one side which is concave.

See articles 197 and 212 in sci.space newsgroup (are we all reading and
writing in the same newsgroup, and are the numbers of the articles that
I see the same numbers that everyone else sees?) For different shapes
how about pushing one filled balloon (stretched over a ring) up against
another with a different internal pressure? Put several in a series.
Variables include ring size(lens diameter), gas pressure and filtering
characteristics, balloon material flexibility, optics, and even some
flexibility gradient across the lens, etc.  I suppose one might conceive
of one or two slight problems to be overcome.

				Jim Symon
UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
symon%unc@csnet-relay.ARPA

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

Date: 9 Dec 86 21:51:01 GMT
From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch)
Subject: Re: Large Telescope ideas
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The current arguments point out why we will not build telescopes larger
than about 100 meters along conventional lines.  A much better approach
is to think about methods of doing very long baseline imaging
interferometry.

It is possible to convert the optical signal to an modulated eximer
laser signal, and transmit it long distances.  The signals are recorded,
and are processed offline.  Another thought is to use a VERY long
optical fiber to connect receptors to the recording instrument.  True,
you need both signal strength and baseline to image planets at a
distance, but if you are willing to integrate over very long periods,
you can reduce the need for signal strength.

-David B. (Ben) Burch
 Analysts International Corp.
 Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)

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

To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Mercurial Mirrors
Date: Wed, 10 Dec 86 16:53:54 -0500
From: Sheri L. Smith <ltsmith@mitre.arpa>

The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an interesting
article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a puddle of liquid
mercury in a shallow frame.  The entire device spins slowly (1
revolution/6 seconds) to give the 40 inch diameter mirror the correct
concavity. The builder Ermanno Borra, of Quebec's Laval University,
emphasizes that he is not the originator of the idea, merely the first
to actually make it work. Size is not a problem here, as with greater
than 200 inch mirrors: the astrophysicist claims his approach will
permit the construction of virtually flawless mirrors at least five
times as large as Palomar's.

Borra concedes the one insurmountable flaw of a liquid mirror: it can
only look straight up. Of course, HUGE mirrors, even looking straight
up, will cut a large swath through the night sky. He proposes numbers of
such mirrors, set up at different latitudes, to cover the full spectrum
of the sky.  Certain problems in astrophysics would lend themselves to
this sort of an approach.

A great advantage of this sort of telescope is its low cost. The
prototype 40 inch model cost under $7,500 to build. Borra is the
recipient of a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research
Council of Canada for a 60 inch version now under construction
($22,500). Borra estimates the cost of a liquid mirror telescope as
large as 30 meters for $7.5 million.  He compares this to the 400 inch,
36 segment mirror for the Keck Telescope to be erected in Hawaii for
some $25 million.

Vibration distortion is reduced by a thin layer of oil on the surface,
and debris and dust is easily skimmed off.

-------
OK, all you dreamers out there! How would you go about building this in
space???
-------

LT S. L. Moreau, USN
WIS JPMO
Washington, DC 20330-6600

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

Date: Wed, 10 Dec 86 23:40:55 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Intense Sunlight from Space
To: OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

    From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL    <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>

    ... After the colimating lens, place a disk ... of ... graded-index
    optical fibers aligned in parrallel. Graded-index fibers cause light
    entering them from slightly off-axis angles to line up with the
    axis.  This big disk will reduce the divergence of the image to
    about .0001 radians or so ...

  Sorry, won't work.  What graded index fibers do is keep light from
getting too far from the axis of the fiber.  They do not really decrease
the divergence.  Light will leave with at best the same divergence as it
entered.
  This can best be visualized by remembering that optical paths are
always reversable.  If a fiber could exist which decrease the
divergence of light going in one end and coming out the other, then it
would increase the divergence of light entering the latter end and
exiting the former.  But the two ends are equivalent, i.e. it's made of
the same stuff whichever way you turn it.  So it can't do what you
think it does.
  Similarly, there isn't really such a thing as one way glass.  And if
decreasing-divergence fibers or one way glass did exist, it would be
easy to build a perpetual motion machine (of the second class) using
it.
								...Keith

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

Date: 11 Dec 86 04:16:59 GMT
From: k.cs.cmu.edu!jwa@PT.CS.CMU.EDU  (James Anderson)
Subject: re: Dale and historic trivia
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The person was Archimedes and allegedly he was drawing geometric
formulae in the sand when he ignored a roman soldier and was killed,
with a SHORT sword, the common roman hand weapon, not a big sword.
Additionally the soldier was slain for killing Archimedes since the
attacking general had ordered he be taken alive.  This story nicely
illustrates two points, stupidity is fatal (the soldier), and genius
without common sense can be just as deadly.

							Jim

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

Date: 11 Dec 86 11:35:46 PST (Thursday)
From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Flat mirrors ...
In-Reply-To: Cramer's message of 8 Dec 86 23:22:28 GMT
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

Cramer> Clearly there are some problems using Newton's Rings to 
Cramer> determine the flatness of objects a few miles across because 
Cramer> the surface of the water becomes non-flat.

It's a lot worse than you thought.  The water against which you wish to
check flatness has already dropped (because of earth's curvature) an
eighth of a wavelength in three feet.  You can still use interference
patterns on mirrors larger than this if you work the mirror until the
rings are the right place for the earth's curvature, a more difficult
problem than making the rings go away to indicate flat.  Also, getting
the water sufficiently isolated from vibration may not be trivial.

/Don Lynn

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

Date: 11 Dec 86 16:43:26 GMT
From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Sunlight as a weapon
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <961516.861211.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>    From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
>
>    Reaching back into my vague memory, I remember reading about a light
>    weapon which was first used in Biblical times!  ...  The reference was
>    to a "burning glass" that was used to ignite invading ships in a harbor.
>
>  Yes, it was Archimedes who is credited with having 160 men reflect
>sunlight from their flat shields to set fire to an invading fleet.
>A sort of a 3rd century BC SDI system.
>  In principle, it is possible.  Not that I see how they could have
>aimed them.
>								...Keith
This was during the seige of Syracuse by the Romans
under Marcellus.  There are many ways of aiming a
heliograph mirror (which is an equivalent problem),
using simple plane geometry.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #71
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03012; Sat, 13 Dec 86 03:01:59 PST
	id AA03012; Sat, 13 Dec 86 03:01:59 PST
Date: Sat, 13 Dec 86 03:01:59 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612131101.AA03012@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #72

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 72

Today's Topics:
		      Imaging Extrasolar Planets
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
		       Re: Sunlight as a weapon
			  More on Archimedes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 11 Dec 86 18:00 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  Imaging Extrasolar Planets

After sending the comment about scopes vs. fly-by probes for extrasolar
planetary imaging, I went on vacation for a while, so I was unable to
contribute to the ensuing discussion.  Some comments...

As was pointed out, a reflector telescope may not be the best
design.  In space refractors can be made *very* long, which makes
the lenses thin.  A comment was also made about the HST being
good for UV.  If imaging in the UV is crucial then use diamond
lenses, or gas bags filled with helium.

Also, remember that conventional telescopes use large aperatures to
increase the number of photons collected, not just increase the resolution.
For imaging planets around nearby stars a ten kilometer scope is
overkill (from the photon statistics point of view).  Decoupling photon
collection efficiency from diffraction limits can lead to novel
designs.  Two examples:

(1) A diffraction telescope.  The idea is to use a fresnel zone plate
to focus light in a very narrow wavelength range.  The plate is
generated in real-time by directing two laser wavefronts (one spherical,
the other nearly planar) on a sheet of optically nonlinear material.
The plate will have severe chromatic abberation, but we can filter out all
photons except those in a narrow frequency band (different from that of
the laser beams).

(2) A tomographic occultation telescope.  Set up a large opaque screen.
Place the screen between a smaller scope and the  planet.  Now maneuver the
scope so that the edge of the screen occults the planet.  By putting the
scope sufficiently far from the screen diffraction around the edge can
be reduced (but the screen must then be larger to still cover the planet).
Scan the scope through the penumbra to get a one-dimensional brightness
curve.  Rotate the screen (or, use a circular screen and multiple small
scopes) and repeat.  Techniques like those used in CAT scanners can
reconstruct an intensity map of the planet from the brightness curves.
I imagine the screen will be several kilometers across and the smaller
scopes will be stationed several billion kilometers behind it.


Finally, my criticism only applied to planetary imaging by fly-by probes.
Clearly, detailed study of a planet requires close contact, which means
manned colonization missions.  Fly-by probes could at least serve as
test-beds for technology to be used in these later flights.

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

Date: 11 Dec 86 23:28:08 GMT
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com  (Jay Freeman)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


<*munch*>

    One might use the liquid-mirror principle for a space telescope
simply by accelerating the container holding the liquid.  There's probably
no need to have a mirror that remains liquid while it is being used.
But imagine a very nearly paraboloidal "bowl" that is spun s-l-o-w-l-y
about its axis while being accelerated s-l-o-w-l-y along its axis.
A thin layer of liquid in the bowl would create a much better paraboloid
than the bowl itself.  One could let the liquid harden and pop it out,
or let it harden and use it in the bowl, or let it harden, use it in
the space environment and then "refigure" it by remelting when 
micrometeoroids and so on had caused the optical surface to degrade.

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

Date: 11 Dec 86 22:10:58 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

<note: original posting edited>

> The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an interesting
> article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a puddle of liquid mercury
> in a shallow frame.  The entire device spins slowly (1 revolution/6 seconds)
> to give the 40 inch diameter mirror the correct concavity. The builder
> Ermanno Borra...
> ...claims his approach will permit the construction of virtually flawless
> mirrors at least five times as large as Palomar's.
> 
> Borra concedes the one insurmountable flaw of a liquid mirror: it can only
> look straight up...
> 
> A great advantage of this sort of telescope is its low cost. 
> 
> Vibration distortion is reduced by a thin layer of oil on the surface, and
> debris and dust is easily skimmed off.
> 
> OK, all you dreamers out there! How would you go about building this in
> space???
> 
> LT S. L. Moreau, USN
> WIS JPMO
> Washington, DC 20330-6600

It should be easier to build in space than on the ground.  I read that 
TIME article too, and it seems that one of the biggest problems with
building one of them previously has been vibration from the bearings and
speed variations from the motors.  Neither of these problems need be 
confronted in space.  You simply spin the whole assembly; bearings and
motors are not required.  Once spun up to speed with small rockets,
inertia keeps it steady.

What is required is a substitute for gravity.  An ion propulsion system,
powered by an electrical source with no moving parts, would fill in nicely.
You don't need a full g (or anything close to it), and could spin the
telescope more slowly than you would on the surface of the earth.  Since
the use of acceleration would have an effect on the telescope's orbit,
I'd expect this thing to be placed in a rather high orbit where the velocity
changes incurred during observations could be "undone" before they put
it on an undesirable course.

Note that in space you don't have the aiming problem you have on earth,
as you can simply point, fire the engines, wait for the mirror to stabilize,
and observe.  Since the liquid mercury would tend to slosh around a lot
during pointing maneuvers, you might want to imbed heating and cooling coils
in it so that you could freeze the stuff (in its parabolic shape), re-point
the telescope, and then thaw it back out again for the observation (I am
assuming that thermal stresses induced when the mirror is frozen would
render it useless for observation until re-melted and stabilized).

One more thing--you would definitely want this telescope to be unmanned,
as vibrations induced by people moving around would render it useless.
You would probably want no moving parts anywhere on it during observations
(this includes tape recording equipment, heating/cooling, etc.); the lack
of moving parts is what makes ion propulsion so attractive.


Dan Starr
AT&T Bell Laboratories, Naperville IL

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

Date: 12 Dec 86 00:20:19 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm!tekigm2!timothym@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Timothy D Margeson)
Subject: Re: Sunlight as a weapon
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <961516.861211.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>  Yes, it was Archimedes who is credited with having 160 men reflect
>sunlight from their flat shields to set fire to an invading fleet.
>A sort of a 3rd century BC SDI system.
>  In principle, it is possible.  Not that I see how they could have
>aimed them.
>								...Keith

Have you ever played with a flat mirror in broad daylight? Aim is simply a
matter of looking at where that REAL bright spot is, and moving the mirror
with the correct hand-eye coordination.

Hence, with 160 men - and their 3 to 4 square foot shields - you have a solar
furnace equal to 600 square feet focused down to 4 square feet. Not as great
as say a 4 inch magnifying glass on an ant, but a reasonable facimily. It is
an interesting concept to try focusing said 4 inch (12.6 sq. in.) glass down
to a spot 0.164 inches in diameter (0.085 sq. in.), and measure the mean rise
in temperature on a small piece of wood (this would effectively equate by the
same ratio of the shields).

As I recall, a 4 inch glass making a .2 inch spot on my hand was at best more
than comfortable :-) !


-- 
Tim Margeson (206)253-5240
PO Box 3500  d/s C1-937                          @@   'Who said that?'  
Vancouver, WA. 98668
{amd..hplabs}cae780!tektronix!tekigm2!timothym (this changes daily)

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

Date: Fri 12 Dec 86 10:35:58-PST
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sushi.stanford.edu>
Subject: More on Archimedes
To: space@angband.s1.gov


I seem to recall that some Greek scientist in the late
1970s tried to replicate the Archimedes scheme by constructing
mirrors from materials he thought Archimedes had available,
then measuring the temperature out in the harbor as a bunch
of people (graduate students no doubt) aimed mirrors there.
He found that the temperature so generated would indeed have
been high enough to start a fire.

Sorry for the inability to remember details, but I'm pretty
sure it was in the New York Times in the 1975-1979 time frame.

	John Sotos
	Stanford University
-------

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #72
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04143; Sun, 14 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST
	id AA04143; Sun, 14 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST
Date: Sun, 14 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612141102.AA04143@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #73

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 73

Today's Topics:
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
		       Re: Other Asteroid uses
		      Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
			  Centrifugal force
			  Centrifugal force
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Dec 86 20:18:38 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an interesting
> article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a puddle of liquid mercury
> in a shallow frame.  The entire device spins slowly (1 revolution/6 seconds)
> to give the 40 inch diameter mirror the correct concavity. The builder
> Ermanno Borra, of Quebec's Laval University, emphasizes that he is not the
> originator of the idea, merely the first to actually make it work. Size is
> not a problem here, as with greater than 200 inch mirrors: the astrophysicist
> claims his approach will permit the construction of virtually flawless
> mirrors at least five times as large as Palomar's.
> 

Sometime during the 1970s Scientific American carried an article about
infrared astronomy in which they used a similar approach to produce the
rough blank for a plastic mirror.  They spun up a huge mass of liquid
resin (about 40 inches across) for three days, then slowly added hardeners.
(Of course, they still had to figure the mirror by traditional methods
and aluminize, but the expensive and laborious task of getting a rough
parabola was all taken care of.)

> OK, all you dreamers out there! How would you go about building this in
> space???
> 
> LT S. L. Moreau, USN

I see some serious problems, because not only do you need the rotation
around the axis of imaging to produce the curve, but you also rotation
normal to the surface of the mirror to produce gravity to hold the mercury
in place...I get dizzy very easily...I think I'll stick to my 8" Newtonian.

Clayton E. Cramer

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

Date: 12 Dec 86 17:22:51 GMT
From: mimsy!aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa@seismo.css.gov  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: Other Asteroid uses
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>And I wish people would stop thinking up (relatively) absurd uses for nuclear
>weapons! 

And I wish people would stop getting annoyed just because other people propose
beating a few swords into plowshares...
--
Look before you leap, but he who hesitates is lost.

NSA, CIA, NRO, cryptography, terrorist, DES, drugs, cipher, secret, decode

Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa

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

Date: 13 Dec 86 00:23:23 GMT
From: imagen!atari!dyer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Landon Dyer)
Subject: Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


I asked an astronomer.  He said (amongst other things) that mercury
makes a terrible reflector (not so hot at its best, and simply
terrible once you get outside its limited range).  He mumbled
something about temperature control (I didn't understand it) and then
mentioned that the focal length would vary a lot.

Well, /I'm/ not an astronomer....are these big problems?

(He also said the things have been around a "long time," something
like 30 years).

The shape is great.  Maybe you could freeze it and and coat it with
something?

-- 

-Landon Dyer, Atari Corp.		        {sun,lll-lcc,imagen}!atari!dyer

/-----------------------------------------------\
| The views represented here do not necessarily | "If Business is War, then
| reflect those of Atari Corp., or even my own. |  I'm a Prisoner of Business!"
\-----------------------------------------------/

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

Date: 12 Dec 86 14:07:44 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!bds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8612102153.AA15968@mitre.ARPA>, ltsmith@MITRE.ARPA (Sheri L. Smith) writes:
> Borra concedes the one insurmountable flaw of a liquid mirror: it can only
> look straight up. Of course, HUGE mirrors, even looking straight up, will cut
> a large swath through the night sky.

I read this story in Science News where it was pointed out that unless the
telescope was pointing at the pole star it would not be able to keep a given
star in its field of view for long. I'm afraid this technology will not
replace current telescopes, but it can still be useful.

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 86 02:18:50 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Centrifugal force
To: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

    From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu

    ... gravity does affect HORIZONTAL velocity because the lift needed
    to counter gravity is directly proportional to forward velocity. ...

  It's not clear whether you are speaking of a planet or an O'Neill
colony, but in either case the (fictitious) lift is proportional to
the SQUARE of the horizontal velocity.  "Centrifugal force" is always
M V**2 / R.
  In an O'Neill colony the "centrifugal force" is downward, and the
"lift" comes from horizontal motion in the anti-spin direction.  Where
VC is the speed at which the ground is turning, and V is your anti-
spinward speed relative to the ground, the lift is M (VC-V)**2 / R.

								...Keith

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

Date: Sun, 14 Dec 86 02:40:19 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Centrifugal force
To: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

    In an O'Neill colony ... the lift is M (VC-V)**2 / R.

  I meant the WEIGHT is M (VC-V)**2 / R.  The LIFT is
M (VC**2 - (VC-V)**2) / R   or   2 M V VC - V**2 / R.
								...Keith

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

Date: 14 Dec 86 05:04:48 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1246@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an interesting
>> article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a puddle of liquid mercury
>> in a shallow frame.  The entire device spins slowly (1 revolution/6 seconds)
>> to give the 40 inch diameter mirror the correct concavity. The builder
>> Ermanno Borra, of Quebec's Laval University, emphasizes that he is not the
>> originator of the idea, merely the first to actually make it work. Size is
>> not a problem here, as with greater than 200 inch mirrors: the astrophysicist
>> claims his approach will permit the construction of virtually flawless
>> mirrors at least five times as large as Palomar's.
>> 
	This seems spectacularly unlikely (that would be an 83 foot mirror, 
remember) but he's certainly welcome to try...  Of course, he'll have to
compete with arrays of ordinary glass mirrors, which are pretty cheap if
they can just lie flat on the ground and not have to adjust for different
pointing angles -- and they're certainly no more sensitive to wind or other
disturbances!
>
>Sometime during the 1970s Scientific American carried an article about
>infrared astronomy in which they used a similar approach to produce the
>rough blank for a plastic mirror.  They spun up a huge mass of liquid
>resin (about 40 inches across) for three days, then slowly added hardeners.
>(Of course, they still had to figure the mirror by traditional methods
>and aluminize, but the expensive and laborious task of getting a rough
>parabola was all taken care of.)
>
	J.R.P.Angel and others (at the University of Arizona) are currently
developing honeycomb mirrors, which are cast around blocks of refractory
brick in such a way as to leave thin front and back plates with a connecting
hexagonal web, thus drastically lightening the mirrors.  In order to allow
grinding of the front surface without removing too much of the front plate,
the mirrors will be cast in a rotating furnace to provide the rough figure
for final polishing.  They are currently making 3.5 meter diameter mirrors, 
and are planning to make 8 meter f/1 mirrors in the next few years --
that's a glass furnace close to 30 feet in diameter, all rotating 
continuously for the several-week cooling time.  Incidentally, some
of their preliminary work has been with "assembled" (as opposed to cast)
honeycomb mirrors, made of glass plates, which are fused together
and "slumped" over a concrete form, at just below melting temperature.

	Incidental to all this discussion of really LARGE space 
telescopes is the likelyhood that, for telescopes up to ~100 meters,
the surface of the Moon is a much better site than free space.
One gets "that solid, secure feeling" that only a planetary surface
can provide, and the dust- and trash-clearing effects of a gravitational
field, while retaining the freedom from atmosphere and a g-field
low enough to allow some very large structures.  And your astronomers
can walk around without messing up your observation.  And you can build
on the dark side and have the only site in the entire solar system that
never has to look at (or listen to, for all
you radio astronomers) the Earth.  And there are generous supplies of 
raw materials just lying around.  And other advantages....

	Jordin Kare	jtk@mordor.UUCP

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #73
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04554; Mon, 15 Dec 86 03:02:44 PST
	id AA04554; Mon, 15 Dec 86 03:02:44 PST
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 03:02:44 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612151102.AA04554@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #74

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 74

Today's Topics:
		Re: Refractors vs. reflectors in space
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
			      Investment
			     More mirrors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Dec 86 07:55:53 GMT
From: genrad!panda!husc6!necntc!encore!linus!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse@EDDIE.MIT.EDU  (der Mouse)
Subject: Re: Refractors vs. reflectors in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <365@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
> A lens gives an unobscured aperture, which is mandatory for
> circumstellar imaging, [and ...]

A reflector can also give unobstructed aperture.  Make the mirror in
the shape of a piece of a parabaloid of revolution, the shape you would
normally use; but merely ensure that the axis of the paraboloid (which
the point of focus will be on) is far enough off to one side of the
mirror that the aperture is unobstructed.  Conceptually, take a
*really* *big* paraboliod and slice a piece out of one side.  Of course
the focus of the piece will be identical to that of the whole
paraboloid - so put your optics at the focus as usual, but now they
don't get in the way of the aperture.

Any problems with this other than those of fabrication of such a
mirror (as if they weren't enough)?

					der Mouse

USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
     think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse
Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
ARPAnet: think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse@harvard.harvard.edu

[USA NSA food: terrorist, cryptography, DES, drugs, CIA, secret, decode]

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

Date: 14 Dec 86 07:32:15 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!djg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Derek J. Godfrey)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


 Recent talk of "mercurial"[sic] mirrors in space, have at least given
 me somthing to smile about - mercury is a solid at such low
 tempratures. But then I thought so - the reasons for abandoning
 pure metal mirrors - namely temprature caused figure variation - are not 
 present in the stable cool of space. Therefore the mirror could be
 made on Earth such that it would have the correct figure at 4K.
    [P.S another grin "mercurial" means "changeable" and not "made from
    mercury"]

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 02:25:43 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Investment
To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov,
        pyrnj!mirror!gabriel!inmet!nrh@caip.rutgers.edu

    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>

    ... Our nation ... must consider investments which help the human
    race at large rather than the United States alone. ...

  Why?
								...Keith

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

Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 02:47:13 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: More mirrors
To: hplabs!hp-sdd!rb-dc1!dwren@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

    From: hplabs!hp-sdd!rb-dc1!dwren@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Doug Wren)

    Then presumably you would be willing to stand at the point of
    intersection of the reflections of the Sun emanating from 1,000
    flat mirrors, each one only one square foot in area?

  It depends on the focal length.  If it is more than 2000 feet (i.e.
if all the mirrors are at least 2000 feet from me), I would be quite
willing.

    net.readers: Spare me bullshit about the ~32 minute angular diameter
    of the Sun. It doesn't matter at short ranges, such as the distance
    between an Earth-orbiting mirror and the surface of the Earth.

  Wrong.

    The Sun is about (roughly, now) 1% as wide as it is distant from the
    Earth;

  True.

    a flat mirror (on Earth) therefore illuminates, with the Sun's light, an
    area about 1% greater in width and 1% greater in height (per distance to
    target) than the size of the mirror.

  Wrong.  About a sixth of that.  You should have compared the Sun's
width with the circumference of its "orbit", not with the radius.

								...Keith

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #74
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06401; Tue, 16 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
	id AA06401; Tue, 16 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
Date: Tue, 16 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612161102.AA06401@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #75

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 75

Today's Topics:
			"Mercurial" defined...
		Re: Refractors vs. reflectors in space
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To: space@angband.s1.gov
Cc: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!djg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: "Mercurial" defined...
Date: Mon, 15 Dec 86 10:21:02 -0500
From: Sheri L. Smith <ltsmith@mitre.arpa>

Gee... in my dictionary it says

mercurial  1. pertaining to, containing, or caused by the metal mercury
           2. of or pertaining to the god Mercury
           3. of or pertaining to the planet Mercury
           4. active; lively; sprightly; volatile
           5. changeable; fickle; flighty; erratic
         
The play on the varied meanings of the word was deliberate. How about a
temperature regulated mercury mirror in orbit around the planet Mercury?
If you pointed it at the sun, I daresay your biggest problem would be
cooling it. But an interesting (even poetic) way to gain close up
information on our nearest star.

Now you have me smiling!!

Sheri

-----
LT S L Moreau, USN
WIS JPMO
Washington DC  20330-6600

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

Date: 16 Dec 86 00:19:04 GMT
From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Re: Refractors vs. reflectors in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <573@mcgill-vision.UUCP>, mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:
> In article <365@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
> > A lens gives an unobscured aperture, which is mandatory for
> > circumstellar imaging, [and ...]
> 
> A reflector can also give unobstructed aperture.  Make the mirror in
> the shape of a piece of a parabaloid of revolution, the shape you would
> normally use; but merely ensure that the axis of the paraboloid (which
> the point of focus will be on) is far enough off to one side of the
> mirror that the aperture is unobstructed.  Conceptually, take a
> *really* *big* paraboliod and slice a piece out of one side.  Of course
> the focus of the piece will be identical to that of the whole
> paraboloid - so put your optics at the focus as usual, but now they
> don't get in the way of the aperture.
> 
> Any problems with this other than those of fabrication of such a
> mirror (as if they weren't enough)?

Yes.  It's called cometic aberration.  The further off center you get
with a reflector and the lower the F ration, the greater the distortion.

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

Date: 15 Dec 86 13:13:09 GMT
From: rutgers!clyde!watmath!watnot!ccplumb@spam.ISTC.SRI.COM  (Colin Plumb)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <108@mordor.s1.gov> jtk@mordor.UUCP (Jordan Kare) writes:

>>>[...] the astrophysicist claims his approach will permit the
>>>construction of virtually flawless mirrors at least five times as
>>>large as Palomar's.

>	This seems spectacularly unlikely (that would be an 83 foot
>mirror, remember) but he's certainly welcome to try...

  Five times larger seems awfully big, any way you look at it, but
perhaps what's being talked about here is a mirror with 5 times the
*area*.  (I.e. 450 in. diameter, or 37.5 feet.)  This seems a little
more reasonable.

  I'm still not passing judgement on the idea's practicality, however.

	-Colin Plumb (ccplumb@watnot.UUCP)

Zippy says:
I can't think about that.  It doesn't go with HEDGES in the shape of
LITTLE LULU -- or ROBOTS making BRICKS...

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

Date: 15 Dec 86 19:00:26 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> 
> I see some serious problems, because not only do you need the rotation
> around the axis of imaging to produce the curve, but you also rotation
> normal to the surface of the mirror to produce gravity to hold the mercury
> in place...I get dizzy very easily...I think I'll stick to my 8" Newtonian.
> 
> Clayton E. Cramer

Why not hang it in the gravity gradient from an equal mass the same
distance the other side of the orbit and let tidal forces hold it in
place? (or a larger mass closer to keep the cables shorter). I have
suggested this before as a way to get low G gravity in orbit. Is there
something inherently wrong with the idea? Is cable technology a serious
problem? Of course you still have the same problem mentioned by others
with regard to mercury mirrors, i.e. they are hard to point anywhere but
straight up. I think though that if your container was something more than
a hemisphere you could point its opening in some direction other than
straight up and make the axis of spin other than straight up. You would
get a shape resulting from the combination of the very low G used
to hold it in the container and the "centrifugal" force from the spin.
It feels like it would be a parabola with its axis of symmetry slightly
off the axis of spin. To track a star would require pretty fancy control
I suppose.

				Jim Symon
UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
symon%unc@csnet-relay

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #75
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08278; Wed, 17 Dec 86 03:02:12 PST
	id AA08278; Wed, 17 Dec 86 03:02:12 PST
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 86 03:02:12 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612171102.AA08278@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #76

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 17 Dec 86 03:02:12 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #76

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 76

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Refractors vs. reflectors
			   Re: new shuttle
			Planetary Conjunctions
		      Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
		     bits of Shuttle-related news
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 86 12:17:48 PST (Tuesday)
From: Lynn.ES@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Refractors vs. reflectors
In-Reply-To: Lowerre's message of 16 Dec 86 00:19:04 GMT
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Cc: Lynn.es@xerox.com, hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com

Unobstructed reflectors have been around a long time.  Herschel had a
very large (I think four foot diameter) almost unobstructed one.  He sat
under the tube with the top half of his head in front of the mirror,
staring through the eyepiece right down the tube at the primary mirror
(no secondary mirror).  If he had tilted a little more off-axis, he
could have operated without obstruction at all; but with such a large
mirror, a half head of obstruction made little difference.  This design
is now referred to as a Herschellian telescope.

There are several ways to avoid or minimize the coma and astigmatism
that a parabolic mirror has when used off-axis.  
   1) build the mirror parabolized off-center so that the
on-optical-center secondary is off-center physically.  This can be best
visualized by imagining an ordinary Newtonian reflector from which
slightly over half of the primary mirror is cut off and discarded (cut
off the side that was obstructed by secondary mirror, its support, and
the eyepiece assembly.  Making the primary, without making both halves
and discarding one, is difficult but manageable.
   2) The coma and astigmatism are reduced by some large power of the
f/ratio (Lowerre mentioned this).  So a sufficiently long primary mirror
f/ratio will reduce the problems to acceptable levels even far off axis.
This is how Herschel got away with it.
   3) Use a secondary that introduces coma and astigmatism opposite to
that of the primary when used off axis.  The Schiefspiegler (sp?) design
of telescope does just this.
   4) The smaller the obstruction, the closer the resulting image is to
that without obstruction.  So an extremely small secondary can be made
sufficiently close so as to consider it an unobstructed telescope.

In short, designing an unobstructed reflector is a well-solved problem.

Note that the designers of the Hubble Space Telescope used an obstructed
design (though I believe they kept the secondary size reasonably small),
and still expect to get excellent (understatement) resolution.

/Don Lynn

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

Date:     Sun, 14 Dec 86 13:56 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  Re: new shuttle

D. Starr wrote:

  The Soviet space program also uses a launch vehicle with over 1000
  flights to date. By now, they have sufficient experience with the
  vehicle to believe that one failure is most likely due to a random
  manufacturing flaw and not a design defect which must be corrected
  immediately.  This will be the case with the Shuttle system eventually
  (if it makes it that far), when we have twenty Shuttles and several
  hundred flights behind us.  Until that time, accidents will of
  necessity delay the program.

I can state with complete confidence that we will never have twenty
shuttles of the current design.  Why?  Because there is no market for
them (the subsidy on just four shuttles was draining NASA enough) and
the current shuttle is already very obsolete.  A recent NASA study
(Dec. 1 AW&ST) shows that advances in materials, hot structures,
dual-fuel engines, electrical actuators, etc. could be used to build
vertical launch single-stage-to-orbit fully reusable vehicles that
might be able to carry nearly their own dry weight in payload, with
much reduced operating costs.

That AW&ST article also says that NASA & DOD want to separate heavy lift
and manned operations by 1995, so this "Shuttle 2" will be smaller
than the current shuttle.  Payload planners have also determined there
will be little justification for returning many large payloads to
earth, so it needn't have a large cargo bay.

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

Date:    Tue, 16 Dec 86 13:27:56 PST
From: tencati@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: Planetary Conjunctions
To: space@angband.s1.gov
X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space@s1-b.arpa"

  
 The following was posted to a local astronomy mailing list.  I thought
 I would share it with this list.  If you noticed that Jupiter and Mars
 were getting "awfully close" to each other in the evening sky...now
 you know why: 
  
 =======================================================================
  
   
  Planetary Conjunctions 
  ----------------------
   
  Date/time           Planets             delta dec   elongation from sun
   
  1986 Dec 19  7h     Mars    - Jupiter   +0 31       79 E
  1986 Dec 19 15h     Mercury - Saturn    -1 19       13 W
  1986 Dec 25 14h     Mercury - Uranus    +0 40       10 W
   
  1987 Jan  2 14h     Mercury - Neptune   -2 19        6 W
  1987 Jan 24 20h     Venus   - Saturn    +1 47       46 W
  1987 Jan 31 17h     Venus   - Uranus    +3 04       46 W
  1987 Feb 11 13h     Venus   - Neptune   +1 17       45 W
  1987 Apr 19 12h     Mercury - Jupiter   -1 21       17 W
  1987 May  4 22h     Venus   - Jupiter   -0 38       29 W
  1987 Jun 11  0h     Mercury - Mars      +0 37            quasi-conjunction
  1987 Jul 12  1h     Mercury - Venus     -4 50       12 W
  1987 Aug 18 22h     Mercury - Venus     +0 30        2 W
  1987 Aug 21  7h     Mercury - Mars      +0 40        2 E
  1987 Aug 24  6h     Venus   - Mars      +0 15        1 E
  1987 Oct 20  1h     Mercury - Venus     -3 28       15 E
  1987 Nov 20 16h     Venus   - Saturn    -2 08       23 E
  1987 Nov 24 10h     Venus   - Uranus    -0 56       24 E
  1987 Dec  3 10h     Venus   - Neptune   -2 22       26 E
  1987 Dec 18 23h     Mercury - Saturn    -2 17        3 W
  1987 Dec 20 20h     Mercury - Uranus    -1 10        1 W
  1987 Dec 27 10h     Mercury - Neptune   -2 46        3 E
  	        
  ======================================================================
  
  Enjoy!
  
  Ron Tencati
  Jet Propulsion Lab
  Pasadena, Ca.  91109
  (TENCATI@JPL-VLSI.ARPA)

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

Date: 16 Dec 86 18:00:00 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> (He also said the things have been around a "long time," something
> like 30 years).

Longer than that.  Dr. Rowland -- the man who made the first good diffraction
gratings -- tinkered with the idea early in this century.  As I recall, he
made it work but not well enough to be practical:  too many problems with
vibration.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 16 Dec 86 19:54:12 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: bits of Shuttle-related news
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Reading an old issue of Flight International a while ago (specifically,
the 19 July issue), I came across a couple of interesting tidbits.

"NASA has approached UK ejection seat manufacturer Martin-Baker to ask
if the company could build an in-atmosphere escape system for the Space
Shuttle..."  [Martin-Baker makes possibly the best ejection seats in the
world, with a long history and thousands of lives saved.  The US Navy
just standardized on one of their designs for all its combat aircraft.]
Flight claims that M-B responded with a system using eight of the company's
latest high-performance rocket seats.

The interesting part is how they propose to solve the problem of getting
all of a large crew out.  The difficulty is that some of the crew are seated
in the mid-deck, which has the flight deck above it and the external tank
below.  Giving each seat an individual hatch would mean finding room for
eight hatches in the shuttle roof, and also probably finding room for all
eight crew on the flight deck.

Martin-Baker's proposal is based on an idea that was developed and tested
(although not adopted, due to money shortages and bureaucratic priorities)
for the rear-compartment crews of the RAF's V-bombers.  The three rear crew
were seated side by side with one hatch above the center seat; first the
center seat went out, then the outboard seats tilted inward and went out
one by one.  For the Shuttle, M-B has proposed a 2-3-3 crew layout with
three hatches.

Apparently NASA was impressed with the proposal, and in particular with
the seat's safe envelope being larger than expected -- the Shuttle climbs
quickly and the thin air at higher altitudes permits ejection at higher
speeds than usual.


The other interesting news item was in an article about the Soviet Proton
booster.  The Soviets are reported to have unofficially offered to launch
the Ulysses mission on Proton!  [Ulysses has been delayed, probably for five
years or more, by the Challenger disaster and the cancellation of the
Shuttle/Centaur combination.  I suspect there would be problems in taking
the Soviets up on this offer, since Ulysses has US participation I think.]
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #76
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10555; Thu, 18 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
	id AA10555; Thu, 18 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612181102.AA10555@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #77

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 18 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #77

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 77

Today's Topics:
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
		 Spin Casting (Was Mercurial Mirrors)
		   Aviation Week subscription info.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Dec 86 08:08:00 GMT
From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


A note to djg, funny, I have a Webster's New World Dictionary of the
American Language, Second College Edition before me, and it does not
agree with you.

Mercurial:

	1. of Mercury (the God or Planet)
	2. of or containing mercury
	3. caused by the action or use of mercury
	4. ect.
	5. etc.

P.S.: (Grin)

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

Date: 16 Dec 86 08:23:11 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Spin Casting (Was Mercurial Mirrors)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1246@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> The 15 Dec 86 issue of TIME magazine (Science, pg 94) has an
>> interesting article about a prototype mirror made entirely of a
>> puddle of liquid mercury in a shallow frame.  The entire device spins
>> slowly (1 revolution/6 seconds) to give the 40 inch diameter mirror
>> the correct concavity. [...]
>
>Sometime during the 1970s Scientific American carried an article about
>infrared astronomy in which they used a similar approach to produce the
>rough blank for a plastic mirror.  They spun up a huge mass of liquid
>resin (about 40 inches across) for three days, then slowly added
>hardeners.  (Of course, they still had to figure the mirror by
>traditional methods and aluminize, but the expensive and laborious task
>of getting a rough parabola was all taken care of.)

This method has become the new "gee-whiz" way to make "conventional"
mirrors as well : there's a pilot project at the U. of Arizona which has
successfully produced 1.8m f/1 mirrors by spinning the entire oven at
15rpm during the casting process.

According to an article in the July 1985 issue of Sky & Telescope, it
works pretty well - "The technique many said wouldn't work proved so
overwhelmingly successful that it was immediately acknowledged as a
major step toward building truly giant telescopes on Earth or in space."
They have plans for an 8m oven, this may be completed already - "After a
test on a 3-metre blank late this year [that's 1985], the new oven will
be ready to begin work on four 7.5 metre mirrors for the National New
Technology Telescope."  They also "hope to spin-cast each 8-metre, f/1
blank in less than six weeks, rather than the usual six months required
by conventional methods." It is also quite economical, the savings in
glass alone for a large mirror (>5 metres) would amount to several tons
and probably pay for the cost of the oven while at the same time greatly
shortening the time and cost of figuring the mirror.

One more note from the same article : "Although this idea had been
around since the turn of the century, when physicist R. W. Wood first
spun mirrors of liquid mercury (S&T: September 1984, Page 266), . . ."
 
Andrew Folkins    ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    53 24' N, 113 30' W
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

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

Date: 17 Dec 86 16:44:07 GMT
From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Aviation Week subscription info.
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Every so often someone will post asking for details on how to subscribe
to Aviation Week & Space Technology, particularly because it gets
mentioned and quoted from so often on these groups.  I don't remember
seeing the information posted recently so I thought I'd toss it out in
anticipation of future requests (and probably in answer to previous
ones).  This is not intended as an endorsement or advertisement of the
magazine.  If it bothers anyone to see commercial articles in these
newsgroups, I'd merely point out that the question gets asked often
enough to deserve a posted answer.  If you feel you must say something
to me about it, please send mail; don't clutter these groups with
meta-discussions.  Thanks.
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe
	Uniq Digital Technologies	rjnoe@uniq.UUCP
	28 South Water Street		+1 312 879 1566
	Batavia, Illinois  60510	41:50:56 N.  88:18:35 W.

Mail completed subscription form to the attention of Robert W.
DeAngelis, Circulation Director, AVIATION WEEK & SPACE TECHNOLOGY, 1221
Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10124.


Yes ... Send me AVIATION WEEK for
	[ ] 36 mos. @ $112.00   [ ] 24 mos. @ $83.00   [ ] 12 mos. @ $51.00

Lines 1 thru 6 must be filled in before subscription can be processed.

1 Name ________________________________________________________________________

2 Title ______________________ Eng. Deg. [ ] Yes  [ ] No  Type ________________

3 Co./Org./Div. _______________________________________________________________

4 Nature of Business __________________________________________________________

5 Address/City ___________________________________________ State ____ Zip _____

6 Please check one that best describes your title/function:

 (B)[ ] Corp. Officials:   (E)[ ] Engineers; designers;   (G)[ ] Procurement;
        G.S. Grades 16-18         Scientists; Planners     Productions and all
 (C)[ ] Managers; Dept.    (F)[ ] Other Engineering        other administrators
        Heads; G.S. Grades        Technical Scientific    (H)[ ] Line Flight
        6-15.                     R&D Titles & Functions         Titles (other
 (D)[ ] Engineering Mgmt.                                        than military)
        R&D Titles & Functions                            (J)[ ] Retired

        Other (please specify) ________________________________________________


Mail subscription to:  [ ] Home Address  [ ] Company Address

Address _______________________________ City _____________ State ____ Zip _____

[ ] Bill Me   [ ] Payment Attached    Charge My Subscription to:

[ ] American Express   [ ] Visa   [ ] MasterCard...Interbank No. ______________

Account No. _________________ Date Card Expires ________ Signature_____________


Basic rates apply to managers, engineers, and scientists in aviation,
aerospace and related technologies; military officers and government
officials.  Rates for all others slightly higher.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #77
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12252; Fri, 19 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
	id AA12252; Fri, 19 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
Date: Fri, 19 Dec 86 03:02:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612191102.AA12252@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #78

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 78

Today's Topics:
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
		      Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
			   Re: new shuttle
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Dec 86 17:46:43 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utcsri!hogg@seismo.css.gov  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <416@unc.unc.UUCP> symon@unc.UUCP (James Symon) writes:
>Why not hang [a mercury mirror] in the gravity gradient from an equal
>mass the same distance the other side of the orbit and let tidal forces
>hold it in place? (or a larger mass closer to keep the cables shorter).
>I have suggested this before as a way to get low G gravity in orbit. Is
>there something inherently wrong with the idea? Is cable technology a
>serious problem?

Cable technology is not an issue, but assuming that off-axis pointing is
not used (and it has been criticized in another posting), you will find
"an equal mass" (a large rock?) right in front of the mirror.  Somewhat
inconvenient.

Supplying on-axis acceleration with an ion motor seems more promising,
but there's still a large problem: sloshing.  Are there any numerate
readers out there who can estimate settling time after pointing?  I
would think that waves would continue for so long as to make changes in
drift rate highly expensive.  Of course, a band of sky could be viewed
by having the scope slowly rotate normal to its axis, but even then
you'd better be prepared to see interesting things once and for a
limited period, and uninteresting space for most of the time.  And that
secondary rotation might do subtle but disasterous things to the mirror
shape.

There are certain advantages to solid mirrors...

John Hogg
hogg@utcsri.uucp
hogg@csri.toronto.cdn

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

Date: 18 Dec 86 17:38:55 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ... Dr. Rowland ... tinkered with the idea early in this century...

Oops and dammit.  It was Wood, not Rowland.  I was confusing two
history-of-physics articles read in fast succession.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Dec 86 18:33:43 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: new shuttle
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> That AW&ST article also says that NASA & DOD want to separate heavy lift
> and manned operations by 1995, so this "Shuttle 2" will be smaller
> than the current shuttle...

Separating the two roles is what should have been done all along, of course.
Then we would have a *considerably* smaller Shuttle in greater numbers --
a much better approximation to "routine access to space".  (In fairness, it
should be noted that NASA wanted Shuttle 1 to be smaller than it is.)

Mind you, anyone who thinks that Shuttle 2 will be operational within 20
years is dreaming, unless DoD gets behind it and pushes hard (unlikely,
since they have always been big expendable-booster fans).  I might believe
first flight by 2000 if serious development was starting *now*, which it's
not.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 18 Dec 86 18:26:39 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>  Recent talk of "mercurial"[sic] mirrors in space, have at least given
>  me somthing to smile about - mercury is a solid at such low
>  tempratures. But then I thought so - the reasons for abandoning
>  pure metal mirrors - namely temprature caused figure variation - are not 
>  present in the stable cool of space. Therefore the mirror could be
>  made on Earth such that it would have the correct figure at 4K.

"low temperatures"?  "stable cool"?  What on Earth (or rather, off Earth)
are you thinking of?  Virtually any object in space is in bright sunlight,
in fact decidedly bright sunlight, much of the time.  Temperature control
is a major issue in spacecraft design, but cooling is often more of an issue
than heating.  If you look at designs for the Space Station, you'll see
prominent waste-heat radiators.  The only ways you get 4K in space are at
great distances from the Sun, with copious supplies of liquid helium for
cooling (a la IRAS), or just maybe with great efforts at building insulated
sunshades (just blocking sunlight isn't enough because then your sunshade
itself is a nice warm object radiating heat in your direction).

This was yet another gross blunder in the Analog story.
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #78
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00259; Sat, 20 Dec 86 17:32:08 PST
	id AA00259; Sat, 20 Dec 86 17:32:08 PST
Date: Sat, 20 Dec 86 17:32:08 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612210132.AA00259@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #79

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 79

Today's Topics:
		       "A Quest For Excellence"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 19 Dec 86 17:59:14 EST
From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty)
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: "A Quest For Excellence"


	As part of one of the space organizations I belong to (I'm not
sure which one, but if anyone really wants to knwo I can find out) I
got a magazine called "Aerospace" for Fall 1986.  It claims to be the
official publication of the Aerospace Industries Assoc.  There are a
few articles (it's quite small), and one is the final report of the
Presidential Blue Ribbon Commission on Defense Management, chaired by
David Packard. It opened with this summary:

	"Excellence in defense management will not and can not emerge
by legislation or directive.  Excellence requires the opposite -
responsibility and authority placed firmly in the hands of those at
the working level, who have knowledge and enthusiasm for the tasks at
hand.  To accomplish this, ways must be found to restore a sense of
shared purpose among Congress, the Department of Defense, and Industry.
Each must foresake its current ways of doing business in favor of a
renewed quest for excellence."

	To sum up the report, the commission recommended a new code of
ethics be adopted by defense contractors, and a streamlining of the
acquisition process, esp. to avoid disasters such as the "spare parts"
incidents.  It pointed to "...several decades of an increasingly
bureaucratic and overregulated process" as one of the major causes of
current problems.

	As an editorial note, these words are very nice, and I doubt
anyone would disagree with their truthfulness, but is anyone going to
pay attention to these comments?

					-Chris

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #79
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00910; Sun, 21 Dec 86 03:01:50 PST
	id AA00910; Sun, 21 Dec 86 03:01:50 PST
Date: Sun, 21 Dec 86 03:01:50 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612211101.AA00910@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #80

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 80

Today's Topics:
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
			   Re: new shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Dec 86 21:23:37 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7427@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> Virtually any object in space is in bright sunlight,
>in fact decidedly bright sunlight, much of the time.  Temperature control
>is a major issue in spacecraft design, but cooling is often more of an issue
>than heating.  If you look at designs for the Space Station, you'll see
>prominent waste-heat radiators.

The reasons for spacecraft running so hot are, I believe, the large
number of electronic/electrical parts giving off heat + the heat of the
astronauts. When Apollo 13 had to shut down power to it's command
module, because of lack of O2 to continue running the power cells
at their usual level , the temperature became low enough to cause
discomfort and some health concerns to the astronauts.

If a part is protected from the sun by any non-transparent low
heat conductive part I would expect it to stay fairly cool.
(Probably not 4 degrees K. though).
-- 
	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

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

Date: 19 Dec 86 13:03:28 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!tcom!pete@seismo.css.gov  (Peter Kendell)
Subject: Re: new shuttle
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8612162042.AA07301@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
>That AW&ST article also says that NASA & DOD want to separate heavy lift
>and manned operations by 1995, so this "Shuttle 2" will be smaller
>than the current shuttle.  Payload planners have also determined there
>will be little justification for returning many large payloads to
>earth, so it needn't have a large cargo bay.

        Well, well! Just what ArianeSpace have proposed for the
        European Shuttle.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #80
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02084; Mon, 22 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST
	id AA02084; Mon, 22 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612221102.AA02084@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #81

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 81

Today's Topics:
		     Re: "A Quest For Excellence
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 21 Dec 86 13:46 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu, space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  Re: "A Quest For Excellence

>	As an editorial note, these words are very nice, and I doubt
>anyone would disagree with their truthfulness, but is anyone going to
>pay attention to these comments?

In a word: no.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #81
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04746; Tue, 23 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST
	id AA04746; Tue, 23 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST
Date: Tue, 23 Dec 86 03:02:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612231102.AA04746@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #82

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 82

Today's Topics:
			   Re: new shuttle
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 86 13:55:17 GMT
From: cbatt!cbdkc1!blb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ( Ben Branch 3S315 CB x4790 WSB )
Subject: Re: new shuttle
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Maybe we can just buy a few Hermes from ESA (1/2 :-)).

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

Date: 22 Dec 86 18:52:18 GMT
From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (George Erhart)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>A lot of people have said a lot of things recently about liquid (including
mercury) and gaseous mirrors......

This is a rather nifty idea. There are, however a number of difficulties to 
overcome.

1) Regardless of the "ambient" temperature in space, a gradient will no doubt
exist between the liquid (which must be maintained within its melting range)
and the "environment" of the mirror. I would think that convective currents 
within the fluid would cause noticeable changes in the reflector.

2) Mercury possesses a rather high vapor pressure (relative to other molten
metals), even at atmospheric pressure. Vapor loss in vacuum would probably
be quite rapid, requiring replacement of the Hg as well as causing
problems similar to atmospheric disturbances. Further, if the frame of the 
telescope is cooler than the mirror itself, mercury will condense upon it...
what a mess !

3) Mercury is bloody dense ! It is not a particularly economical metal
to put into orbit.

I suggest that if the convective currents can be overcome, it would be better
to use liquid alloys of the lead-tin-{Bi,In,Hg,As,Sb,Ga...} system 
(solders, if you must) as they are less dense and have much lower vapor
pressures. Better still, raise the operating temperature a bit and
use liquid aluminum (although oxidation [yes, even in "vacuum"] might be
a problem) which is even less dense and much more reflective.

Okay, all you optics experts out there ! Any comment on the convective 
currents ? I *still* think this is a rather nifty idea !


---------------------------------clip and save----------------------------------

	Bill Thacker    	cbatt!cbosgd!cbdkc1!serial!wbt
DISCLAIMER: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !

If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back to you,
	track it down and kill it.

--------------------------------valuable coupon---------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #82
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06081; Wed, 24 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST
	id AA06081; Wed, 24 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST
Date: Wed, 24 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612241102.AA06081@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #83

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 83

Today's Topics:
			    Baseball at L5
			  New Space Shuttle
			 SPACE Digest V7 #82
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #82
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Dec 86 17:38:58 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (Rick Kolker)
Subject: Baseball at L5
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Okay folks, here's a question for you.

An SF short story I've written depends on the answer.

Let's say we decided to play some baseball on an L5 colony.  A nice big
cylinder spinning away to provide 1g at the "surface".

What effect (if any) would there be on a fly ball to the outfield?  I
know the "gravity" would vary, but would the spin force the ball to
"curve" as well in relation to the field?

Obviously the diameter of the cylinder and the rate of spin would affect
things but how much?

Thanks for your help

    Rich Kolker
    8519 White Pine Dr.
    Manassas Park, VA 22111
    (703)361-1290

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

Date:         Tue, 23 Dec 86 13:50:17 SET
From: Hermann Schneider  <A6%DDAESA10.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: New Space Shuttle
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
In-Reply-To:  Your message of Tue, 23 Dec 86 03:13:26 PST

Just send me the order for a few HERMES. We are trying hard to set it up.
And I am shure if you would order some, we would finish the job earlier.

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

Date: Tue, 23 Dec 1986  11:29 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov, minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #82
In-Reply-To: Msg of 23 Dec 1986  06:15-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at angband.s1.gov>


Here is an an alternative to those big mirrors for deep space.  First
you launch a tetrahedron of little "alignment" ships.  Each of these
contains a laser+interferometer device and a laser (or a particle-beam
device).  The four alignment ships are connected by six carbon fibre
threads.

Next you launch large number of micro-reflectors into the space within
the tetrahedron.  Each microreflector is nothing more than a flat, thin,
bit of foil, perhaps one centimeter in diameter, and optically flat.  At
three points on its periphery, each microreflector has embossed on it a
small pit in the shape of a corner-reflector that allows the alignment
ships to apply light-pressure to move the microreflector (or has a
coating that selectively absorbs the particles of the particle-beam).

Now we can assemble the microreflectors to form a telesscopic surface.
The alignment ships can use their light beams (or particle beams) to
move each microreflector to any point in the interior of the
tetrahedron, and orient it in any direction.  It should be feasible to
do this to within a fraction of a wavelength, using reflection
interferometry.

If we are talking about a composite mirror whose diameter is the order
of a kilometer, there is no need to impose parabolic figures on the
individual microreflectors, because the angular orientations of the flat
surface elements canb be corrected to one part in 100,000.  This gives
the mirror more resolution than could be used; the microreflectors could
be larger, but that maks the stiffness problem worse, and increases the
weight of the system.

The only problem is maintaining the positions of 10,000,000,000
micro-objects.  If we are in deep space and can perform alignments at
100,000 per second, then we can perform one realignment per day.  This
is limited by the speed of light; higher speeds are possible if we can
use multiple alignment beams.  Of course, much smaller systems would be
feasible, and could be oriented more quickly.  However, I imagine this
system to be located at least a few light-days away from Earth, and we
will not often want to swing it around through large angles.

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

Date: 23 Dec 86 09:02:39 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <3175@cbosgd.ATT.COM> gwe@cbosgd.UUCP (Bill Thacker) writes:
>>A lot of people have said a lot of things recently about liquid (including
>mercury) and gaseous mirrors......  difficulties.... ...
>I suggest that if the convective currents can be overcome, it would be better
>to use liquid alloys of the lead-tin-{Bi,In,Hg,As,Sb,Ga...} system 
>(solders, if you must) as they are less dense and have much lower vapor
>pressures. Better still, raise the operating temperature a bit and
>use liquid aluminum (although oxidation [yes, even in "vacuum"] might be
>a problem) which is even less dense and much more reflective.
>
>Okay, all you optics experts out there ! Any comment on the convective 
>currents ? I *still* think this is a rather nifty idea !

Convective (fluid) currents can be retarded by "freezing" the metal
during the molten "mirror forming" stage with a  steady state magnetic
field, which "rotates with the spinning mirror".      

Then a film of protective diamond can be laid down on the finished
surface with a low density methane plasma discharge.  

Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075
Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP

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

Date: 24 Dec 86 00:40:40 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #82
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <MINSKY.12265111399.BABYL@MIT-OZ> MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:
>Next you launch large number of micro-reflectors into the space within
>the tetrahedron.  Each microreflector is nothing more than a flat,
>thin, bit of foil, perhaps one centimeter in diameter, and optically
>flat. 
>...
>The only problem is maintaining the positions of 10,000,000,000
>micro-objects.  If we are in deep space and can perform alignments at
>100,000 per second, then we can perform one realignment per day.  This
>is limited by the speed of light; higher speeds are possible if we can
>use multiple alignment beams.  Of course, much smaller systems would
>be feasible, and could be oriented more quickly.  However, I imagine
>this system to be located at least a few light-days away from Earth,
>and we will not often want to swing it around through large
>angles.

	Would sunlight (light pressure), solar wind (pressure and
surface erosion), and the solar magnetic field affect the little mirrors
noticeably? Presumably not at the distance you're talking about, which
is probably outside the solar magnetopause, but on the other hand we
don't know much about the environment out there yet. How about the solar
gravity gradient and self-gravity of the mirror? I have a vision of 10e9
mirrors all accelerating away (``Come back!'' cry the astronomers),
although I haven't applied any numbers yet. It also sounds like fun to
write the software for - maybe SDI programmers should be the ones to do
it.  I love the idea, I'd just like to explore the various environmental
factors affecting it a bit more. How thick does foil (aluminum foil
or???) have to be to be a good reflector?

	Your concept reminds of Robert Forward's ``Starwisp''
interstellar probe, with similar use of tiny components and massive (and
redundant) parallelism. Maybe using some of Drexler's nanocomputers,
semiconductor lasers, and the like, each element of the array could be
responsible for itself (actually today's technology would probably do,
except that my mind boggles at the thought of building 10 billion
gadgets like this without the sort of massive automation nanomachines
might bring).

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #83
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07278; Thu, 25 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST
	id AA07278; Thu, 25 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST
Date: Thu, 25 Dec 86 03:02:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612251102.AA07278@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #84

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 84

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Baseball at L5
	      Liquid metal mirrors in space: a bad idea?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 86 04:46:45 GMT
From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov  (Crah)
Subject: Re: Baseball at L5
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Let's say we decided to play some baseball on an L5 colony.  A nice big
> cylinder spinning away to provide 1g at the "surface".
> 
> What effect (if any) would there be on a fly ball to the outfield?
> I know the "gravity" would vary, but would the spin
> force the ball to "curve" as well in relation to the field?
> 
 
It's not just the fly balls - it's the pitches too.  Consider this scenario:
 
The field is oriented with the plate-mound-2'nd-center field axis running
parallel to the axis of rotation.  Now, the pitcher throws the ball.  
 
Because these are only amateur baseball players, we assume that air effects
(such as curves, sinkers, etc) don't happen.
 
If the pitcher throws the ball directly at the strike zone, the ball 
(because it becomes an independent object in orbit about the earth-moon 
as soon as the pitcher lets go) will follow a straight line - toward
where the strike zone WAS.   Which will be antispinward a ways.  How far
depends on how fast the cylinder was rotating.	So a pitcher would 
have to act like a duck hunter and "lead" the strike zone.
	
Second effect - the ball won't dip.  It's an independent orbiting object,
and this part of it's orbit is very very close to a straight line.
	
If the batter connects, the ball is again on it's own independent orbit
in some arbitrary direction.  Let's assume he hit it straight "up" (toward
the spin axis).  Again ignoring air friction, a lot depends on how fast
the cylinder is rotating compared to how fast the ball was hit.  If the
ball was hit just fast enough to cross the cylinder diameter in one
half a spin time, the catcher can stand his ground and catch the ball
as he passes underneath.  If the ball crosses faster than half a spintime, 
the ball will come down spinward of the catcher.   If it was a slow
straight-up pop fly, and takes more than half a spintime to cross,
the ball will come down antispinward of the catcher.


If we start to allow air drag, the situation gets more interesting.  
Balls thrown (or hit) spinward and upward won't go as far as
balls thrown or hit antispinward and upward, because of drag.  Consider
this: we take a ball and give it some velocity upwards and spinwards.
As it rises, the spinward velocity of the air around the ball
decreases - and greater difference in velocity increases drag.
Likewise, the antispinward ball sees the spinward air velocity decreasing,
but since it's own spinward velocity is negative, the difference 
decreases, and so does the drag. (If this is confusing, consider 
in this paragraph that "spinward" does not mean angular displacement
but rather is a unit vector tangential to the playing surface and
"frozen" there when the ball is thrown.)
	
Now a very amusing case comes to mind.  Say the batter tries to 
bunt - and succeeds in sending the ball directly antispinward - 
with approximately the peripheral spin velocity.  The players will see
the ball take off to the antispinward dugout - and then RISE in a nearly
circular arc,  a low-flying hazard to crops, statuary, and casual
passersby.  After the ball has zoomed around the periphery of the 
colony, the catcher will be able to attempt a catch.  If the misses, he
can wait another spin time and try again.  And again.  If it's too high 
for him, he can call a teammate in from the outfield and climb on his
shoulders.  This of course ignores air drag, which will slowly
cause the ball to reaccelerate and fall toward the outside of the colony.
 
If the batter foul-bunts inaccurately (rather, accurately in terms
of elevation, but slightly toward or away from the pitcher, the ball 
will describe a helix toward or away from the sun, skimming the 
surface at chest height, and terrorizing all but the stoutest fans of baseball.
	
Can anyone else think of some other special cases that would look
neat and/or unbelievable?  Also, don't forget the other possible 
field orientation - with 1'st/mound/3'rd parallel to the spin axis.

	
			-Bill Yerazunis

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

Date:     Wed, 24 Dec 86 14:42 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  Liquid metal mirrors in space: a bad idea?

I'm puzzled by this continuing focus on liquid metal mirrors for use
in space.  First of all, it's going to be hard to provide much acceleration.
Supplying the acceleration by rotation doesn't work, since  coriolis
accelerations deform the mirror.  An ion engine or other similar
rocket is also not likely to be practical:  at those low accelerations
surface tension is probably significant, as are perturbations due to
the solar wind, tides or self gravitation.

It was suggested that a mirror be formed by spinning the metal, and allowing
it to freeze.  This will not produce a perfect solid mirror:  the surface
will be roughened by metal crystal grains, and most metals contract when
cooled, distorting the surface.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #84
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08464; Fri, 26 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST
	id AA08464; Fri, 26 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612261102.AA08464@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #85

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 85

Today's Topics:
			   Bucks from space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Dec 86 18:03:50 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Bucks from space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

[If this line is missing, please complain to your Systems Administrator]

A couple of months ago I posted a long message arguing that space mining
and manufacturing is probably never going to be profitable. 
This is my belated answer to the many replies I received on that subject.

First, let's consider the prospects for mining the Moon or asteroids
FOR EXPORT TO EARTH.  (I will address mining for space consumption and 
orbital factories in future messages.) 

LUNAR MINING
------------

>   >   [Me:] We can expect rich ore bodies to be much less common
>   >   on the Moon than on Earth.  

>   [Andrew Folkins:] Sure, but so what?  The energy to smelt the
>   stuff is free, and the supply of raw materials is basically
>   limitless.  Who cares if your efficiency is only 10%?
>   ...  

Low abundance means you will have to process of large volumes of rock
through complex chemical cycles.  This means lots of equipment, bigger
power plants, and large reagent losses.  All of this means large
capital and operating costs.  

>   >   [Me:] Right now there is no mineral on the Moon worth mining.  

>   [Dale Amon:] [Lunar highlands soil] contains a great deal of
>   pure Fe-Ni that can be magnetically separated.  

As far as I know, the concentration of nickel (and presumably metallic
iron) in Lunar soil is very low, a few hundred parts per million at
most [2, p.17:940].  Perhaps you mean ilmenite (iron-titanium oxide?)
Anyway, nickel is worth less than $4.00/lb [1], and iron some
$0.20/lb. 

>   [Dale Amon:] The lunar highlands soil is as rich in Ti as the
>   rutile sands of Australia.  

>   [Mike Smith:] Titanium aint cheap.  

Raw titanium metal costs something like $6/lb, and titanium alloys for
aerospace are $15-$25/lb [1,4].  Obviously, there is a bit of a gap between
the metallurgist's definition of "very expensive" ($25/lb) and NASA's
notion of "very cheap" ($500/lb).  

>   [Dale Amon:] There is only one [Moon export to Earth] that will
>   be meaningful in the same time frame as the first mining
>   efforts: He3.  

According to Paul Dietz's message [7], the average concentration of
He-3 in lunar soil is about 5 parts per billion.  Let's assume the
price of 3He goes up to $10,000/g (from its current price of
$700/g).  If you manage to process 4 million tons of soil a year
(that is >100 kg/second!) with 100% efficiency, you will get a mere
$200 million/year worth of He-3.  

>   [Andrew Folkins:] What's really needed is a lunar Landsat to
>   survey the geological and chemical properties of the Moon ...

I agree wholeheartedly.

>   >   [Me:] The Moon is very poor in hydrogen, chlorine, nitrogen,
>   >   etc.  [If used for metal extraction], extra equipment and
>   >   energy will be necessary to recover them from waste products.  

>   [Dale Amon:] There is a great deal of research that has gone
>   into doing the processes with only catalytic elements shipped
>   from Earth.

I have seen such papers, and they do seem quite promising.
However, I would like to see a reasonably complete prototype plant working
here on Earth, before I start believing their figures for the cost, mass,
and throughput of the whole system.  

ASTEROID MINING
---------------

>   [Andrew Folkins:] Agreed, the lack of volatile elements will be
>   a problem.  All the more reason for asteroid mining.  

>   [Dale Amon:] The H2 may come from Earth in the short run, but
>   it is probably simpler to go after a chondritic asteroid or a
>   burned out comet....  the Delta V requirements for some are
>   even less than for a trip to the moon, although considerably
>   longer: 3-5 years total mission time.

The technical problems of going to the asteroids are formidable.
It is by no means obvious that manned missions of that length will be
feasible, much less economical, in the next thirty years.  The
proposals for asteroid development I have seen are extremely vague and
full of holes --- even by the standards of the field.

>   [Dale Amon:] ...  In the case of a nickel-iron, smelting
>   mirrors are used to separate out some of the platinum group
>   elements which can be returned immediately with most of the
>   crew.  

Even if we get there, it is not clear whether there will be any mineral
products worth mining for shipment to Earth.  Common metals like iron
and nickel are far too cheap.  Rare metals, although more abundant
there than on Earth, are still very scarce --- 10 to 100 
parts per million, according to your own sources [8, p.375]. 
That means less than $1 worth per kg of asteroidal material.
At those prices, a $3.6 billion expedition would have to process
more than 10 kg of asteroid per second for ten years just to pay back the
investment.  

Proponents of asteroid mining usually say "smelting mirrors" as if they
were some sort of magic wand.  For example, the article referred above
proposes using mirrors to do in-place zone-melt refining of the
asteroid, processing some 2.4 tons/sec through 30 zone-melt cycles,
thus enhancing the concentration of rare earth elements to 80%.
For details, the reader is referred to a conveniently unpublished
paper.  This proposal makes as much sense as using gravity to extract
iron from its ore (you melt the ore, and let it stand; iron, being
denser than oxygen, will collect at the bottom...) 

>   >   [Me:] Besides, we still don't know for sure what the asteroids
>   >   are made of.

>   [Andrew Folkins:] Actually, we have a fairly good idea of what
>   they are made out of.  Analysis of meteorites indicate that
>   there is just about all the raw materials we need : nickel,
>   iron, hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, silicon, ...  

>   [Dale Amon:] We already know compositions of many near earth
>   asteroids spectroscopically.  You can say we don't know for
>   sure, and that is correct.

Yes, we have fairly good GUESSES, that are consistent with the evidence
mainly because there is very little of it.  As I remember, asteroid and
meteorite spectra have no definite lines, only a few broad and shallow
bumps that can be matched by a wide range of materials.
Moreover, the spectrum of an object may be completely falsified by a
thin layer of dust on its surface.  Also, meteorites that end up on
museum shelves are a VERY selective sample of those that enter the
atmosphere, and no one knows for sure whether these have the same
origin as the Earth-grazing asteroids.  

>   [Dale Amon:] I certainly would not disagree with getting some
>   probes out to look over the property.

>   [Andrew Folkins:] NASA has had an asteroid-rendevous project on the
>   back burner for years.  

Great.  Let's send those probes out.  

THE MASS DRIVER
---------------

>   >   [Me:] Lunar factories will need a steady stream of `space
>   >   trucks' to lift the product out to space.
>   >   Transportation alone is going to cost several hundred dollars
>   >   per pound of product.  

>   [Dale Amon:] You have not done your homework.  The mass driver
>   already works.  It has been tested at (2/3?) of full scale
>   size.  A Mass driver including power supply could be delivered
>   to the moon in less than a shuttle bay. ...   Read up on it.

What do you mean by 2/3 scale?  Any references?

The references I found in the Proceedings of the Space Manufacturing
conferences [3,p.71] [8,p.391] say that a 1/2 meter long segment of the
mass launcher accelerated a 40-gram bucket at 1500 G (G=Earth gravity,
10m/sec^2), and they hope to get that up to 1800 G.  This sounds quite
impressive, until you realize that you can get a lot more than 1800 G
by just hitting a steel ball with a hammer.  Obviously, the problem is
not just getting high accelerations, but also sustaining them long
enough.  

A proposal for a 1800 G lunar mass driver is described elsewhere in the
1985 Proceedings.  It has 100 coils, is 160 meters long, and launches
four one-pound projectiles per second (that is about 160 tons per day,
or 60,000 tons per year).  It consumes 12MW of electrical power,
imparting 1.5MJ in 0.13 seconds to each projectile.  Since the coils
fire one at a time, each coil must be switched from 0 to 12 Megawatt
and back to zero in a few microseconds.  The coils and their mounts
must be strong enough to resist a 2000-pound push four times per
second.  The exit velocity must be 2370 m/sec, with a transverse
velocity error less than 0.05 m/sec (i.e., directional accuracy better
than 0.00002 radians = 5 seconds of arc).  

The prototype used plain aluminum and copper coils, since the resistive
losses incurred in a single firing would not heat them up
significantly.  The full design would have to support CONTINUOUS
firings at ten times the power level; clearly, it would need
superconducting coils --- PULSED superconducting coils --- for which
there is simply no technology at present.  Another small detail: as
described in [3], the prototype's bucket was connected by a tether wire
to a capacitor bank of its own.  That is obviously not going to work in
the full design.  

Such a mass driver will require a large liquid helium plant and a
sizable capacitor bank (or the equipment to make the capacitors on the
Moon).  It needs equipment to manufacture and load four one-pound
sintered rock projectiles per second, and devices to decelerate the
empty buckets and return them to the starting end.

That of course is just to get the stuff off the Moon.  To complete the
system, you still need a kilometer-size catching net somewhere near the
Moon (say, at L2).  You need machinery to collect those four projectiles
per second and feed them to some other transport mechanism for
shipment to GEO, LEO, or the Earth. Now, what did you say about
demonstrations at 2/3 of full scale?

>   [Dave Newkirk:] If you have a lot to launch, the initial cost
>   of the accelerator is worth it.  

>   [Dale Amon:] The cost is dollars/lb.  

Let's assume your mass driver and associated systems cost $3.6 billion
(a wildly optmistic estimate).  You have to mine, process, launch,
catch, de-orbit, collect, and sell one million dollars of merchandise
PER DAY, for ten years, just to repay the capital (ignoring interest
and operating costs).  At 4 lb/sec, that gives a bit under $3/lb.
So, what are you going to launch?  Sintered lunar soil, iron, and
aluminum are too cheap.  Except for titanium, other metals are too rare
to be extracted at that rate.  At $6/lb titanium may have a chance; but
now add in the interest (another million dollars per day), supplies,
operating costs, night downtime, and a mining+smelting 
plant producing four pounds of titanium per second...  

CONCLUSION
----------

I still believe that mining extraterestrial bodies for Earth consumption is
not going to make sense in the foreseeable future.  The intrinsic value of
lunar and asteroidal ores is too low by orders of magnitude to compensate
for the high costs of capital, development, transportation, and operations.
Furthermore, it is by no means clear that the many technological problems
can be solved at all in that time frame.  

(More to come)

REFERENCES

[1] Metal Statistics 1986, Fairchild Publications
    (1985 prices).

[2] Encyclopaedia Britannica, 15th edition (1974, printed 1986)
    Volume 17, page 940, Table 3: Abundance of the elements in...

[3] Space Manufacturing 5: Engineering with Lunar and Asteroidal
    Materials.  Proceedings of the Seventh Princeton/AIAA/SSI
    Conference, May 8-11, 1985. 

[4] CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics (a.k.a. "the Rubber Bible")
    66th edition (1986).

[7] Paul Dietz's message <8611120617.AA02138@s1-b.arpa>

[8] Space Manufacturing 1983. Proceedings of the sixth Princeton/SSI 
    Conference, May 9-12, 1983.  Published as vol.  53 of AAS's Advances in
    the Astronautical Sciences.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #85
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09489; Sat, 27 Dec 86 03:01:48 PST
	id AA09489; Sat, 27 Dec 86 03:01:48 PST
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 86 03:01:48 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612271101.AA09489@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #86

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 86

Today's Topics:
		     Re: "A Quest For Excellence"
		      Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Dec 86 16:51:00 GMT
From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: "A Quest For Excellence"
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


The bureaucratic process in this country is pathetic. It is no wonder
that other nations can "beat our sox off" when it comes to advancement
and development.

I recently had the opportunity to converse with a computer programmer
who graduated with a PHD, went to an Aerospace Contractor and spent
six years, quit them and went into another field of work (still computer
related). I asked how come, he told me. He said that when a contractor
sends out 10 men, each with a spoon, to dig a ditch, which one man could
have dug with a shovel, you have an example of the type of thinking
that plagues our country.

He said that doing it this way ups the nose count of the contractor's
work force, making them appear to be a bigger company, such that they
are more likely to get contracts. This type of production is what leads
to the cost overruns. This is prevalent through out the work force in
the US.

The construction trades are a prime example. Here at the University
of Illinois, there is a current project, to run PVC pipe under every
street, to every building on campus, through which fiber optic cable
will be pulled, linking all machines on campus. If you observe the
work force, you will find one man in a backhoe, one with a shovel
in his hand, and ten men with their hands in their pockets watching.

In the case of the programmer, he was told not to do his best, but to
do it such that it took more people to accomplish the task, removing
incentive for "excellence". This was contrary to his way of thinking,
brought about a very low morale and his eventual resignation from the
company.

The Blue Ribbon Commission? Will it be listened to? It should be, but
how do you change the entire US industry? The govenment is no better,
they will argue over which state should have a facility built in it,
for reasons of which Senator's voters will get the jobs, not for reasons
as to where it can be done the best, (close resourses, etc).

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

Date: 24 Dec 86 16:08:23 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Re: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> > (He also said the things have been around a "long time," something
> > like 30 years).
> 
> Longer than that.  Dr. Rowland -- the man who made the first good diffraction
> gratings -- tinkered with the idea early in this century.  As I recall, he
> made it work but not well enough to be practical:  too many problems with
> vibration.
> -- 
> 				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> 				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

I know fer a fack that such mirror making ideas were in vogue about 1962 when
I took my course in Solar Energy at New Mexico State Univesity.

--arlan

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #86
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10537; Sun, 28 Dec 86 03:01:53 PST
	id AA10537; Sun, 28 Dec 86 03:01:53 PST
Date: Sun, 28 Dec 86 03:01:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612281101.AA10537@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #87

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 87

Today's Topics:
	       Where to look for lunar He-3 information
		  Quibbles about J. Stolfi's message
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 27 Dec 86 12:04 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com, space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  Where to look for lunar He-3 information

J. Stolfi referred to a message about lunar He-3 I sent to SPACE some
months back.  My information came from an abstract by Barney B. Roberts
(NASA Johnson Space Center) that appeared in the Bull. Am. Phys. Soc.,
31(9), Oct. 1986, page 1499.  The paper was presented at the 1986 Fall
Meeting of the Division of Plasma Physics in Baltimore, MD.

Please read that abstract for full details.

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

Date:     Sat, 27 Dec 86 14:20 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net, jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com
Subject:  Quibbles about J. Stolfi's message

J. Stolfi's article very nicely shows the difficulties any mining
company must face in mining Et material for use on earth.  I have
a few quibbles, however...

> [Stolfi] The technical problems of going to the asteroids are formidable.
> it is by no means obvious that manned missions of that length will be
> feasible, much less economical, in the next thirty years.

Ignoring for the moment whether such a mission could be funded, this
probably depends on how long weightlessness can be tolerated.  There are
likely some earth-crossing asteroids that are easier to get to than
Mars.  Also, Orion-style nuclear rockets are currently feasible in a
technical sense, although not politically in this country.  These could
easily visit near-earth asteroids in months with payloads of hundreds of
tons.

> [Stolfi] A proposal for a 1800 G lunar mass driver is described elsewhere
> ...  It consumes 12MW of electrical power... Since the coils
> fire one at a time, each coil must be switched from 0 to 12 Megawatt
> and back to zero in a few microseconds.  The coils and their mounts
> must be strong enough to resist a 2000-pound push four times per
> second.  The exit velocity must be 2370 m/sec, with a transverse
> velocity error less than 0.05 m/sec (i.e., directional accuracy better
> than 0.00002 radians = 5 seconds of arc).  

I think Stolfi is engaging in a little misrepresentation here, making this
sound outrageous.  First of all, 12 MW of *pulsed* power is not out
of the question: it is applied to each coil for only a few milliseconds.
A better measure is the *energy* delivered by each coil per pulse: an
average of 30 kilojoules.  Also, it is not the case that the fixed coils
must be brought from zero to full current in a few microseconds.  Designing
a large coil that can withstand 2000 pounds of force is not difficult
although obviously one must worry about fatigue. It has been proposed
that the transverse error be minimized by down-range electrostatic
corrections; I'm not sure that would be feasible, though, although
it's not obviously impossible.

> The prototype used plain aluminum and copper coils, since the resistive
> losses incurred in a single firing would not heat them up
> significantly.  The full design would have to support CONTINUOUS
> firings at ten times the power level; clearly, it would need
> superconducting coils --- PULSED superconducting coils --- for which
> there is simply no technology at present.  Another small detail: as
> described in [3], the prototype's bucket was connected by a tether wire
> to a capacitor bank of its own.  That is obviously not going to work in
> the full design.  

Whoa!  The fixed coils don't have to be superconducting!  One can
tolerate significant losses there, since you can circulate coolant
through them, and they can be made massive to reduce resistance.

Stolfi is referring to the bucket coil, which must be superconducting
(a normal coil would either be too heavy to launch or have so little
thermal inertia it would melt).  This solves the problem of energizing
the bucket coil, though: persistent currents are used.

>Such a mass driver will require a large liquid helium plant and a
>sizable capacitor bank (or the equipment to make the capacitors on the
>Moon).

The only liquid He needed would be for the bucket coils.  The helium
and these coils would be imported and recycled.  The capacitors would
likely use the vacuum as a dielectric.  This isn't practical on earth,
since large volumes of vacuum are not free as they are on the moon.
The capacitor's plates and supports could be made of local materials.

Stolfi's points about other system components are well taken.
I wonder where he got the $3.6 billion figure for a lunar mass driver,
though.  Does that include development cost?  Was it built entirely
on earth, then transported to the moon?  Development cost can be
amortized over many launchers, and transportation from earth is
expensive, so it would likely make sense to manufacture parts for
the mass driver on the moon.

Also, ideally, if one is exporting raw materials from the moon to the
earth, one would like to avoid mass catchers and ferry vessels in space,
and just shoot large durable chunks to earth.  This isn't (?) really feasible
with a mass driver, since the individual projectiles are so small,
but it might be possible with other concepts to launch larger
projectiles at lower rates on trajectories terminating in a few well
chosen impact zones on earth.  I'll send a follow-up note on this.

> [Stolfi] A couple of months ago I posted a long message arguing that
> space mining and manufacturing is probably never going to be profitable. 
> ...
> I still believe that mining extraterestrial bodies for Earth
> consumption is not going to make sense in the foreseeable future. ...

I note that "never" has mutated into "not in the foreseeable future".
The latter is a much weaker claim.

Paul Dietz

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #87
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11710; Mon, 29 Dec 86 03:02:06 PST
	id AA11710; Mon, 29 Dec 86 03:02:06 PST
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 86 03:02:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612291102.AA11710@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #88

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 88

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #86
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Dec 1986 20:54-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #86
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sat, 27 Dec 86 03:10:30 PST

Jorge Stolfi: I'm too swamped to argue with you, but I hope you come to
our conference here in Pittsburgh, March 27-29,1987. You can then argue
in person with the people who are doing the work and not only think it
will work, but feel they have solved most of the problems you are
suggesting. It would be great fun to go and research a rebuttal, but I
am unfortuneately unable to justify the time right now. Better to argue
with primary sources than with me anyway...

						Dale Amon
						Chairman,
				6th Space Development Conference

PS: anyone who takes on running a national conference has to be crazy,
a masochist, or more likely, both.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #88
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13275; Tue, 30 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST
	id AA13275; Tue, 30 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 86 03:02:08 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612301102.AA13275@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #89

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 89

Today's Topics:
		   Mirror, Mirrors, in the sky ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Dec 86 14:26 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Mirror, Mirrors, in the sky ...
To: space@angband.s1.gov

	A recent SPACE entry proposed floating about a million mirrors
in space to make a big mirror. However, I've got a bad feeling about
this : each of those seperate mirrors has something the corresponding
section of a big mirror does not have : a discontinuity at the edge.
Won't this produce LOTS of diffraction patterns, dramatically degrading
the image? ( Remember, we are talking LOTS of mirrors, each a LONG way
from the focal plane. ) MMTs don't have this problem because they only
have a few elements, the total edge is only a few times more than the
total edge a single mirror would have. But a 10,000 small mirrors with
the same area as 1 big mirror will have 10,000 times as much edge!  This
means 10,000 times the trouble with edge effects.

	As I recall from my days as an engineering student, its always
EDGE EFFECTS, and things like them, that screw up simple assumptions. I
think this is the case in both the "build a big mirror out of flats" and
the "use a lot of little mirrors" proposals. Edge effects may get
mercury mirrors, too: on any cooling body, the edges cool first, then
the surfaces, then the volume of the object. Unless the liquid and solid
have the same density, AND the material has a zero coefficient of
thermal expansion, no way will you get a good surface.

			Dennis O'Connor

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #89
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15017; Wed, 31 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST
	id AA15017; Wed, 31 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 86 03:02:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8612311102.AA15017@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #90

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 90

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V7 #89
			  Re: Baseball at L5
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Dec 1986  12:45 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov, minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #89
In-Reply-To: Msg of 30 Dec 1986  06:16-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at angband.s1.gov>

The scattering of light from the edges of small mirrors will indeed
degrade the image of a composite telescope.  The effect is not quite a
bad as O'Connor fears; 10,000 small mirrors has only 100 times the
amount of edge per unit area as one large mirror.  However, in my rather
drastic partitioning of a 1 km mirror into 1 cm cells, the increase in
scattered light might be the order of a factor of 100,000.

A one-centimeter mirror is 20,000 wavelengths across.  If we imagine the
mirror's edge to be a white band a wavelength in width, then the
intensity of light scattered into the focus would be of the order of
1/10,000 that of the average brightness of the sky.  Presumably this can
be reduced by a factor of the order of 1000 by optically tapering those
edges.  (Is that true, optic scientists?)  Our huge mirror concentrates
light by a factor of 10,000 over concentional 10 meter telescopes.  I
think this means that we end up with a sensitivity decrease of 10 for
the dimmest objects - but with a resolution increase of 10,000 for mot
of the objects that we can already see.

We should also distinguish between scattering and coherent diffraction.
Any regular defect in a mirror will act like a grating that produces
concentrated sidelobe peaks - false images - of bright objects.
However, this effect disappears when we use large numbers of irregularly
spaced small mirrors.  The sidebands of very large irregular arrays
become increasingly diffuse, in contrast to how the sidebands of regular
gratings become increasingly sharp.

These effects decrease as the mirror elements increase in size, but then
the issues of structural rigidity return.  It seems to me that the
advantages of this way to obtain great resolution outweigh most
objections because it has such a high ratio of active reflector to
structural overhead weight.  As for those objections about the mirrors
flying away, that will happen only if the system encounters a compact
particle beam or a massive, slow intruder.  I don't suppose we know
enough yet about the liklihood of such events in deep space.

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

Date: 30 Dec 86 16:06:57 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Baseball at L5
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>  
> If the pitcher throws the ball directly at the strike zone, the ball 
> (because it becomes an independent object in orbit about the earth-moon 
> as soon as the pitcher lets go) will follow a straight line - toward
> where the strike zone WAS.   Which will be antispinward a ways.  How far
> depends on how fast the cylinder was rotating.	So a pitcher would 
> have to act like a duck hunter and "lead" the strike zone.

Nope. When the pitcher lets go of the ball it has the same spinward velocity as
the strike zone. The strike zone accelerates toward the cylinder axis but
except for the resistance of the air (which is also accelerating inward) the 
ball no longer is accelerated inward
thus the ball appears to drop just as on earth but there is no reason for it 
to move to anti-spinward. The same applies to fly balls.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #90
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17279; Thu, 1 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
	id AA17279; Thu, 1 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701011102.AA17279@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #91

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 91

Today's Topics:
			    Baseball at L5
			  Re: Baseball at L5
			  orbiter simulation
		   Alternatives to the mass driver
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 31 Dec 86 10:03:32 EST
From: weltyc%cieunix@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty)
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Cc: 
In-Reply-To: decvax!mcnc!unc!symon@ucbvax.berkeley.edu's message of 30 Dec 86 16:06:57 GMT
Subject: Baseball at L5


	YOU'RE BOTH HALF RIGHT...read on...

	If you just let go of a ball, it would appear to drop to the
ground, like on earth, but not (obviously) because of gravity.  It
would drop because as you let go of the ball, it becomes a free
object - no longer held in the circular motion of the station - and
would travel in a direction tangent to the circle at the point of
release.  Because the surface is moving in a circle, this tangential
movement will give the appearance of falling.
	If you throw the ball, however, it's apparent motion to
someone on the surface depends entirely on two things: The size of the
circle (the diameter), and the DIRECTION you throw the ball ( If the
circle is big enough, there will be no observable difference), You
can't impart a circular trajectory on a baseball (not counting air
res, and all that), so the straight line of the baseball compared with
the circular motion of objects on the surface will appear to do weird
things. 
	If you throw the ball in the direction of the spin, that is,
if you and the ball are moving (tangentially) forward (in space, not
in the station) and you throw in the same direction as your velocity,
the ball will appear to sink (if you aimed it directly at the target),
because the target will be moving (in reference to the point from
which it starts) upwards and away.  
	If you throw the ball against the spin, ie the other way from above,
the ball will appear to rise, as the target is now moving downwards and
towards the starting point of the ball.  Note the ball will always
land, as it's straight line of motion will eventually reach a point on
the surface.  I suppose, however, it might be possible to imart
exactly the opposite velocity as it would have if you let it drop (ie
the velocity it has from traveling with you on the surface of the
station) so that the ball would remain stationary in space, and seem
to travel forever at a constant height to those on the station.  Of
course, there are other movements involved in a space station besides
its spin, and all these would factor in as well and aren't considered
here.
	
					-Chris

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

Date: 30 Dec 86 17:34:53 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (t.ebersole)
Subject: Re: Baseball at L5
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The latest (Jan. or Feb.) issue of Analog has an article by 
John Cramer (The Alternate View) in which he discusses the forces 
affecting things used in various sports as they might be played
in a rotating space habitat. For example, anything thrown spinward
"falls" as the curved outer wall (floor) rotates "upward" to
meet it. If thrown anti-spinward, the object "rises" as the floor
rotates "down" away from the object. Coriolis "forces" (which, it
occurs to me, are probably a subset of the previously described
3-d "forces") are also described. Read the article for more details
and more interesting prose.

I apologize if my use of quotes for "imaginary" or "relatively" has
confused anyone, and for any Zapotecan idioms my Christmas-cheered
brain may have unwittingly typed.

Happy New Year. Prospero Anyo Nuevo. Sacru Isray.(Phonic not "spellic", okay?!?)

Tim Ebersole ...ihnp4!mtuxo!tee

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

Date: 30 Dec 86 15:17:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: orbiter simulation
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***

After reading about it in the EE times, I had to by a copy of 
"Orbiter" for my PC. First of all I do not work for Spectrum
Holobyte nor do I know anyone who does. 

Clearly this is a superior piece of software. If you are a frustrated
space enthusiast that would clean latrines if that's what it takes
to get up there, you will enjoy this program. 

Now the bad news....it is slow. I'm running an AT&T 6300 (8mhz)
with a hard disk and 8087 Math chip (the program claims to take advantage
of the Math chip if it is available) and the response time in accepting
keyboard commands is just barely tolerable. The reason that it is slow
is that it is a simulation and when it has a shuttle and a MMU and a 
satellite all in orbit, not to mention the graphic displays to update,
the PC is running flat out. 

Personally, I'm impressed with what they have done, given the equipment
they are making it run on. 

The SSMEs are running hot and the APUs are nice and cool
I've got the "wish I could fly the shuttle blues".

					Fred

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

Date:     Wed, 31 Dec 86 17:21 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net, jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com
Subject:  Alternatives to the mass driver

J. Stolfi recently had some complaints about the mass diver.  I said
I'd send some comments on possible alternative launch schemes.  Here
are two:

(1) Electromagnetic induction accelerators.  Unlike the mass driver,
in which superconducting bucket coils carry a persistent current,
current in this accelerator's armature is generated by induction from
an AC current in the stator.  Like the mass driver, there is no physical
contact between the armature and the accelerator.  A recent paper
describing this kind of accelerator (IEEE Trans. Magnetics, Nov. 1986,
pages 1453-1458) showed how to reduce slip losses that heat the armature.
The concept described had these parameters:

   Length 	 	18 meters
   Projectile		15cm long by 6cm dia. aluminum cylinder (1 kg)
   Average accel.	250,000 gees
   Muzzle velocity	10 km/sec

The stator is a three phase varying pitch solenoid.  Peak magnetic
field is 20.6 Tesla.  The design, which comes from U. Texas, makes use
of a novel generator concept in which the frequency rises during the
launch.  System efficiency is estimated to be 28%.  Muzzle velocity
seems to be limited by armature heating, which is between 480 and
690 degrees C (slip losses between 0.65% and 0.95%).  Precooling the
projectile to LN2 temperatures or transpiration cooling might be
worthwhile.

Their concept could be adapted for use on the moon.  Armature heating
and kinetic energy would be over 17 times lower.  This should ease
synchronization requirements and permit large nonconductive payloads to
be piggybacked.  Armatures could be braked and returned to the breach by
reversing the accelerator at reduced power.  To dissipate heat, armatures
could be placed in contact with a refrigerated heat sink between uses.
Several hundred armatures would be needed (depending on the firing and
cooling rates).  The armatures are simple, just solid aluminum, and could
be manufactured on the moon.  Beryllium might be better but would have
to be imported.


(2) Railguns.  Solid armature railguns can easily reach 2.4 km/sec.
The armature is again made of aluminum and is in this case launched
with the payload.  Armatures could be recycled and remanufactured by
dropping the aluminum from space near the launch site.  Frictional
erosion of the rails could be a problem; perhaps the rails can be
recoated or remanufactured frequently.  System efficiency could be
increased and armature mass reduced if the railgun is augmented with
superconducting coils above and below the barrel.


Both of these ideas are simplified if the material being exported from
the moon includes aluminum metal, not just unprocessed ore.  The
armatures could then be considered to be part of the payload and
would be reprocessed for use in space (or could act as ablative
shields for masses launched to earth).  Both designs can potentially
achieve much higher accelerations than O'Neill's Mass Driver III and
may be much shorter.  At 250,000 gees, for example, lunar escape
speed is reached in slightly over 1 meter (vs. 160 meters for
Mass Driver III).  It may be feasible for the launcher to swivel
to track a stream of mass catchers in low lunar orbit.  Benefits:
transit time to the collectors is reduced, to ~ 100 - 1000 seconds,
so they can be smaller (albeit more numerous) or the launcher can be
less accurate, and muzzle velocity can be reduced somewhat.


By the way, don't take this as evidence that I think lunar mining
for consumption on earth will make sense soon.  Stolfi pointed out
that only for titanium would it be even arguable to mine on the moon
(ignoring He3).  However, Stolfi didn't tell us why titanium is so
expensive.  I suspect it is because the metal is hard to refine, not
because the ore is rare, so setting up lunar sources of ore solves
the wrong problem.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #91
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18558; Fri, 2 Jan 87 03:02:16 PST
	id AA18558; Fri, 2 Jan 87 03:02:16 PST
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 87 03:02:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701021102.AA18558@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #92

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 92

Today's Topics:
			Re: Mercurial Mirrors
		 Re: Alternatives to the mass driver
		 Re: Alternatives to the mass driver
			  Re: Baseball at L5
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 Dec 86 19:08:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!akgua!galbp!GALBPBB!bing@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Mercurial Mirrors
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


How cold does it have to be for mercury to turn solid?

Seems to me that once the thing is shaped by gravity, you could freeze
it to solid form. I mean it's pretty cold out there...

mail reply address: ...galbp!bing

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

Date: 1 Jan 87 03:16:06 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ...  However, Stolfi didn't tell us why titanium is so
> expensive.  I suspect it is because the metal is hard to refine, not
> because the ore is rare, so setting up lunar sources of ore solves
> the wrong problem.

Correct.  Titanium is one of the more common elements in the Earth's
crust; there is no shortage of low-grade titanium ore.  Titanium dioxide
is commonly used as a white pigment in paint.  But the metal is just awful
to refine, because it's fiercely active chemically and its properties are
greatly affected by even trace impurities.

(Sample:  The Lockheed Skunk Works had a devil of a time figuring out
why the metallurgical quality of welds on the SR-71 varied depending on
whether the welds were made in summer or winter [in an air-conditioned
building!].  Turned out they were using tap water for cleaning the welds,
and the chlorination in the local water system varied with the season.
Isn't titanium metallurgy fun?)
-- 
				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 1 Jan 87 03:11:59 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8612312339.AA16676@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
>J. Stolfi recently had some complaints about the mass diver.  I said
>I'd send some comments on possible alternative launch schemes.  Here
>are two:
>
>(1) Electromagnetic induction accelerators.  
>	.....
>(2) Railguns.  

There are several other major alternatives to mass drivers.  

(3) Tether systems

(3a) rotating skyhook -- a tapered cable in low lunar orbit which
rotates like the spoke of a wheel rolling on the lunar surface --
the ends of the cable periodically touch the surface (at zero
relative velocity) and can pick up payloads, which are released
into lunar escape orbits half a cable rotation later (or are
hoisted up to the cable hub and released into lunar orbit).
The skyhook is maintained in orbit by any of several means -- lowering
waste mass (say, space refinery slag, or pieces of a captured asteroid)
back to the surface, or ejecting a smaller amount of waste mass
via some type of electric thruster at the hub.
	A lower-mass rotating skyhook can be used to reach only
part-way to the lunar surface, allowing an even lower velocity
electromagnetic (or other) launcher than would normally be needed
on the moon to get mass up to the tether end (this trick works for
Earth orbit, too)

(3b) Stationary skyhook -- a la several recent science fiction books --
except that the material strength required for a lunar skyhook is
not science-fictional.  The skyhook would extend from the lunar
surface to the L1 or L2 points.

(3c) "active" skyhooks -- versions of Keith Lofstrom's Launch Loop
or Rod Hyde's Starbridge, using (respectively) an iron ribbon and
a particle stream to support a structure dynamically.  These (and 
similar systems) would be
vastly easier to build on the moon (free vacuum, lots of solar
power, no hurricanes or space junk or nearby cities to worry 
about) than on earth, and
might be competitive with passive skyhooks for certain cases (e.g.
lunar polar mining)

(4) Laser Launching

	This is my own field these days.  One uses a large laser
(10 - 100 MW avg. power) on the moon to heat propellant (probably liquid oxygen)
in a cheap, possibly throwaway, rocket engine to generate thrust and
lift a payload from the surface.  Since
thrust is delivered over a long distance (several hundred kilometers)
and time (several minutes) one can launch substantial payloads
(several tons, with a 100 MW laser) at very low accelerations, and
with very modest power storage and switching (a major problem with
electromagnetic launchers).  A laser launch system would probably be
somewhat less massive than an electromagnetic launcher, for a given
payload capacity, and would have much greater flexibility -- launches
could be in any direction and to any final velocity, and the laser
could also be used to land payloads, whereas I wouldn't care to try
to hit the bore of an electromagnetic launcher with an incoming
payload....  It would even work for manned vehicles.

(5) Gas gun

	The Jules Verne approach, although probably with a two-stage
gun, and electrically-heated propellant (oxygen again?) unless we
find a source for Lunar hydrogen.  Very simple, fairly efficient --
just heavy, so you have to assume it's built out of local materials...

>By the way, don't take this as evidence that I think lunar mining
>for consumption on earth will make sense soon.  

I am currently participating in a Cal-Space (California Space Institute)
study (sponsored by NASA) of means for transporting lunar materials
to Earth orbit.  Several of the techniques mentioned are being considered.
Note, however, that the only material considered "worth the effort"
in the foreseeable future (25 years or so, according to NASA) is 
oxygen delivered to low Earth orbit as spacecraft propellant.  They
are not considering any "construction" materials, and they are 
certainly far from considering delivering anything to the ground --
it's not even clear that, using NASA accounting, it will be worth
bringing back oxygen.  

I think NASA is (necessarily) very conservative in their assumptions, 
but it still seems very unlikely that any raw materials will be 
worth retrieving from space unless and until there is a large
space industrial base, comparable (say, within two or three orders
of magnitude) of the Earth industrial base, which has learned to 
obtain and transport materials at low cost for its own use.  But once,
for example, the General Technics Satellite Solar Power Plant Construction
Company has a 50,000-ton-per-year spun-glass fabrication plant 
running at L-5, who's to say they won't be shipping some by-product
titanium "downhill" to us....

	Jordin Kare	jtk@mordor.s1.gov	jtk@mordor.UUCP

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

Date: 1 Jan 87 00:04:19 GMT
From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov  (Crah)
Subject: Re: Baseball at L5
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <478@unc.unc.UUCP>, symon@unc.UUCP (James Symon) writes:
> >  
> > If the pitcher throws the ball directly at the strike zone, the ball 
> > (because it becomes an independent object in orbit about the earth-moon 
> > as soon as the pitcher lets go) will follow a straight line - toward
> > where the strike zone WAS.   Which will be antispinward a ways.  How far
> > depends on how fast the cylinder was rotating.	So a pitcher would 
> > have to act like a duck hunter and "lead" the strike zone.
> 
> Nope. When the pitcher lets go of the ball it has the same spinward velocity as
> the strike zone. The strike zone accelerates toward the cylinder axis but
> except for the resistance of the air (which is also accelerating inward) the 
> ball no longer is accelerated inward
> thus the ball appears to drop just as on earth but there is no reason for it 
> to move to anti-spinward. The same applies to fly balls.

Does this really work?  Well, I did the experiment.  On top of my
record turntable I placed a vertical cylinder (actually, a rolled-up poster).
My turntable has a flat mat on the top, so I could see the path of
a micro-softball (a BB) essentially unimpaired by surface effects.
	
Sure enough - if I drop a BB from the top of the cylinder it falls to
the bottom.  It does not curve outward to strike the cylinder, even
when the record turntable is set all the way up to "45".
Only when the BB begins to be accellerated by the mat at the bottom does 
the BB move outward toward the cylinder.
	
So - if a pitcher can give the ball a velocity which contains no spinward
component, the ball will follow a straight line toward where the
strike zone was.  
	
For part two of the experiment, I moved the BB at about the 
peripheral velocity of the cylinder spinward, and dropped it.
Now the BB  follows what looks to me (a stationary observer)
like a straight line, right to the cylinder.  If I try and rotate 
my head with the cylinder, it looks like a segment of a curve.
 
Conclusion of experiment - whether the ball flies straight or falls
depends on whether the pitcher can counter the spinward velocity of
the L5 colony surface.

How fast does the colony surface move?  If it's more than 70 feet per
second, I don't think a rank amateur like myself can counter the spin 
without working awfully hard on the pitch.  But batting is 
another matter altogether - even an amateur can reach speeds in
excess of 200 feet per second in hardball.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #92
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19687; Sat, 3 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST
	id AA19687; Sat, 3 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701031101.AA19687@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #93

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 93

Today's Topics:
			Re: orbiter simulation
	       Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 2 Jan 1987  19:17 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Cc: minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
In-Reply-To: Msg of 2 Jan 1987  11:57-EST from Gloriana Davenport <gid at MEDIA-LAB.MEDIA.MIT.EDU>


We all agree that the Challenger disaster was terrible.  How could
NASA and Morton-Thiokol be so careless about those O-rings?  But I
have only now realized that the problem is much broader in nature.
The other day, I tried to re-fill our seltzer siphon bottle.  I
inserted the carbon dioxide cartridge, screwed down the injector
device and -- out came a stream of gas and ice.  After losing three
cartridges this way I carefully disassembled the entire system - and
discovered that the blast of gas was leaking past a defect in the
O-ring seal.  I fixed it with a little dab of silicone sealer.

The very next day, I found a puddle of water under the electric
coffee-pot.  Dissecting of the device revealed a leaky O-ring seal in
the juction between the pot and the electric heating element.  Another
dab of sllicone.

It seems appropriate for Congress to investigate the reliability
procedures used by NASA and Morton-Thiokol, but my experience suggests
that the problem runs much deeper.  Apparently, unreliable O-ring
seals pervade our entire economy.

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

Date: 2 Jan 87 19:11:35 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (Rick Kolker)
Subject: Re: orbiter simulation
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <931@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes:
>*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***
>
>After reading about it in the EE times, I had to by a copy of 
>"Orbiter" for my PC. First of all I do not work for Spectrum
>Holobyte nor do I know anyone who does. 
>
>Clearly this is a superior piece of software. If you are a frustrated
>space enthusiast that would clean latrines if that's what it takes
>to get up there, you will enjoy this program. 
>
>Now the bad news....it is slow. I'm running an AT&T 6300 (8mhz)
>with a hard disk and 8087 Math chip (the program claims to take advantage
>of the Math chip if it is available) and the response time in accepting
>keyboard commands is just barely tolerable. The reason that it is slow
>is that it is a simulation and when it has a shuttle and a MMU and a 
>satellite all in orbit, not to mention the graphic displays to update,
>the PC is running flat out. 
>
>Personally, I'm impressed with what they have done, given the equipment
>they are making it run on. 
>
>The SSMEs are running hot and the APUs are nice and cool
>I've got the "wish I could fly the shuttle blues".
>
>					Fred
>					
I've been playing with the MAC version of Orbiter for about six months now
and haven't noticed processing time getting in the way.

My background included a couple of sessions in the shuttle simulator
at Huntsville's "Space Camp" (yes adults can go) so
I know from whence I speak when I say this is a good program.

Spectrum Holobyte promises me I'll see the version for my Atari ST shortly, I can't wait.


+------------------------------------^----------------------------------------+
|    Rich Kolker                    / \ 
|    8519 White Pine Dr.           / * \      It lives again
|    Manassas Park, VA 22111      |     | 
|    (703)361-1290                |  ^  |
+---------------------------------v/---\v-------------------------------------+

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

Date:     Fri, 2 Jan 87 16:28 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver

Jordan Kare (jtk@mordor.s1.gov) proposed some additional ways to launch
mass into space.

1) Rotating lunar tether.  I didn't include this because it doesn't
eliminate the need for a mass driver type electric engine, it just moves
it to space.  Also, dropping industrial slag back down to the moon
seems like a zero sum game, unless the industrial slag can be slingshot
somehow in the earth-moon system and captured again at high speed.
I'm leary about managing the orbital dynamics, too, and the mass flow
rate per unit system mass doesn't seem very high.  It seems like a good
system for transporting fragile cargo or for lunar surface exploration,
though, since you can land and take off from unprepared areas.

2) Stationary lunar tether.  A tether extending to the L1 or L2
points would be *very* long, and would, I thought, be quickly broken
by space debris.

3) "Active Skyhooks".  I haven't seen Starbridge, but I have seen
Lofstrom's Launch Loop proposal, and I don't believe you could
erect it practically on earth (that thing is huge).

I was going to include a lunar launch loop as a third proposal,
but edited it out. It would work like this:  the ferromagnetic
loop would be positioned by attractive magnetic levitation between
two ground level parallel superconducting cables.  Current in
the cables is directed in opposite directions.  This scheme is
stable in the vertical direction but unstable in the horizontal, so
some active control is needed (however, unlike Lofstrom's scheme,
the instability is in a direction perpendicular to the centripetal
forces).  The system is laid out in a racetrack on the lunar surface,
the ends are banked and have a much stronger magnetic field.  The loop
is levitated at rest and accelerated by induction motors to above lunar
escape speed; the maglev components now acting to keep the loop from
rising.  Payloads are placed on the loop and accelerated as in Lofstrom's
scheme; the straight section of the racetrack either does not follow
the lunar surface (the middle is in a ditch) or the payload is kept
down by the maglev system.  A small system could be a few tens of
kilometers across.  The payload carriers could be recovered after use
by landing them on a long metallic runway, decelerating from orbital
speed by magnetic drag (this would require payloads to be placed in low
orbit).

(Someone had a paper on a lunar launch loop at some L5 conference,
I think; pointer please?)

4) Laser launching.  With induction accelerators or railguns,
the system mass is going to be dominated by the powerplant, and
I presume the same will be true of a lunar laser launcher.  I worry
about the efficiency of a laser launcher.  You'll lose energy in the laser,
in the rocket, and in refining the reaction mass.  This scheme
does have the big advantages over mass-driver-like schemes of being
able to transport cryogens, and not requiring mass catchers.

5) Gas gun.  Instead of electrically heating the gas, may I suggest a
pebble bed nuclear reactor/heat exchanger?  A fast closing valve
to retain propellant gas might also be useful, if the propellant
has a high boiling point (steam?).

This brings up the interesting point: how does one generate
large amounts of electrical power on the moon, where disposal
of waste heat is a big problem?  Solar is expensive and often
unavailable.  Transfer heat to lunar soil?  Use a pebble heat
transfer material that is continuously tossed upwards and cooled
by radiation in flight?  Receive beamed power from earth?  Eventually
a solar power satellite in space would be a good choice, but that's
not possible at start-up.

About bringing back lunar oxygen:  to get oxygen on the moon, you'll need
a powerplant there, probably nuclear.  If you're going to use a nuclear
powerplant to make oxygen to burn with hydrogen, why not skip the
intermediate steps and just use a nuclear reactor to heat hydrogen
in a rocket?  That reactor needn't be very large.  This will use
more hydrogen, but will be much cheaper than lifting oxygen from
earth for use in chemical rockets, if the OTV can be reused.

By "worth the effort" I presume NASA meant for use in orbit.  I'm
suprised NASA didn't mention the possibility of lunar polar ice,
and obviously a lunar base would make use of local materials, if
only for shielding (or do they mean they won't have a lunar base
for 25 years?).

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #93
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21006; Sun, 4 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST
	id AA21006; Sun, 4 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 87 03:01:58 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701041101.AA21006@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #94

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 94

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Bucks from space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 87 09:01:18 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Bucks from space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

[]

My thanks to Paul Dietz for posting actual references on Lunar
He-3 and alternative mass drivers; I will try to get them.
Meanwhile, here are some comments: 

>   [Paul Dietz:] I think Stolfi is engaging in a little
>   misrepresentation [of the Snively-O'Neill mass driver design]
>   here, making this sound outrageous.  

As an ignorant onlooker, I am more than likely to get my facts wrong.
But please credit me with enough wits to realize that by engaging in
intentional misrepresentation on this bboard I would be merely
shooting my own foot.  

Also, I didn't try to make the mass driver concept sound outrageous
(it certainly isn't).  What I find outrageous is the claim that it
has been demonstrated at 2/3 full scale, that it will require only a
couple of shuttle-loads of equipment, and that the whole system will be
cheap enough to ship raw materials to Earth at competitive prices.  

>   [Me:] The full design would need superconducting coils...  

>   [Paul Dietz:] Whoa! The fixed coils don't have to be superconducting!  

Oops, you are right there. Sorry...

>   [Paul Dietz:] I wonder where [Stolfi] got the $3.6 billion
>   figure for a lunar mass driver, though.  ...
>   Development cost can be amortized over many launchers...  

The Apollo program cost some 70 billion in current dollars, or some 2-3
billion per launch.  A single Shuttle orbiter costs some 2 billion,
excluding development costs.  Even allowing for improved technology and
economies of scale, we can safely expect to pay several billions for
the manufacture, delivery and installation of a mass driver on the
Moon.  (I picked 3.6 billion because it gave a nice round number on a
per-day basis.) Add to that bucket handlers, mining, smelting and life
support equiment, cooling plants, power plants, mass catchers,
Moon-orbit-to-Earth-orbit transportation, ground support, and all the
associated paraphernalia.  Maybe 36 billion per unit is still too
optimistic ...  

>   [Paul Dietz:] Was it built entirely on earth, then transported
>   to the moon?  ...  it would likely make sense to manufacture
>   parts for the mass driver on the moon ...  

...provided the extra equipment necessary to manufacture those parts is
lighter than the parts themselves.  This may be true for structural
elements, but is not obvious for the rest, even for such "simple"
things as coils, capacitors, and solar cells.  Moreover, just
supporting a crew on the Moon for the time it takes to build a
capacitor bank out of rock and sunshine may cost more than shipping the
thing from Earth.  

>   [Paul Dietz:] The capacitors would likely use the vacuum as a dielectric.
>   This isn't practical on earth, since large volumes of vacuum
>   are not free as they are on the moon.  

My impression is that using vacuum as a dielectric doesn't pay off.
Since electrical attraction between the plates is going to be several
pounds per square inch, you have to insert some thin insulating layer
or grid between them to keep them apart.  In that case, it is better to
use a solid layer, which seems simpler to build and gives a higher
capacitance than vacuum.  At least, one of the MD-III papers [4]
explicitly discards the idea of capacitors made by spreading lunar dirt
between metal plates, and suggests making them by vapor deposition of
alternate layers of metal and glass.  In any case, I wonder how much
time and equipment mass will it take to build the capacitor bank.  

>   [Paul Dietz:] Stolfi didn't tell us why titanium is so
>   expensive.  

According to [1], over 60% of the titanium produced in the US
goes to aerospace applications.  Maybe it is expensive because the
Pentagon buys it?  :-) 

Seriously, refining costs are about half the answer.  From [3], 146--148: 

    "[Titanium] is produced by converting the ore, rutile or ilmenite,
    into titanium dioxide by means of simple chemical treatment.
    The dioxide is then converted to the tetrachloride, and heated with
    magnesium or sodium which reduces it to the metal [this is known as
    the Kroll process].  ...  Although titanium uses in industry are
    constantly widening, its market is very much dependent on the
    fortunes of the aerospace industry.  The value of the metal bears
    almost no relationship to the price of the ore, but more to the
    value of the pure metal (magnesium or sodium) required to reduce it
    from the ore.  Both these metals are abundant in sea water but
    incur in high energy costs in production." 

The other half of the answer seems to be that titanium metallurgy is
expensive; the price of aircraft quality sheets and billets is at least
double that of reasonably pure titanium powder.[1] See also Henry
Spencer's recent message on this bboard.  

>   [Me:] A couple of months ago I argued that space mining and
>   manufacturing is probably never going to be profitable.
>   ...  I still believe that it is not going to make sense in
>   the foreseeable future.  ...  

>   [Paul Dietz:] I note that "never" has mutated into "not in the
>   foreseeable future".  The latter is a much weaker claim.  

Nothing has mutated; I believe in both, with different degrees of
confidence.

Consider the idea of raising horses in Antarctica for the US market.
This is not going to make sense in the foreseeable future, because in
that time span horse breeding is certainly going to be much more
expensive there than here.  It is also quite possible that such trade
will NEVER happen, because if and when the cost difference disappears,
chances are there will be no longer a market for horses, or no horses,
or no markets, or no Antarctica, or no US, or no one alive who gives a
damn about what a certain J. Stolfi said about international horse trade
back in A.D. 1986.  

  
REFERENCES

[1] "Metal Statistics 1986", Fairchild Publications.

[2] R. Packard, "Metal Bulletin Handbook 1986"
    Metal Bulletin Books Ltd, UK (1984 prices).

[3] J. Edwards & P. Robbins, "Guide to non-ferrous metals and their
    markets", Kogan-Page, UK (1979).

[4] M. Prado & D. Renfroe, "Lunar-based mass driver power supply: 
    Assessment of homopolar generators, compulsators, and capacitor banks"
    in "Space manufacturing 5: Engineering with Lunar and asteroidal
    materials," proceedings of the Seventh Princeton/AIAA/SSI
    Conference, May 8-11, 1985.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: My employer may or may not have strong opinions about this stuff,
but I don't dare to ask.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #94
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23044; Mon, 5 Jan 87 03:02:14 PST
	id AA23044; Mon, 5 Jan 87 03:02:14 PST
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 87 03:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701051102.AA23044@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #95

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 87 03:02:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #95

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 95

Today's Topics:
			 Bucks from space (2)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 87 09:13:31 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Bucks from space (2)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

[Why worry about the line eater, when there are MESSAGE eaters on the loose?]

Still on the subject of industrial development of space, let's now
consider the prospects for material processing in space, again
FOR EARTH CONSUMPTION.

MANUFACTURING COSTS
-------------------

>   [Me:] Manufacturing something in space is bound to be
>   substantially more expensive than doing it on Earth, because
>   labor, materials and equipment are more sophisticated.  

>   [Dale Amon:] Possibly true on the early manned space station.
>   Probably not after a decade of experience.  And certainly not
>   true on the lunar surface.  Hell, you don't even need to shield
>   a nuclear reactor.  Just sit it in a crater.  (See papers by
>   Dr.  Kraftt Ehricke shortly before his death).  

I can't comment on the unshielded reactor for lack of data (do you have
the references)?  However, it seems to me that a nuclear reactor for
use in space has to be compact, lightweight, reliable, sturdy, highly
automated, and require very little maintenance.  (It also need a fairly
big radiator).  For the same power output, such a reactor will surely
be a lot more expensive than a Earth-based one.  And the same goes for
most equipment.  

>   [Me:] The smallest space factory or lunar mine is going to cost
>   billions of dollars more than a comparable facility on Earth.  

>   [Dale Amon:] You are using old fashioned thinking.  You don't
>   launch a factory.  You launch the space age equivalent of a
>   quonset hut and then you ship in modules for the processing you
>   intend to do.

A quonset hut plus equipment is a factory, isn't it?  The problem is
that the space age equivalent of a quonset hut comes with a space age
price ...

VALUE OF ZERO-G
---------------

>   [Me:] It is still highly unlikely that microgravity and
>   abundant high vacuum will ever find significant industrial
>   applications in metallurgy, bioindustry, etc.  

>   [Dale Amon:] The growth of protein crystals has important
>   possibilities for drugs.

Are you sure?  Biochemists want to grow large protein crystals in order
to study their structure by X-ray diffraction.  As far as I know, to
grow protein crystals (on Earth or in space) you have to start with a
fairly pure and concentrated solution.  The hardest part of drug
purification is getting to this stage.  

It is also not clear to me how hard it is to grow protein crystals in
1g.  My impression is that most previous attempts seem to have been
one-shot affairs, with (relatively) small staffs working on a
(relatively) small budget, and practically re-inventing the necessary
technology from scratch.  The technology used seem to be quite
low-tech, such as hanging a drop of solution from the bottom of a
microscope slide, and letting it evaporate slowly.  So, when scientists
describe protein crystallization as "difficult, slow, and expensive",
what they mean is probably orders of magnitude better than NASA's idea
of "easy, quick, and cheap".  

In fact, several biologists have criticized the Shuttle protein
crystallization experiments for their lack of controls.  It is quite
possible that better results would have been obtained with Earth-based
biocrystal technology, if the same level of funding and resources had
been available for its development [6].  

>   [Dale Amon:] The market will decide whether earthly processes
>   will win out in terms of purity etc. ... I also know of a
>   successful business man who is donating large sums of money to
>   electrophoresis research ...  

Well, Ortho Pharmaceuticals pulled out of MacDonnell Douglas'
electrophoresis project (it seems they found a better Earth-based way
to do what they wanted).  McDD then tried to get 3M interested in the
project, but they too dropped out after some preliminary studies
(which 3M said gave them a better understanding of mixing processes and
crystal growing on Earth).  Note that all this happened before the
Challenger disaster [5, 9].  

>   [Me:] It will take a long while for radically new space-based
>   silicon-growing processes to reach the same level of perfection
>   now attained by Earth manufacturers.

>   [Dale Amon:] The truth is that amateurs with primitive
>   equipment have generated crystals of the size and quality of
>   earthly manufacture.  I've seen the side by side slides.

Can you be more specific?  Do you really mean 6" by 1' silicon
monocrystals with impurities and dislocations down to the parts per
billion range?  Then why isn't NASA rubbing those crystals under the
nose of all the Van Allens out here?  

>   [Dale Amon:] It is likely that we will be able to generate
>   defect free large wafers with simple zone refining.
>   Remember wafer scale integration?  The idea that failed and
>   took Trilogy Inc (Amdahl & Co) with it?  It is probably
>   possible with zero G processing.  

Or maybe it will fail again, and take NASA with it?  :-)

Seriously, it is hard to imagine zone refining growing better and
cheaper 6'' wide silicon crystals than the current Earth-based methods.
Moreover, crystal defects are not the major cause of failure for large
silicon ICs; further improvements will not have a great impact on IC
yields, and therefore will have little economic value.  

As for GaAs, there are many alternative technologies currently being
developed that are well adapted to gravity, are at lest as likely to
succeed, and are potentially much cheaper than any space-based process.
For example, the Japanese are routinely growing 3'' wide GaAs by the
same crystal-pulling (Czochralski) method used for silicon [10].
The `hot' technology now is growing a thin layer of GaAs on top of a
silicon wafer; the resulting wafers are less brittle and better heat
conductors than plain GaAs, and can probably be made as big as those
now routinely used for silicon (6''-8'') with little additional effort
[11].  By the time we start experimenting with GaAs refining on the
space station, Earth-based technology will probably have progresed
beyond reach.  

Also note that many of the problems of GaAs technology are unrelated to
gravity, and may even get worse for zone refining in zero G.
For example, a major problem is the tendency of arsenic to evaporate
out of the melt, leaving excess gallium behind.  The Japanese solve
this problem by covering the molten GaAs with an inch-thick layer of
molten boron oxide, and pulling the crystal through it.  Maybe this
trick can be adapted to zero G refining, but it is not clear how.  

>   [Mike Smith:] One of the wafers in my product line was
>   worth $40,000 per...  Chip fab lines are not THAT large.
>   Wonder how many wafers would fit in a shuttle ...

An orbiting semiconductor facility will be essentially a Si or GaAs
crystallization plant.  All prior and subsequent processing steps are
hardly affected by gravity, and can be done more cheaply on Earth.
So, for profit computations you should not consider the price of
complete ICs, or even ``blank'' wafers, but rather the price of unsliced
single-crystal ingots, minus that of starting materials (ultrapure Si
and GaAs).  (Anyone got any numbers)?  

By the way, here is a relevant quote from a 1984 paper [12], p.
82--86.  The author was working for Microgravity Research Associates, a
company that plans to grow GaAs in space.  

    "Space-produced GaAs will cost a great deal more than that produced on
    Earth, primarily because of the very high cost of space transportation.
    ... The cost of production aboard Shuttle-serviced free flyers or a
    space station, where the furnaces will remain in orbit, are
    expected to be considerably less. ... However, it should be noted
    that regardless of which mode is used ... transportation costs
    using the Shuttle Transportation System are the dominant part of
    production costs. These costs, unless significantly reduced, will
    keep the price of space products restrictively high." 

PROBLEMS OF ZERO-G 
------------------

>   [Me:] In fact, the lack of gravity and a limited air supply are
>   a serious problem for many industrial processes.  Many common
>   operations such as weighting, boiling, pouring, etc.
>   are much harder or impossible to perform in zero G.  

>   [Dale Amon:] The advantage of space is that you can get ANY
>   gravity or gravity gradient you want.  Take two external tanks,
>   tether them together, start the mess spinning and voila!
>   Thousands of cubic feet of industrial space with whatever
>   gravity field you want.  So you do zero G processing in the
>   zero G shed, then move the materials over to the half G shed
>   for weighting, boiling, etc.  Or maybe if you have a
>   special requirement, run it over to the HiG/HiGradient shed
>   with the short tether...

For one thing, this is not the space station that NASA wants to build.
Note that a rotating space station (especially one improvised out of ETs)
poses special problems for large solar panels, antennas, EVAs, docking with
other spacecraft, and so on.  Also, it means doing an EVA every time you
have to transfer materials between zero-G and X-G.  (Many proposed zero-G
processes need really good zero-g, so they will probably have to be carried
out in an isolated module.)  Also, someone metioned that humans have a 
hard time adapting to the disorienting effect of Coriolis forces on
the inner ear.

>   [Dave Newkirk:] Boiling is much easier in vacuum than at sea
>   level on the Earth.  It's trivial to vary the pressure to
>   achieve any boiling point you want.  

Ah, but you don't want to dump your precious liquids out to space.
Especially if the vapor is what you are after.

One problem with boiling liquids in zero G is that there is no
convection, so the fluid close to the heating elements will get to the
boiling point while the rest of the liquid is still cold (like
heating a pot of water from the top).  Moreover, once the liquid close
to the heater starts to boil, its vapor will push the liquid away from
the heater, reducing heat transfer to nearly zero.  If you can get the
whole mass to boil, you will find it hard to keep the liquid in the
boiler while letting the vapor escape.  Finally, you have the problem
of collecting the liquid at the condenser end.  

>   [Dave Newkirk:] A device was used in Skylab to weigh the
>   astronauts that [worked by measuring the force needed to
>   produce a known acceleration].

You missed my point.  Sure, almost anything that can be done on Earth
can also be done in space, given the proper equipment.  My point is
that the necessary equipment will usually be more cumbersome, less
flexible, less reliable, harder to develop, and awfully more expensive
than its Earth equivalent.  Witness the 100K$ Coke can.  

There are indeed many processes that are easier in zero G, and would
require expensive equipment and/or sohisticated trickery to do on
Earth.  However, it is not at all obvious that the advantages of doing
them in space will be greater than the disadvantages.  

>   [Me:] A chemical spill that would be of no consequence on
>   Earth may seriously harm a space station and/or its crew.

>   [Dale Amon:] [A space-based industrial facility] will almost
>   certainly be built with isolated modules for hazardous
>   materials.  Even if something blows up, you don't have a
>   disaster.  

A space station contains precious little air and water, so you cannot
just hose down a spill, or let the wind dilute a gas leak to harmless
levels.  Powders and aerosols won't settle in zero G, and hot vapors
won't rise.  To save mass, space station equipment will generally be
more delicate than its Earth equivalent, which will tend to increase
both the probability and the severity of accidents.  Damage to the life
support system or any of many other critical items would force the crew
to abandon the station.  The station is very far from rescue teams and
repair crews.  Repairs are more difficult, replacement parts more
expensive, and system logistics is a lot less flexible than for
Earth-based industries.  Should I go on?  

>   [Dale Amon:] Any industry balances the cost of safety measures
>   versus the expected cost of accidents.

Right. Since accidents are  a lot more expensive, safety measures
will be more expensive, too.

RESEARCH OR INDUSTRY?
---------------------

>   [Andrew Folkins:] We don't know enough about zero-G
>   manufacturing at this point to say that nothing useful will
>   ever be discovered because we really haven't looked yet.  

Right on.  The biotechnology and materials processing that will be done
on the space station is RESEARCH.  It may or may not turn up processes
of clear economic potential.  If and when that happens, private
industry will need no prodding, and will quickly move into development
and production by itself, paying the whole bill (that is what happened
with communication satellites, right?).  But until then, all
materials science experiments in space will be pure RESEARCH, and it
should be clearly labeled/planned/funded/evaluated/administered as such.
In particular, the expected scientific and commercial payoffs from
those experiments must be weighted against those of other space- and
ground-based research.  

CONCLUDING REMARKS
------------------

In summary, I still believe that the prospects of space manufacturing
for Earth consumption in the foreseeable future (say, the next thirty
years) are rather dubious.  The value of microgravity for industrial
processing (as opposed to research) is still undemonstrated, and it
will benefit at most one or two steps in the manufacture of any given
product.  The fact that drugs and semiconductors have a high price per
pound is largely irrelevant, since those few steps account for a small
fraction of the total cost, and/or require processing large amounts of
intermediate materials.  

Revenues from space manufacturing are therefore unlikely to repay the
transportation costs.  To those we must add the high cost of
development, equipment, safety, ground support, crew rotation, and
other operational expenses.  Moreover, space manufacturing also has to
contend with long development time, long turnaround time between
experiments and batches, and little scheduling flexibility.
Space manufacturing will undoubtedly become cheaper as technology
advances, but the same will happen to Earth-based manufacturing; in the
long run, it is not clear when (or whether) the former will win.  

These beliefs are apparently shared by people with people far more
knowledgeable then me.  Even a NASA Task Force on the Commercial use of
Space had to admit that "there are no major short-term commercial uses
of space that are currently demonstrable" [5].  

NASA and the space societies should admit frankly that the Space
Station and the Shuttle are not potential gold mines, but awfully
expensive RESEARCH tools, in the same category as particle
accelerators, polar stations, and deep-sea drilling ships.
NASA may gain some support on the short run by ``overselling'' the
commercial potential of space; but sooner or later the public will
notice all those zeros in red ink, and NASA's support will
go down the drain (along with its credibility).  

It would be quite unpleasant to discover one day that after spending
ten years and countless billions on the space station, we got nothing
useful out of it --- neither a lucrative space industry, nor a sound
research program, but only a big chunk of expensive, obsolete, and
largely useless hardware.  Please, let's not go through the Shuttle
story all over again.  

(To be continued)

REFERENCES

[5]  J. M. Logsdon, "Status of space commercialization in the USA"
     Space Policy, vol. 2 no. 1 (February 1986) 9--15.
    
[6]  Science (somewhere in last 18 months; sorry, I can't
     find the exact reference).

[9]  B. M. Register, "Rx for the 1990s."
     Space World vol. W6-270 (June 1986), 13--17.

[10] T. E. bell, "Japan reaches beyond silicon"
     IEEE Spectrum vol. 22 no. 10 (October 1985), 46--54.

[11] B. C. Cole, "Technology outlook: Semiconductors"
     Electronics vol. 59 no. 33 (October 1986), p. 83.

[12] R. L. Randolph, "Producing gallium arsenide crystals in space."
     NASA Conference Publication 2313: proceedings of the Second NASA
     Symposium on Space Industrialization, Huntsville AL (Feb.
     1984), 82--86.  

------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * * * * *   T H E   D R E A M   I S   A L I V E   * * * * *
    (and reality ain't got nothing that a bit of CPR can't cure)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: The above does not reflect the opinions of my employer on
space policy, but may strongly affect its opinion about myself.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #95
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25395; Tue, 6 Jan 87 07:53:38 PST
	id AA25395; Tue, 6 Jan 87 07:53:38 PST
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 07:53:38 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701061553.AA25395@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #96

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 87 07:53:38 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #96

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 96

Today's Topics:
		    Element prices and abundances
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jan 87 11:32:21 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Element prices and abundances
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

For those who like numerical trivia, here are approximate cash prices
and abundances for most chemical elements.

These numbers were compiled from very disparate sources by a totally
unqualified amateur (that's me) who certainly added quite a few typos
and unit conversion errors along the way.  Ergo, don't stake the future
of your country on these data.  Additions, corrections, and pointers to
better sources will be most welcome.

"Price" is a recent (~84-86) market or list price, in dollars per pound,
for the element in reasonably pure form.  Beware that those of the most
expensive elements were extrapolated from per-gram prices, so they may
be grossly inaccurate.  Also, some data from the Rubber Bible [6] may
apply to lab-reagent grade, which may be somewhat more expensive than
industrial grade.

Note that rare earth elements are expensive partly because it is very
difficult to separate them from each other.  Therefore, the market value
of rare earth mixtures (as may be produced by smelting lunar or
asteroidal ores) may be much lower than what the numbers below may
indicate.

Element abundances are in parts per million (mass).  Unless noted
otherwise, Moon data are the largest of the values reported in [1,p.12]
and [4] (and therefore are not supposed to add to 1000000).  Those for
the Earth crust and meteorites (type I carbonaceous chondrites) are from
reference [4].

Element abundances for the Earth crust have little economic relevance,
since their concentration in commercial ore deposits is often hundreds
or thousands times the crustal average.  Such levels of enrichment are
unlikely to have occurred on less differentiated bodies, such as the
Moon and asteroids, except of course for metal/stone separation on the
latter.
     
                     PRICE       ABUNDANCES (PPM)
AN  ELEMENT         ($/lb)       EARTH       MOON     CHOND.   
--  ------------- --------     -------    -------    -------
01  Hydrogen           (?)        1400        200      22000
02  Helium             (?)         (?)         35 [7]    (?)
03  Lithium          22.70 [3]      20         12        1.3
04  Beryllium       196.00 [2]       2          2       0.04
05  Boron              (?)          10          2          5
06  Carbon             (?)         250        140      37000
07  Nitrogen           (?)          20        100       2700
08  Oxygen             (?)      466000     470000     453000
09  Fluorine           (?)         650        140        190
10  Neon            700.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)
11  Sodium             (?)       28000       5200       5500
12  Magnesium         1.48 [2]   21000      63000      96000
13  Aluminum          0.50 [2]   81000     140000       8500
14  Silicon           0.69 [3]  277000     224000     103000
15  Phosphorus         (?)         700       2300       1400
16  Sulfur             (?)         260       1700      62000
17  Chlorine           (?)         130         14        260
18  Argon              (?)         (?)        (?)        (?)
19  Potassium       240.00 [6]   26000       4600        500
20  Calcium            (?)       36000     111000      10600
21  Scandium      23000.00 [6]      20         75          5
22  Titanium          5.70 [2]    4400      73000        400
23  Vanadium          4.94 [2]     140         50         57
24  Chromium          3.75 [2]     100       3300       2200
25  Manganese         0.80 [2]     950       2200       1700
26  Iron(pig)         0.10       50000     169000     184000
27  Cobalt           12.50 [2]      25         25        480
28  Nickel            3.29 [2]      70         15      10400
29  Copper            0.69 [2]      50         11        140
30  Zinc              0.42 [2]      70         15        320
31  Gallium         236.00 [2]      15        4.5         10
32  Germanium       477.00 [2]     1.5        0.1         34
33  Arsenic           1.97 [3]     1.8       0.05        2.0
34  Selenium          9.00 [2]     0.1         27         27
35  Bromine            (?)         2.5        0.1          5
36  Krypton        3600.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)
37  Rubidium        900.00 [6]      90        3.4        2.3
38  Strontium         8.00 [6]     390        170          8
39  Yttrium         150.00 [6]      30        120        1.6
40  Zirconium         7.00 [6]     170        370         11
41  Niobium          17.00 [2]      20         21        0.5
42  Molybdenum       17.97 [2]     1.5        0.5        1.6
44  Ruthenium      1820.00 [2]    0.01        ---        0.7
45  Rhodium       13200.00 [2]   0.005        ---        0.2
46  Palladium      1790.00 [2]    0.01      0.006        0.6
47  Silver           90.00 [2]    0.05      0.008        0.4
48  Cadmium           1.31 [2]     0.2      0.004        1.0
49  Indium           38.00 [2]    0.05        ---       0.09
50  Tin               5.82 [2]       3        0.6        1.6
51  Antimony          1.40 [2]     0.2      0.007       0.15
52  Tellurium        20.00 [6]    0.01       0.02        3.3
53  Iodine             (?)         0.5        ---        0.6
54  Xenon          1500.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)
55  Cesium          400.00 [2]       2        0.1       0.19
56  Barium           20.00 [6]     400        200          4
57  Lanthanum       370.00 [6]      30         18       0.19
58  Cerium          900.00 [6]      60         54       0.63
59  Praseodymium    450.00 [6]       8         11       0.09
60  Neodymium       900.00 [6]      30         46       0.42
62  Samarium       2300.00 [6]       6         15       0.13
63  Europium      23000.00 [6]       1        1.9       0.05
64  Gadolinium     1800.00 [6]       5         20       0.24
65  Terbium         900.00 [6]       1        3.6       0.04
66  Dysprosium     1400.00 [6]       3         25       0.22
67  Holmium        3600.00 [6]       1        4.9       0.06
68  Erbium         1400.00 [6]       3         14       0.14
69  Thulium        4500.00 [6]     0.5        1.9       0.02
70  Ytterbium       300.00 [6]       3         13       0.13
71  Lutetium      30000.00 [6]     0.5        1.9       0.02
72  Hafnium         500.00 [6]       3         13       0.26
73  Tantalum         30.00 [2]       2        1.7       0.02
74  Tungsten          9.00 [3]       1        0.3       0.14
75  Rhenium        3700.00 [6]   0.001        ---       0.04
76  Osmium         1970.00 [2]   0.005        ---       0.45
77  Iridium        5830.00 [2]   0.001        ---       0.40
78  Platinum       4960.00 [2]    0.01        ---        0.9
79  Gold           4620.00 [2]   0.005        ---       0.18
80  Mercury           4.17 [2]    0.08        ---          1
81  Thallium          8.00 [6]     0.5        ---       0.14
82  Lead              0.25 [2]      13        1.2        2.9
83  Bismuth           5.22 [2]     0.2        ---       0.13
90  Thorium          10.00 [6]       7          2       0.04
92  Uranium(oxide)   15.61 [2]       2        0.5       0.01

A few rare isotopes:

01  Deuterium       450.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)
02  Helium-3     315000.00 [7]     (?)      0.005 [7]    (?)
06  Carbon-13    350000.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)

Entries from the list above worth more than $200/lb:

06  Carbon-13    350000.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)
02  Helium-3     315000.00 [7]     (?)      0.005 [7]    (?)
71  Lutetium      30000.00 [6]     0.5        1.9       0.02
63  Europium      23000.00 [6]       1        1.9       0.05
21  Scandium      23000.00 [6]      20         75          5
45  Rhodium       13200.00 [2]   0.005        ---        0.2
77  Iridium        5830.00 [2]   0.001        ---       0.40
78  Platinum       4960.00 [2]    0.01        ---        0.9
79  Gold           4620.00 [2]   0.005        ---       0.18
69  Thulium        4500.00 [6]     0.5        1.9       0.02
75  Rhenium        3700.00 [6]   0.001        ---       0.04
67  Holmium        3600.00 [6]       1        4.9       0.06
36  Krypton        3600.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)
62  Samarium       2300.00 [6]       6         15       0.13
76  Osmium         1970.00 [2]   0.005        ---       0.45
44  Ruthenium      1820.00 [2]    0.01        ---        0.7
64  Gadolinium     1800.00 [6]       5         20       0.24
46  Palladium      1790.00 [2]    0.01      0.006        0.6
54  Xenon          1500.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)
68  Erbium         1400.00 [6]       3         14       0.14
66  Dysprosium     1400.00 [6]       3         25       0.22
65  Terbium         900.00 [6]       1        3.6       0.04
60  Neodymium       900.00 [6]      30         46       0.42
58  Cerium          900.00 [6]      60         54       0.63
37  Rubidium        900.00 [6]      90        3.4        2.3
10  Neon            700.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)
72  Hafnium         500.00 [6]       3         13       0.26
32  Germanium       477.00 [2]     1.5        0.1         34
01  Deuterium       450.00 [6]     (?)        (?)        (?)
59  Praseodymium    450.00 [6]       8         11       0.09
55  Cesium          400.00 [2]       2        0.1       0.19
57  Lanthanum       370.00 [6]      30         18       0.19
70  Ytterbium       300.00 [6]       3         13       0.13
19  Potassium       240.00 [6]   26000       4600        500
31  Gallium         236.00 [2]      15        4.5         10

Happy dreams...

REFERENCES

[1] R. D. Johnson, ed. "Space Settlements: A Design Study."
    NASA SP-413 (1977), quoting data from [8].

[2] "Metal Statistics 1986", Fairchild Publications (1985 prices)

[3] R. Packard, "Metal Bulletin Handbook 1986"
    Metal Bulletin Books, Ltd (UK) (1984 prices)

[4] "Encyclopaedia Britannica" 15th edition (1974, printed 1986)
    Volume 17, page 940, Table 3: Abundance of the elements in...

[6] "CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics" (a.k.a. "the Rubber Bible"),
    66th edition (1986)

[7] Barney B. Roberts, Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 31(9), Oct. 1986, page
    1499.  As quoted by Paul Dietz in message <8611120617.AA02138@s1-b.arpa>

[8] H. J. Ross Jr &c., "Compositional data for twenty two Apollo-16
    samples."  Proceedings of the 4th Lunar Science Conference, vol. 2
    pp 1149--1158.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #96
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA26922; Wed, 7 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
	id AA26922; Wed, 7 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701071102.AA26922@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #97

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 97

Today's Topics:
	  New "High" Temperature Superconductors Discovered
		    "Voyager" flight around world
		     Re: O-rings and Silly cOnes
		   NASA wanted a smaller shuttle??
	       Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver
		 Re: NASA wanted a smaller shuttle??
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 3 Jan 87 10:23 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  New "High" Temperature Superconductors Discovered

In the NY Times last wednesday (12/31/86) there was a fascinating story
that has some small bearing on mass drivers.  According to the story,
scientists at Bell Labs and U. of Houston have discovered new
superconducting materials with transition temperatures well above the
boiling point of liquid hydrogen.

The U. of Houston material, discovered by Dr. Paul C. W. Chu, is a
lanthanum barium copper oxide, and becomes superconducting at 40.2 deg.
K at a pressure of several hundred thousand PSI.  The Bell Labs material
is still secret (pending patent submission) but is said to begin showing
signs of superconductivity at 40 deg. K and becomes fully
superconducting at 36 deg. K at normal pressure.

Dr. Chu says it may be possible to raise the transition temperature to
50 deg. K in the near future and perhaps to 77 deg. K (the boiling point
of liquid nitrogen).

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

Date: 1987 January 03 10:42:16 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: "Voyager" flight around world

The two-person refueless flight around the world got a lot of publicity
and fame, yet I wonder whether it was just a stunt or something of true
significance. The Apollo landing on the moon would have been just an
expensive dead-end stunt if we hadn't collected rock samples, left cubic
corner reflectors and seismic stations, and planned to return later for
more activities. As it is, we haven't yet returned, but we have new
information about the origin of the solar system (pure
science/cosmology), new information about the titanium aluminum and
oxygen etc. in the soil (useful for planning use of such materials), and
we're using those cubic corner reflectors even today for precise
location on Earth allowing us to measure continental drift in real time.
But what future uses could that refueless flight possibly have?
Lightweight drones for delivering medical supplies or as radio relays or
emergency-distress-beacon locators, which can stay up for weeks without
refueling yet be closer than a satellite and thus give faster data
turnaround and more precise location with cheap eqipment? A replacement
for recreational hang-gliding? What? Or is it truly just a dead-end
stunt that got undue publicity to distract the public from Gippergate
(aka IranContraGate)??

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

Date: 3 Jan 87 16:57:21 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: O-rings and Silly cOnes
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <MINSKY.12267818087.BABYL@MIT-OZ>
MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:
>We all agree that the Challenger disaster was terrible.  How could
>NASA and Morton-Thiokol be so careless about those O-rings? ...
>The other day, I tried to re-fill our seltzer siphon bottle.  I
>inserted the carbon dioxide cartridge, screwed down the injector
>device and -- out came a stream of gas and ice. .. discovered.. defect
>in the O-ring seal.  I fixed it with a little dab of silicone sealer.

>The very next day, I found a puddle of water under the electric
>coffee-pot. .....   Another dab of sllicone.

>Apparently, unreliable O-ring seals pervade our entire economy.

But like the Brill-Creme commercial of decades past...  
               A "little dab 'll do ya" !
  Of course, now it is "dollops", whatever that is...   :-)

We will be "wetting" our orings with a film of "silicone rubber" just
before installation as a matter of practice from now on.

Paul M. Koloc: (301) 445-1075
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP

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

Date:     Sat, 3 Jan 87 21:14 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov, space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  NASA wanted a smaller shuttle??

You (Henry Spencer), in V7 #78, wrote:

> Separating the two roles [carrying passengers and heavy cargo] is what
>should have been done all along, of course.  Then we would have a
>*considerably* smaller Shuttle in greater numbers -- a much better
>approximation to "routine access to space".  (In fairness, it
>should be noted that NASA wanted Shuttle 1 to be smaller than it is.)

NASA wanted what?!  You're misinformed.  I quote from the Rogers report:

  "The Space Shuttle Design"

  "The embryo Shuttle program faced a number of evolutionary design
changes before it would become a system in being.  The first design was
based on a 'fly-back' concept in which two stages, each manned, would
fly back to a horizontal, airplane-like landing..."

  "The second stage craft, conceived prior to 1970 as a space station
ferry, was a vehicle considerably larger than the later Space Shuttle
Orbiter.  It carried its rocket propellants internally, had a flight
deck sufficiently large to seat 12 space station bound passengers and a
cargo bay big enough to accommodate space station modules...."

  So, the space shuttle was intended from the beginning as a heavy
lift/passenger carrying hybrid.  With regard to the more modern shuttle:
the article "The Space Shuttle: A Policy Failure?"  in Science last year
documented how NASA struggled to retain the large payload bay the
current shuttle has, in the face of pressure from OMB and others to
scale it down.  There was little pressure from DoD for a big shuttle (as
you say, they've always been expendable booster fans).

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

Date: 3 Jan 87 23:12:09 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

One thing that gives me the heebie-jeebies about ideas like lunar laser
launchers and such is the use of oxygen as a propellant for a thermal
engine.  Lordy, but that stuff is corrosive at high pressures and
temperatures.  Such engines will present formidable materials problems.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Jan 87 06:11:56 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: NASA wanted a smaller shuttle??
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> >... NASA wanted Shuttle 1 to be smaller than it is.)
> 
> NASA wanted what?!  You're misinformed.  I quote from the Rogers
> report:
> ...
>   "The second stage craft, conceived prior to 1970 as a space station
> ferry, was a vehicle considerably larger than the later Space Shuttle
> Orbiter...

Check out a rather later version, the one Maxime Faget designed after
the overall configuration (external boosters, external tanks) had
settled down but before the need for USAF political support changed
things: rather smaller payload bay, rather smaller orbiter, straight
wings.  That version set the basic configuration of the orbiter,
although the details had to be changed later.

>   So, the space shuttle was intended from the beginning as
> a heavy lift/passenger carrying hybrid...

*Which* beginning?  Here lies the conflict: you are confusing earlier
design concepts with the evolutionary stages of the one that eventually
became real.

> ... the article "The Space Shuttle: A Policy Failure?"
> in Science last year documented how NASA struggled to retain the
> large payload bay the current shuttle has...

I read the article but don't recall that particular discussion.
However, note that the basic theme of that article was that much of
NASA's behavior has been dictated by the attempt to conduct an ambitious
program without proper political support.  In such circumstances, it is
not surprising that NASA was reluctant to offend the USAF by shrinking a
payload bay sized to fit their requirements.

> ... There was little pressure from DoD for a big shuttle (as you say,
> they've always been expendable booster fans).

On the contrary, if you look it up I think you'll find that both the
precise size of the payload bay and the precise (theoretical, now
unlikely ever to be realized) maximum payload requirements for the
Shuttle were set by USAF lift requirements.  Ditto the cross-range
requirement.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Jan 87 09:33:17 GMT
From: cbmvax!grr@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (George Robbins)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8701032201.AA20433@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>The two-person refueless flight around the world got a lot of
>publicity and fame, yet I wonder whether it was just a stunt or
>something of true significance.
...
>          A replacement for recreational hang-gliding? What? Or is it
>truly just a dead-end stunt that got undue publicity to distract the
>public from Gippergate (aka IranContraGate)??

Then why don't you do a little reading about it?  The whole works has
been convered in detail in various aviation magazines for over a year.

It has about as much to do with Reagan as maybe climbing Everest.  Doing
somthing previously considered impossible changes the rules that
'everybody knows' and puts both technology and people to the test.

Useful?  Only time will tell...

George Robbins,	uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
		arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #97
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28560; Thu, 8 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
	id AA28560; Thu, 8 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701081102.AA28560@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #98

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #98

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 98

Today's Topics:
		   Re: ubiquity of O-ring problems
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		       Re: Refrigerator Gaskets
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #95
			  Re: Baseball at L5
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Shimon Edelman <edelman%wisdom.bitnet@berkeley.edu>
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 87 15:52:20 -0200
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: ubiquity of O-ring problems
Newsgroups: fa.space
In-Reply-To: <215@wisdom.BITNET>

In Space Digest V7 #93 MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu writes:
>
>It seems appropriate for Congress to investigate the reliability
>procedures used by NASA and Morton-Thiokol, but my experience suggests
>that the problem runs much deeper.  Apparently, unreliable O-ring
>seals pervade our entire economy.

All home refrigerators have rubber gaskets along the perimeter of the
doors.  The rubber usually deteriorates and the sealing efficiency drops
quite soon.  I had a pleasant surprise when I discovered that in the new
refrigerator we've bought the entire gasket contact area was constantly
heated to about 30 deg. Celsius, to prevent damage from the low
temperature inside the refrigerator.

Was a similar solution feasible for the SRB O-rings?

BTW, our refrigerator is Israeli-made; is gasket-heating a standard
practice in the US?

Shimon Edelman (edelman%wisdom.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu)

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

Date: 4 Jan 87 22:20:33 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!looking!brad@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Brad Templeton)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Actually, what bothered me was that this was billed as the first flight
around the world without refueling.

We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin, and three
times in a row shortly thereafter by a certain senator.

This was the first time it was done within the atmosphere.  The
advantage of staying within the atmosphere seems little but show.

Nonetheless, it can still be fun as show.  People set themselves all
sorts of artificial "goals" and then work hard to reach them.  This can
still be exciting to watch, even if the goal is meaningless in terms of
real applications.  Otherwise why is there press for something like "The
first North American woman to climb Mt. Everest?"

Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

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

Date: 5 Jan 87 04:16:33 GMT
From: epiwrl!parker@seismo.css.gov  (Alan Parker)
Subject: Re: Refrigerator Gaskets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

My US built GE has such heaters.  I always thought the purpose was to
prevent (or reduce) condensation.

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

Date: 5 Jan 87 01:40:11 GMT
From: cae780!weitek!sci!daver@hplabs.hp.com  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8701032201.AA20433@angband.s1.gov>, REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
> The two-person refueless flight around the world got a lot of
> publicity and fame, yet I wonder whether it was just a stunt or
> something of true significance...

I felt more or less the same way.  It was newsworthy, but not important.

In listening to the various announcers, there was a lot of comparison
between this and the Apollo missions, which i was a bit disgusted by.
Apollo could have lead to something significant--this won't.

I'm being a bit too cynical.  This has pushed the frontiers of aviation
by a bit, and could lead to some incremental improvements in the art.
Also, as was pointed out, this was something done by a small group of
people for a comparatively small amount of money.

> ...Or is it
> truly just a dead-end stunt that got undue publicity to distract the
> public from Gippergate (aka IranContraGate)??

Do you really think the news services and public opinion are that easily
manipulated?  This is getting to sound like some of the more amusing
conspiracy theories.

david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

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

Date: 5 Jan 87 15:44:57 GMT
From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I'm a bit more optimistic about the Voyager.

First, the fact that it has been done is important.  As has been
mentioned, it will open up people's thinking.  It increases the area of
known engineering possibility.

Secondly, it has shown that we can build complex structures with lighter
weight materials.  Voyager weighed about 1/4 as much as a similar craft
built with "conventional" materials.  If you reflect that a large
commercial aeroplane has a weight pattern (very roughly) of 40% tare,
30% fuel and 30% payload, how much would it be worth to make that
10%:30%:60%?  We may be at the beginning of a rethinking of air
transport economics.

Finally, Voyager was an excellent test of our new navigation and
weather-monitoring facilities.  Even given the craft, the journey would
not have been possible 30 years ago: the pilots would have got lost, run
into a typhoon, &c, and ended up a mystery like Amelia E.  This opens
the door to a considerable expansion in low-budget flying.

There seems to be a pattern to such things.  A long period of research
and minor experiments.  A big demo in a blaze of publicity.  A public
let-down, while the lessons are being learned and applied.  And then the
new thing is part of our accepted environment.

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

Date:  5 Jan 1987 14:54-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #95

Sorry, I can't go digging for the Ehricke reference, no time.

Agreed, the space shuttle, the space station or anything else bulit by
the government will not be cost effective for industrial purposes
because they are overbuilt, over-high-tech'ed, outweighed by their paper
trail and caught up in state dept, DOD and white house politics.  (NOTE:
Nonetheless they are all we've got at the MOMENT, so I ain't sayin' we
shouldn't keep pushin' them forward to blaze the trail.)

I did not intend to infer that other than small profitable industries
will arise from these. I do believe it is possible for a few small
successes even under these circumstances, but nothing space-shattering.

But with private vehicles built to safety standards at which the pilot
is willing to fly, with a file drawer of documentantion rather than a
train of box cars worth, and industrial space modules with people used
to working zero G as a daily matter. Just because NASA calls them EVA's
and plans them out, doesn't mean it will remain that way. I recommend we
change the name from EVA to "going outdoors", and then apply all the
care and foresight one would use before donning scuba and dropping into
the ocean.

I don't remember the source of the slides, but I think it might have
been one of the Skylab astronauts I saw in a lecture about 3 or 4 years
ago. The Earth/Space slides were VERY striking. It might also have been
a Dr. Mazelsky from Westinghouse who gave an MPS lecture I saw 5 years
ago. I have the lecture notes somewhere, but once again, I must limit
myself to off the top of the head info for the nonce.

Once again, come to the conference and argue with first sources instead
of making me gnash my teeth wanting to dive in and rebut!!! I think your
arguments are sometimes reasonable, but there are blind spots you seem
to have. Three days at our conference should fill them in...

						Dale Amon
						Chairman,
					6th Space Development Conference


PS: As much as I'd like to, I won't be responding to this discussion
beyond this, unless a one or two liner will suffice. No offense Jorge,
you're fun to fight with, but I really am busy.

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

Date: 5 Jan 87 18:53:35 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Baseball at L5
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

<much, much discussion of baseball behavior deleted>

I did some graphical modeling of the behavior of a baseball in a rotating
colony and came up with the following (details of modeling technique
available on request, but it requires nothing more sophisticated than 
a ruler and a compass):

1) A ball which is simply dropped will curve slightly antispinward.
This is because the tangential velocity it has when it is dropped from
some point "above" (closer to the center) the floor is less than the
tangential velocity of the floor.  The "higher" the ball is dropped
from, the larger this curve becomes.

2) A ball thrown straight "up" will curve in the spinward direction.
This is because its tangential velocity is higher than the tangential
velocity needed to stay "above" the point it is thrown from.  The ball
will land "ahead" of the point it is thrown from.

3) A ball which is thrown "up" from a tall enough building will curve in
the spinward direction as it rises, be significantly spinward of the
building when at the same "altitude" as the building roof, then back up
and crash through a first story window.

4) Balls hit or thrown with axial speed components behave the same as
balls dropped or thrown straight up or down.  This is because the axial
component of the velocity is in a non-accelerated frame of reference
(same as the horizontal component of a ball's velocity on earth).

5) None of these effects are significant unless the ball's path takes it
over a large part of a revolution (> 30 degrees of arc) and its "apogee"
is more than 10% of the colony's radius.  Note that if the field is to
be reasonably flat (<2 degrees difference between the two foul poles),
the colony must be ~10 miles in diameter, so the anticipated paths of
the balls (<400' maximum altitude) would fit within this restriction.

I have not yet gotten around to modeling the behavior or balls hit with
spinward/antispinward velocity components, but will post when I do.
Also, I need to know approximate values for spin rates of a 10-mile
diameter colony with 1 gee nominal surface "gravity."  Anybody care to
compute?

Dan Starr

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #98
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00581; Fri, 9 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
	id AA00581; Fri, 9 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701091102.AA00581@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #99

SPACE Digest                                       Volume 7 : Issue 99

Today's Topics:
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		   summary of NRC report on Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jan 87 16:23:36 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Actually, what bothered me was that this was billed as the first
> flight around the world without refueling.
> 
> We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin...

Sorry, doesn't count under FAI rules :-) because they both jettisoned a
fair bit of hardware in the first few minutes of their flights, a
privilege that Voyager didn't have.  (The semi-accidental loss of the
winglets pales beside the deliberate loss of 95%+ of the vehicle...)

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 5 Jan 87 19:48:59 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: summary of NRC report on Shuttle
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

[This is sort of a special issue of my normal AW&ST summaries (which I'm
going to try to resume shortly, by the way).  The National Research
Council report on the Shuttle program got bare mention in various
places, but deserved better.  Fortunately, World Spaceflight News
published the full text of the report, as they are wont to do for
important space-related stuff.]

[WSN is at Box 98, Sewell NJ 08080; $30/yr and worth it.]

NRC convened a panel of experts at Congressional request to assess the
feasible Shuttle flight rates and to examine the underlying assumptions
behind the Shuttle manifest.  The work largely preceded the decision to
build a Challenger replacement, but is largely unaffected by it.

Basic assumptions were the question of "whether the national intent was
to have a sustained manned spaceflight program -- one in which manned
flight was a regular and continuing occurrence year in and year out --
or to treat the shuttle fleet as a declining resource ... which in due
course would, through use or accident, diminish to zero", and the
question of whether the assessments were for the near-term transition
period or for the longer term in which expendables would be an
alternative to the shuttle for many payloads (this will not occur until
circa 1991 due to long lead times for resuming expendable production).
The panel decided that satisfying its mandate required examining both
time scales, and that the nature of the mandate implied the assumption
of a sustained program.

Barring major new initiatives, there is no realistic prospect of
anything superseding the shuttle until at least the year 2000 and
probably rather later.  Even when the technology is on hand, developing
a launch system to the point of reliable operation takes a decade or so.
The technology for the Aerospace Plane, in particular, is *not* on hand.
The specific Aerospace Plane which is *hoped* to be available for the
year 2000 cannot replace the shuttle.  There is talk of assorted shuttle
derivatives, but none has gone beyond rough sketches yet and possibly
none ever will.

Treating the shuttle fleet as a declining resource therefore involves a
probable hiatus in manned spaceflight starting sometime in the late
1990s.  This precludes the space station.  More seriously, it results in
the near- inevitable collapse of the shuttle manifest relatively
quickly.  Realistic planning CANNOT assume a loss rate of 0.00000000%.
Quite modest estimates yield an Orbiter fleet going effectively to zero
within a decade or so.  Anticipation of this would largely destroy the
manned space program in advance, since realistic planning could not
assume shuttle availability for even the highest-priority payloads.

THERE CAN BE NO VIABLE SHUTTLE FLEET WITHOUT CONTINUING ORBITER
PRODUCTION.  No management can set reliable schedules based on so small
a fleet unless it is possible to add an Orbiter quickly enough to avoid
major schedule disruption after Orbiter loss, wearout, or unforeseen
contingencies.  Over and above the possibility of further losses, the
current Orbiters cannot realistically be expected to last 20 years or
more -- there is no reliable way to predict Orbiter life yet, but they
are stressed much more severely than commercial airliners.

The number of Orbiters actually available for scheduling is noticeably
less than the nominal size of the fleet, because maintenance and
modifications tie up the Orbiters part of the time.  It appears that the
schedulable fleet in fact is smaller than the nominal fleet by almost
one whole Orbiter.  Furthermore, the current fleet is effectively only 2
Orbiters for many purposes, since Columbia is old and lacks the
performance needed for many large payloads.

Given 3 Orbiters, after the initial buildup, NASA can sustain 8-10
flights per year from KSC -- subtract about 1/yr if Vandenberg is in use
too -- IF (a) no Orbiter is lost or irreparably damaged, (b) there is
enough logistic support, and (c) there are no problems requiring
substantial recurring downtime.  With 4 Orbiters, the rate becomes
11-13/yr, PROVIDED that (a-c) are met AND (d) processing facilities at
KSC are upgraded, (e) operations facilities and personnel at JSC are
enlarged, and (f) crew-training facilities are improved.  Requirement
(b), which basically boils down to "adequate supplies of spare parts",
is particularly crucial.

The 3-Orbiter rate might surge to 12/yr, and the 4-Orbiter rate to
15/yr, for short periods (4 months or so max.) provided (a) both
payloads and upper stages are standard, (b) there are no first-of-a-kind
missions, (c) all launches AND LANDINGS are at KSC, and (d) missions are
relatively short and do not involve classified payloads, Spacelab, or
rendezvous.

ALL THESE RATES ASSUME THAT NO ORBITER IS LOST OR RENDERED INOPERABLE
FOR A SIGNIFICANT TIME.  This assumption is false unless Orbiter
production is ongoing.

There is also room for concern about (a) the need for more modern flight
simulators rather than just upgrades to current ones, (b) the past
pattern of repeated late changes to the manifest, and (c) the need to
define NASA vs. contractor responsibilities more clearly.

Payload offloading onto expendables is well underway for DoD payloads.
NASA has looked at offloading some of its payloads.  The panel
recommends that NASA look seriously at launching the TDRSs on
expendables, given how critical they are to other missions.  NASA has as
yet done nothing about procuring expendables for its payloads, partly
due to lack of money and partly because of interagency battles over
responsibilities.

Commercial satellite people now generally express preference for
expendables, assuming availability.  The assumption of availability is
questionable.  The transition period will be lengthy, and the long-term
demand for commercial expendable launches -- after the mess caused by
51L and the expendable shortage clears up -- is very uncertain.

Building and operating the Space Station with a 3-orbiter fleet is not
realistic.  There is too much potential for Orbiter downtime, and too
little reserve capacity.  Operating the Station will require returning
payload from orbit in quantities approaching the launch quantities,
limiting the usefulness of expendables for Station operation.

"Total national space launch costs depend principally upon the size of
the nation's space program.  Perhaps surprisingly, the total launch
costs are relatively independent of the particular mix between shuttles,
Titan IVs, MLVs, and Titan IIs (for example) for a given total weight to
orbit..."  This result is somewhat sensitive to the shuttle depreciation
rate.

[In other words, as I have been heard to say before, people who talk
about how cheap expendables are have not priced expendables lately.  --
HS]

Present KSC facilities, with planned upgrades, appear sufficient to
handle 12 missions/year.  JSC manpower is not, nor is spares production.
Crew training facilities need upgrading to meet such a rate, more
simulators are needed, and a fourth shuttle training aircraft is
required.

Given the policy of landing at Edwards for the next while at least, and
a probable 18-month lead time, it would be wise to buy another Shuttle
Carrier Aircraft.

Shuttle turnaround time is (1) KSC processing, (2) mission duration, (3)
transit time from landing point to KSC, (4) inspection and maintenance,
and (5) contingencies (major damage to or loss of an Orbiter; emergency
landing; weather delays; late manifest or flight-plan changes; payload
delays; facility or support downtime; spares shortages).  Item (1) has
averaged 75 work days; the record (46) is considered a surge condition.
75 is a conservative average, with 60 an optimistic but not unrealistic
average.  Item (2) averages 7 days.  Item (3) averages 6 days from
Edwards, including 1 day for weather delays.  Item (4) is expected to
average about 2 weeks per flight.  The sustainable and safe work week is
probably a 3-shift 5-day week, i.e. no 7-day weeks except in crises.
Item (5) is not readily predictable but both airline and USAF experience
show a clear need for backup vehicles if schedules are to be met.

Shuttle system failure rate to date is 4%.  A factor of 4 improvement is
realistic given vigorous efforts to improve safety.  A factor of 10
improvement is most unlikely.  The realistic failure rate is not low
enough to permit reliable manifest planning without "some planned
backup, work- around and/or replacement Orbiter".  A spare Orbiter would
do for problems that are not design flaws.  Another possibility would be
to hold the planned per-Orbiter flight rate below the maximum, so that
it could be increased to maximum to absorb the increased demand between
an Orbiter loss and the arrival of a replacement.  Regardless, there can
be no long-term confidence in shuttle manifests without an agreed
strategy to cope with Orbiter losses.

NASA is likely to solve the logistics problems identified by the Rogers
report by the early 1990s.  The maintenance of the shuttle industrial
base is a more serious problem.  It is not practical to increase shuttle
reliability enough to do without.  Maintaining the base would require a
production rate of about an Orbiter every 3 years, plus spares
production.  This is too high to match realistic loss rates; a somewhat
lower rate (4 years?) may have to be accepted.

The panel thinks that 8-10 flights per year in the early to mid 1990s
will meet demand except for the Space Station.  The panel estimates that
the current Station design adds demand roughly equal to 2 more Orbiters
plus provision for a replacement if and when needed.

[If the above seems to harp repeatedly on the need for replacement
Orbiters, plural, it is because the report emphasizes this repeatedly.
-- HS]

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #99
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02132; Sat, 10 Jan 87 03:02:00 PST
	id AA02132; Sat, 10 Jan 87 03:02:00 PST
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 87 03:02:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701101102.AA02132@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #100

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 87 03:02:00 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #100

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 100

Today's Topics:
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
       Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		   Re: Mirrors, mirrors, in the sky
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 87 07:31:20 GMT
From: tektronix!cae780!weitek!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <722@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
> We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin, and three
> times in a row shortly thereafter by a certain senator.

Actually, i don't think any of the space flights qualify.  They all
involved dropping things off of the craft (like the first stage).  Some
of the Single Stage to Orbit proposals might eventually qualify.

david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

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

Date: Tue, 06 Jan 87 16:38:44 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization

In Vol 7, No. 66 Jay Wooten seemed to imply that it was impossible to
make a clean nuclear explosive.  Since Jay is from Los Alamos National
Lab (where they design nukes), this seemed an interesting assertion.  It
has been my understanding that "clean" nuclear explosives really exist.
In International Defense Review I read an article about RRR weapons that
supposably are the opposite of the neutron bomb (a big blast with no
radiation).  Also Ed Teller has always been pushing "Project Plowshare"
that is supposably based on clean nuclear explosives.  Most of the
radiation in a hydrogen bomb comes from the tamp used in the secondary
stage.  Hydrogen bombs make a big bang because the tamp is uranium-238.
A neutron bomb produces lots of neutrons because it uses a beryllium-8
tamp.  Why couldn't one design a nuclear explosive with a tamp that
absorbs neutrons, releasing heat but not transforming into a radioactive
isotope (tungsten for example)?  I know there are people out there who
can answer this question but can't because of their Q-clearance.
However I'm sure there is someone who has left the bomb trade that can
talk about this.  I might add in passing that this is an annoying aspect
about the nuclear weapon's business.  Alot of nuclear weapon's
technology is directly applicable to space industrialization but is
inaccessible because it is unnecessarily classified.  The belief that
declassification of nuclear technology will lead to proliferation is
false because the basis for weapon's developement is the industrial
infrastructure (uranium enrichment, PUREX, etc.) and not simply the
knowledge about how a nuke works.  The physics of nuclear weapons and
the engineering of outmoded weapons should be declassified.

                                   Gary Allen

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

Date: 5 Jan 87 18:48:00 GMT
From: irwin@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> /* Written  4:02 pm  Jan  3, 1987 by REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU*/
> /* ---------- ""Voyager" flight around world" ---------- */
> The two-person refueless flight around the world got a lot of
> publicity and fame, yet I wonder whether it was just a stunt or
> something of true significance.

> Or is it truly just a dead-end stunt that got undue publicity to
> distract the public from Gippergate (aka IranContraGate)??
> /* End of text from uiucdcs:sci.space */

Where is your sense of adventure? If one tries to set a new record for
the 440 yard dash, does one need to take into account what it will offer
the world at large in the next 100 years? Does the act have to be labled
a "dead-end stunt"?

If one decides to climb a mountain face that has not been climbed
before, is it a dead-end stunt?

In this case, they wanted to be the first to fly non-stop around the
world with out taking on additional fuel, after take-off? Can't they do
that if they want, or would you tell them that they can't, as it will
not benifit the future of the world?

IranContraGate distraction? Aw come on! They started planning and
building for this 5 years ago, long before that ever came about.

They wanted to achieve, and they did, simple as that.

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

Date: 6 Jan 87 13:52:34 GMT
From: cbatt!osu-eddie!tanner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Tanner)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1200@cbmvax.cbmvax.cbm.UUCP> grr@cbmvax.UUCP (George Robbins) writes:
>  Doing
>somthing previously considered impossible changes the rules that 'everybody
>knows' and puts both technology and people to the test.

Absolutely.  

It's worth remembering that before Lindbergh's flight it was widely
believed by engineers and scientists (not universally, but widely) to be
technologically impossible to fly non-stop from New York to Paris.
Engines were thought not to be powerful enough to lift the weight of
fuel needed, so one needed more engines, increasing the weight,
increasing the fuel needs, etc.  Lindbergh succeeded in a lightweight,
single engine airplane where many, better financed, efforts failed in
big, heavy, multi-engine ships.  There was no immediate scientific
payoff to Lindbergh's flight.  But it was a dramatic demonstration of
the capabilities of airplanes which caught the public imagination.  It
undoubtedly had an effect on the future development of aviation by
making air travel seem possible, with many ripple effects including
public and corporate support for aviation research.

The point is that there is no way of telling what the value of something
like Voyager's flight is.  Simply watching people pursue a dream with
hard work, dedication, etc., has to lift the spirits a little.  But one
obvious possible benefit of the flight is to give people confidence in
`plastic' airplanes.  The material Voyager is made of is light weight,
apparently easy to work with, relatively cheap, and obviously durable.
But people have been unwilling to buy, or ride in, plastic airplanes.
Maybe now the big companies will be willing to spend the money to
develop such airplanes with who knows what potential benefit.

Some things are simply worth doing for their own sakes.  Often useful,
valuable, things spin off from them.  But that's not why you do them.  I
don't think we landed people on the moon just to plant a few esoteric
scientific instruments.  And the benefits to society of the moon flights
go far beyond the scientific results.

-- mike
ARPA:  tanner@ohio-state.arpa

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

Date: 6 Jan 87 19:27:15 GMT
From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jonathan P. Leech)
Subject: Re: Mirrors, mirrors, in the sky
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <287@linus.UUCP> wdh@linus.UUCP (Dale Hall) writes:
>In article <2608@ihlpa.UUCP> imprint@ihlpa.UUCP (Imagen printer) writes:
>>A recent article claimed that 10,000 small mirrors with the same total
>>area as one large mirror will have 10,000 times as much edge. I think
>>that the 10,000 mirrors will have only 100 (i.e., sqrt(10000)) times
>>as much edge.
>
>No. If you have N objects, all alike, with circumference C, the total
>of their circumferences (assuming the individuals are separated from
>one another) is N*C:

    True enough, but not relevant to the problem. Obviously 10000 SMALL
mirrors can't have 10000 times the edge length of a single LARGE mirror;
each small mirror would have to have the same edge length as the large
mirror, i.e. be the same size!

    1 meter radius mirror:
	Area = Pi m^2
	Edge = 2 Pi m

    10000 1 cm radius mirrors:
	Area = 10000 * Pi * (1/100)^2 = Pi m^2
	     = area of 1 meter radius mirror
	Edge = 10000 * 2 * Pi * 1/100 = 200 Pi m
	     = 100 x edge area of 1 meter radius mirror
	       NOT 10000 x edge area!

    Need we say more?

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date: 6 Jan 87 21:11:40 GMT
From: jpierre@eddie.mit.edu  (John Pierre)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <130@sci.UUCP> daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes:
>In article <722@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>> We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin, and
>> three times in a row shortly thereafter by a certain senator.
>
>Actually, i don't think any of the space flights qualify.  They all
>involved dropping things off of the craft (like the first stage).  Some
>of the Single Stage to Orbit proposals might eventually qualify.

What difference does dropping stages make?  They still circumnavigated
that planet without refueling.  Rockets use up fuel just as the voyager
aircraft used up fuel...they both lost significant mass.  Why would
dropping engine casings somehow dimish or make capsule orbits not count?

The answer is that space capsules don't actually "fly".  They cheat not
because they lose stages, but because they don't have to expend energy
to maintain an altitude.

-john pierre

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #100
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00695; Sun, 11 Jan 87 03:02:07 PST
	id AA00695; Sun, 11 Jan 87 03:02:07 PST
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 87 03:02:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701111102.AA00695@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #101

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 101

Today's Topics:
		 Re: NASA wanted a smaller shuttle??
			space"flight" is NOT!
     Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization
     Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Jan 87 02:44:00 GMT
From: necntc!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: NASA wanted a smaller shuttle??
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> > >... NASA wanted Shuttle 1 to be smaller than it is.)
> > NASA wanted what?
> Check out a rather later version,
> 
> > ... the article "The Space Shuttle: A Policy Failure?"
> > in Science last year documented how NASA struggled to retain the
> > large payload bay the current shuttle has...
> 
> note that the basic theme of that article was that much of NASA's behavior
> has been dictated by the attempt to conduct an ambitious program without
> proper political support...
> 
> > ... There was little pressure from DoD for a big shuttle (as you say,
> > they've always been expendable booster fans).
> 
> On the contrary, if you look it up I think you'll find that both the
> precise size of the payload bay and the precise (theoretical, now unlikely
> ever to be realized) maximum payload requirements for the Shuttle were set
> by USAF lift requirements.  Ditto the cross-range requirement.
> -- 
Drat.  I made at least six copies of that Science article, and they're all at
home.  Anyway, according to the article, the Shuttle's size bounced around
quite a bit; NASA did tend to want larger shuttles than OMB did, but when they
made noises like they might agree to a smaller shuttle, OMB immediately would
reduce the size of an allowable shuttle...  Finally, NASA got the idea of
designing a Shuttle sized exactly to USAF requirements for payload and cross-
range capability, to which the USAF replied "So what?"  Nevertheless, the fact
that the Shuttle was just the right size for a reluctant AF to use managed to
convince enough people in the administration.

John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

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

Date: 6 Jan 87 21:58:00 GMT
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Yaron P Sheffer)
Subject: space"flight" is NOT!
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


Amazingly enough, people try to compare the Voyager flight to space
launches. Ridiculous!! The former relies on atmospheric lift for the
entire duration of the flight, the second merely orbits (I.e. in free
fall). The "95% disposal" argument doesn't count: Voyager uses a lot of
its weight as a propelant too. Similarly, even one-stage space vehicles
of the future are not going to "fly" and try breaking aviation records.
They will be ORBITING, not flying.

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

Date: 7 Jan 87 01:44:19 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8701061625.AA25816@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>                                                   . . .Most of the
> radiation in a hydrogen bomb comes from the tamp used in the secondary
> stage.  Hydrogen bombs make a big bang because the tamp is uranium-238.
> A neutron bomb produces lots of neutrons because it uses a beryllium-8
> tamp.  Why couldn't one design a nuclear explosive with a tamp that
> absorbs neutrons, releasing heat but not transforming into a radioactive
> isotope (tungsten for example)?

	You would still have the problem of the fission-powered trigger
(uranium-234 (? -- whichever one comes from thorium-fueled breeder
reactors), uranium-235, or plutonium).  You would also have the problem
of neutrons from the fusion radioactivating the surrounding matter
(including the non-hydrogen parts of the bomb), even if you used a
neutron-absorbing shell (some of the neutron flux would get through
anyway).  Interesting idea though -- maybe a very thick shell would do
it?  Considering that you wouldn't have to worry about war-time delivery
(it's a peaceful-use device, not a warhead), this might be practical.

	Also, you can't make anything of beryllium-8, because it decays
immediately into helium-4 by spontaneous fission/alpha emission (the
only form of radioactive decay known in which the two decay modes are
synonomous!).  Maybe you meant beryllium-9?

	And now for the really important point --

>                                  I know there are people out there
> who can answer this question but can't because of their Q-clearance.
> However I'm sure there is someone who has left the bomb trade that
> can talk about this.

	This society isn't as free as you think.  People who have been
in that trade are probably under implicit and/or explicit gag orders
that we haven't heard of, in addition to those we have heard of.  Yes,
I'm paranoid, but just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not
out to get you.

>                       I might add in passing that this is an annoying
> aspect about the nuclear weapon's business.  Alot of nuclear weapon's
> technology is directly applicable to space industrialization but is
> inaccessible because it is unnecessarily classified.  The belief
> that declassification of nuclear technology will lead to proliferation
> is false because the basis for weapon's developement is the industrial
> infrastructure (uranium enrichment, PUREX, etc.) and not simply the
> knowledge about how a nuke works.

	They'll use any excuse to keep the public ignorant of what's
going on, including keeping them ignorant of what has happened in the
past.  Remember _1984_?

>                                    The physics of nuclear weapons and
> the engineering of outmoded weapons should be declassified.
>                                    Gary Allen

	I agree entirely -- it is a service to society that you made
this point, and it would be really good if we could convince people in
government of it.  Unfortunately, reason and politics -- especially
military politics, and especially the politics of the current
administration -- don't mix.  As far as many of those who classified
this stuff are concerned, the less the commoners know, and the less they
ask questions, the better; and they would prefer that we didn't even
have this discussion.  Keep on bringing up the awkward questions!
Indeed, if we want to keep our freedoms in the U. S., count it as a
patriotic duty to do so.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis!lucius

Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail
out of this system is unreliable).  Please send only to the address
given above.

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

Date: 7 Jan 87 04:08:51 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ... my understanding that "clean" nuclear explosives really exist.

Well, relatively clean.  The fission trigger is hard to clean up much.

> ...  Hydrogen bombs make a big bang because the tamp is uranium-238.

Well, a bigger bang, anyway.  One way of reducing yields for testing is
to use a non-reactive tamp; the Soviet 100-MT bomb was an extrapolation
from a test at something like 57 MT with a lead tamp, as I recall.

> A neutron bomb produces lots of neutrons because it uses a beryllium-8
> tamp.

Glurk.  Pick another isotope, please.  Beryllium-8 has a half-life of a
fraction of a picosecond; nobody is going to build H-bomb tamps out of
it!

Also, my impression was that one gets a neutron bomb by just minimizing
the size of the fission trigger and minimizing the reactivity of the
tamp.  The D-T fusion reaction emits much of its energy as neutrons
without help.  Perhaps one could get more neutrons at lower energy with
a suitable tamp, though.

> Why couldn't one design a nuclear explosive with a tamp that
> absorbs neutrons, releasing heat but not transforming into a radioactive
> isotope (tungsten for example)? ...

It sounds plausible, although it had better be a thick tamp (it has to
soak up *most* of the high-energy neutrons from the fusion) and an
element with several stable isotopes in a row (multiple neutron
absorption seems likely).  But I'm just an amateur bomb designer :-).

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #101
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02043; Mon, 12 Jan 87 03:02:31 PST
	id AA02043; Mon, 12 Jan 87 03:02:31 PST
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 87 03:02:31 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701121102.AA02043@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #102

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 102

Today's Topics:
	      Mining in space compared to mines on Earth
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
			     re: Voyager
		   Comments to Voyager (the plane)
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 07 Jan 87 11:44:20 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Mining in space compared to mines on Earth

In our shared dream for space industrialization, one of our hoped means
for the economic utilization of space is the acquisition of precious
metals.  Recently I was in South Africa and had the opportunity of
touring the East Rand Proprietary Mine (ERPM) which is the world's
largest gold mine and formally the world's deepest.  Another South
African gold mine is currently deeper (3777 meters) but ERPM could
regain that record if economic justification arose. At ERPM I went to
level 76 which is 3400 meters under the ground.  The Witwatersrand has
an unbelivable amount of gold.  Four billion years ago when the earth
was sterile with an acidic atmosphere, there was a large mountain range
near the Witwatersrand.  This mountain range had a gold concentration of
0.1 grams per ton.  Several rivers ran through this range eroding away
the rock carrying the soil to a river delta where the Witwatersrand is
today.  In this river delta the gold accumulated.  Later a volcanic
intrusion occured right in the middle of this delta forming a bubble of
molten rock underneath the soil.  This intrusion lifted the whole area
up like a blister.  This caused the gold rich soil to run down to the
base, further concentrating the gold into a ring around the base of this
blister.  Then the whole area went geologically dead during the
Pre-Cambrian age and was buried under accumulated soil. The ERPM mine is
based upon a gold reef or strata that is about half a meter thick.  This
reef forms a plane that is 24 degrees to the horizontal.  It is about
ten kilometers in width (this particular reef) and goes from the surface
down to an unknown depth.  The gold content is fairly uniform at an
average of 4 grams per ton.  The stope face that I saw had a gold
concentration of 7 grams per ton.  The important point about the ERPM is
that the gold content of the reef will never degrade.  However since the
reef is at 24 degrees to the horizontal, the company will have to mine
deeper and deeper at greater and greater cost.  Currently ERPM's main
costs are labor and energy.  However ERPM will eventually have to turn
its back on a gold reef of a guaranteed yield of 4 grams per ton because
the cost of bringing it to the surface will be too great.  This story is
not unique in the history of mining.  The state of Nevada's original
economy was based on silver mining of the so called Comstock Lode.  The
Comstock Lode never ran out but became so costly that it was no longer
cost effective to mine.  There are two main points about this story that
are relevant to space industrialization.  The first point is that water
is essential for the concentration of minerals.  Worlds without water
will almost certainly prove uneconomical for mining.  Fortunately the
planet Mars has had a history of extensive flooding and has alluvial
fans vaguely like those of the Witwatersrand.  The second point is that
"mined out" terrestrial mines are not free of ore but rather are no
longer cost effective to mine.  Mining an extraterrestrial source will
be cost effective **only** after it is more economicly attractive in
comparison to an abandoned terrestrial mine.  The absolute best yielding
active gold mine in South Africa is operating at 4 kilograms of gold per
ton.  Gold mining in space will probably have to beat this yield before
it can be economicly attractive.
                                   Gary Allen

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

Date: 7 Jan 87 18:09:09 GMT
From: sdcc6!ix241@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (ix241)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

"Look at what free men can do!" D. Rutan, 23 Dec 1986.   That is the
significance of Voyager.

John Testa
UCSD Chemistry
sdcsvax!sdcc6!ix241

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

Date: 8 Jan 87 02:29:12 GMT
From: crvax1.dec.com!kaplow@decwrl.dec.com  (There is no 'N' in TURNKEY)
Subject: re: Voyager
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


	I've seen several postings regarding the round-the-world flight
    of Voyager. People wonder if it was a publicity stunt, a significant
    aeronautical achievement, or a Reagan plot to take the heat of the
    Iran/Contra scandal. 

	To dump the last farce first, Voyager was financed with
    absolutely no government funds. Voyager has been flying for a couple
    years, proving out the design and setting several records for closed
    circuit flying in the process. A couple years back, it made an
    appearance at the EAA flyin. They flew up and down California for
    over 11,000 miles to set a record broken only by their round the
    worked flight earlier in the project. It is nothing more than a
    coincidence that the flight happened in the middle of this scandal.
    The Voyager team had been waiting for many months for the right
    weather conditions for the flight, which finally occurred last
    month.

	The project began several years ago, when Bert Rutan had the
    idea, and drew a rough sketch for the Voyager on a restaurant
    napkin. Bert has pioneered structureless composite construction for
    homebuilt aircraft, and planes like his Long-E-Z have set several
    (shorter) distance records. Dick and later Jeanna were pilots for
    several of these records as well. Voyager was an extension of that
    technology, to reach a long unobtainable aviation goal. Just like
    climbing Mt. Everest, the reason was because "it was there". I see
    the long range contributions of Voyager being much greater than the
    other recent first, Paul MacCready's Gossamer man powered aircraft. 

	As to what useful technology will come out of this flight, Beech
    Aircraft has already started work on a business jet designed by
    Rutan, and built of similar composite materials. It will be more
    fuel efficient than any current aircraft. 

	Rutan's canard designs eliminate the possibility of stalls, one
    of the biggest dangers of conventional design private aircraft. In
    addition, the canard actually contributes to the aircrafts lift, a
    conventional tail is a loss. 

	Teledyne Continental and Mobil Oil together came up with an
    engine and lubricant that could run for 2-3 times the normal time
    between oil changes and overhauls for this flight. This could cut
    maintenance costs for general aviation. The engine was also more
    fuel efficient than any current powerplant. 

	The only part of the project that could be considered a
    publicity stunt was delaying Voyagers landing several hours, keeping
    two very tired pilots in the air even longer, so that there could be
    live press coverage of the landing. Even that was not totally for
    publicity, as they felt it was safer to wait for dawn to land. 

	While Voyager might not be another Wright Flyer or Apollo-11, I
    think it will be as important as a Spirit of St. Louis or Glamorous
    Glennis when the history books are written. It was also interesting
    that while 1986 was clouded by the Challenger disaster, it also had
    two success stories, both taking a (relatively) long time to
    complete their journey, both named "Voyager". 


    		Bob Kaplow 
    		Digital Equipment Corp. 
    		Arlington Heights, IL 

    UUCP:   {decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax}!decwrl!crvax1.dec.com!kaplow
    ARPA:   KAPLOW%CRVAX1.DEC@DECWRL.DEC.COM 

	*   Reach for the Stars   *

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

Date: Wed, 7 Jan 87 21:52:37 PST
From: Eugene miya <eugene@ames-aurora.arpa>
To: space-incoming@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Comments to Voyager (the plane)

I think the achievement of the Rutans and Yeager are really noteable.
Their work over the past couple of years has few comparisons.
(the comments by the other Yeager, don't deserve comment, just let them
pass.)  Sure there are the technological triumuphs, the use of new
shapes (foils and frames) and lightweight materials.  But I think
for the people who read this group it's the human aspects which make
their feat special.  [This almost sounds like something George "Because
it's there" Leigh Mallory said about climbing Everest {you hit the
special cord in me about climbing}.]  It's the thinking and the
resultant sacrifice which is rarely seen in our materialistic, hi-tech
society (e.g., Yeager's: "If I cut my hair off that's 6 more flying
miles.").  Our hat's off to them.

--eugene miya
  for
  NASA/Ames Research Center and NASA/Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility

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

Date: 7 Jan 87 12:18:33 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


The original purpose of the Voyager flight, as publicly stated by the
Rutan brothers in the press, was to generate publicity for an airplane
business they wanted to start in California. Clearly they suceeded in
the publicity department.

The notion of Voyager as a planned distraction from the Iran affair is
amusing. I monitored HF communications between Voyager and "Mission
Control" for the last few days of the flight. At one point, Rutan is
flying up the northeast coast of South America. The ground comes on and
says "I guess you two haven't been following the news much for the past
week, but you probably know that Reagan is in a real mess over this Iran
thing, and he thinks it wouldn't be such a bad idea to come out to
California to watch you guys land."  Rutan said something like "Let's
worry about getting back first".  I would characterize this response as
"annoyed"; clearly Rutan wasn't all that excited about his flight being
a political windfall for a politician.

Before Henry Spencer gets bent out of shape about the Electronic
Communications Privacy Act, I should note that the frequencies involved
are in the aeronautical service and are therefore exempt from the act;
the frequencies were also widely publicized in advance of the flight and
those involved were quite aware that many people were listening.

Phil

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #102
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04232; Tue, 13 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST
	id AA04232; Tue, 13 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701131102.AA04232@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #103

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 103

Today's Topics:
			    Voyager flight
		   Re: Mirrors, mirrors, in the sky
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
			   Voyager's flight
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
			     Re: Voyager
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 08 Jan 87 11:24:01 SA
From: Tero Siili  <FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Voyager flight
To: space <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>

It just occurred to me, that there has been(and probably still are)
plans for aerial reconnaissance and survey of martian landscape using
powered gliders. I just wonder, whether 'Voyager' experience (design,
engines, etc..) could have some relevance concerning such gliders.
Circumstances are naturally completely different, but there just MIGHT
be something to learn after all.

TS

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

Date: 7 Jan 87 15:34:01 GMT
From: mcnc!philabs!linus!wdh@seismo.css.gov  (Dale Hall)
Subject: Re: Mirrors, mirrors, in the sky
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <287@linus.UUCP> wdh@linus.UUCP I wrote:
>In article <2608@ihlpa.UUCP> imprint@ihlpa.UUCP (Imagen printer) writes:
>>A recent article claimed that 10,000 small mirrors with the same total
>>area as one large mirror will have 10,000 times as much edge. I think
>>that the 10,000 mirrors will have only 100 (i.e., sqrt(10000)) times as
>>much edge.
>
>No. If you have N objects, all alike, with circumference C, the total of
>their circumferences (assuming the individuals are separated from one 
>another) is N*C.

		  	....(etc)....

All this WAS true, but irrelevant. The comparison of total edge lengths
was between the set of 10000 tiny mirrors, and the single big mirror.
The constraint of total areas being equal then forces a relationship
between the tiny circumference and the big circumference, which reduces
to the sqrt(N) factor in the final analysis. Oh, well.

I forgot to read the original article carefully. Wasn't that dumb?
Thanks to those kind enough to point out my foolish ways.

						Dale Hall.

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

Date: 8 Jan 87 18:21:10 GMT
From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (The question you have to ask yourself, Punk, is "Do I feel lucky?")
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2835@osu-eddie.UUCP> tanner@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mike Tanner) writes:
>It's worth remembering that before Lindbergh's flight it was widely
>believed by engineers and scientists (not universally, but widely) to
>be technologically impossible to fly non-stop from New York to Paris.

That's interesting considering the fact that some 72 people had flown
the Atlantic before Lindbergh.  His claim to fame was doing it non-stop
and solo.  Multi-engined, multi-manned planes had already made the trip
in hops or non-stop.  This in no way diminishes the feat of tenacity and
endurance that was Lucky Lindy's flight.  Similar to the Voyager flight,
it involved a great amount of stamina and luck, and deservingly captured
public attention.

		--Craig
		...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good

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

Date: 8 Jan 87 10:01:06 GMT
From: castor.usc.edu!seestedt@oberon.usc.edu  (Walker J. Seestedt)
Subject: Voyager's flight
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Comparing Yuri Gagarin's wonderful orbit of the earth as being the first
'flight' around the world is akin to comparing an artillery shell's
flight to that of an air-to-air guided missile.  Yuri's capsule was
launched into a BALLISTIC flight which resulted in an ORBIT around the
Earth outside of the atmosphere.  After the initial burning of fuel to
acheive orbital velocity, no further fuel was consumed during the the
flight save that which slowed the capsule for re-entry.

The Voyager, however, lifted off under power which was SUSTAINED
throughout the flight from take-off to landing some 9 days later.
During this time the Voyager was under constant control of the pilot,
who navigated the craft on it's journey. Note the word 'navigated'.
Yuri Gagarin AND John Glenn, in addition to other astronauts who
followed had limited, if any, control over their craft.  The Voyager
maintained constant fuel consumption and was supported by the atmosphere
throughout it's flight.

As to calling this feat 'simply a stunt', all I can say is that the
person who said that has little imagination.  This 'stunt' has proven
the viability of airframe composites, and the accuracy of modern
navigation systems among other things.  People often need something a
bit more spectacular to show them that something is possible.

Don't discount them.

Walker J. Seestedt.
Student, University of Southern California.

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

Date: 8 Jan 87 18:16:06 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Before Henry Spencer gets bent out of shape about the Electronic
> Communications Privacy Act, I should note that the frequencies involved are
> in the aeronautical service and are therefore exempt from the act; the
> frequencies were also widely publicized in advance of the flight and those
> involved were quite aware that many people were listening.

Phil, you're a ham (in the radio sense!), are you not?  Didn't your
studying for your license include the FCC regulations that forbid
revealing the contents of private communications to others?  These long
pre-date the ECPA, and I don't recall the ECPA superseding them.  My
recollection is that awareness of listeners and publication of
frequencies are irrelevant unless listening is specifically invited; was
it?  Not that I think anyone is likely to object in this case, but it
should be something one thinks about first. 
			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date:  8 Jan 1987 23:50-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Voyager

Voyager is important because general aviation technology has been
frozen for 30 years. No one can afford the price tag of the few
american GA craft still coming off the line. The combination of
insurance and fear of innovation are killing it. Voyager publicized the
possibilities, was a conscious attempt to revive the excitement of
personal flight and individualism.

It was important if you love flying rather than being flown.

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

Date: 7 Jan 87 18:18:46 GMT
From: hpcea!hpsrla!hpsadla!jimh@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Horn)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Regarding value of Voyager's flight:

There's a lot.  At first blush, or without knowing much about what
happened, one could easily wonder about the apparent hype and coverage.
But I believe that there is a lot of real substance there, most of which
was glossed over by the media or even downright hidden.

First of all, unlike space travel (near-earth), aviation may appear
rather mature.  Yet we are still learning much all the time.  But all
the attention tends to go to the
higher/faster/more-expensive/military/aerospace research going on.
Nonetheless, advances in structures, control, aerodynamics (especially
stability and airfoil research), navigation and communications, human
interface, propulsion, and so on, while less glamorous, are of great
importance too.

Voyager's place in all this comes to view when you study it.  With a
lift-to-drag ratio greater than any other powered aircraft in history, a
structure-to-gross weight ratio also greater, new engines, propellors,
airfoils, structures, construction techniques, crew communications,
engine & fuel control systems (more below), and more designed from
ground up just because of this one effort - there was a LOT of
innovation in that bird.  And while we won't all be flying around in
Voyager clones in the future, we will be in its offspring.

Burt Rutan, the designer, is now VP of Beechcraft, and the designer of
the Beech Starship - which that small company has invested .25 Billion
(with a B) getting into production while Cessna and Piper aircraft have
been closing their doors.  John Roncz, the wizard who designed the 11
airfoils used in the Voyager now works for Beech too.  Already we're
seeing the spinoffs.

Yet these are less important in my mind to the triumph of spirit the
whole effort represents.  For, despite the image projected by the media,
the whole project was really made possible by the `little guy' -
volunteer donations of effort, time, and money.  Did you know that the
records that Voyager broke are the first time in 40 YEARS that absolute
aviation records were broken by someone other than the military of one
nation or another (or NASA)?  That, unlike all such prior efforts where
a government decided to spend whatever it took to achieve the record,
some individuals and volunteers did so - and by more than a factor of
two?  And in order to do so and still keep their independence, while
Dick was deeply in debt, he deliberately turned down a blank check for
several million by a large american tobacco company who wanted to
sponsor the whole thing - because he felt that, when the school children
of this country looked at the aircraft, he didn't want some cigarette
name on it?  That speaks to me of principle.

I've had the pleasure of dealing with Dick and Jeanna since '81, as they
have been in the CAFE 400 air races here every year (Dick set the
all-time high score for same '84), and have been involved in the Voyager
project since '84 myself.  The amount of research that went into every
phase of that project is a story which needs to be told.  I know that
their engine monitoring system, used in a number of their test flights,
has caused some excitement in the aviation instrument community - and
that's just one tiny part (mentioned because that's my baby).

The main thing, though, was that this was a well planned, methodical,
and terribly difficult project which was completed not only
successfully, but extremely so.  Instead of travelling the 23000 miles
(or so) needed to count as circumglobal, they went the whole 25000.
Allowed to drop wastes along the route, they chose not to.  Allowed to
drop the gear after take off, they didn't.  In short, it was a truely
class act.  And that's why, despite the morbid their fascination with
the folks in Washington D.C., even the press couldn't ignore such a
captivating adventure.

Dick and Jeanna - my congradulations.

	Jim Horn	{The World}!hplabs!hpcea!hpsrla!jimh
	(707)794-3130

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #103
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06486; Wed, 14 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST
	id AA06486; Wed, 14 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701141102.AA06486@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #104

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #104

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 104

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Voyager
			      Spin rate
       Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
			   planets.c again
     Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization
		      Around the world non-stop
       Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
		Re: around the world on nuclear power?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Jan 87 14:54:08 GMT
From: milano!sierchio@im4u.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: Voyager
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


The reason none of us can afford the GA aircraft coming off the line is
that the manufacturer's can't afford the liability insurance.  This
has forced Cessna to stop manufacture of all Piston Aircraft.

A blow to those nostalgic fools like myself, who first soloed in
a raggedy 150.
	
	Michael Sierchio @ MCC Software Technology Program
	UUCP:	ut-sally!im4u!milano!sierchio
	ARPA:	sierchio@mcc.ARPA

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

Date: Fri,  9 Jan 87 21:57:52 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Spin rate
To: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

    From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)

    ... I need to know approximate values for spin rates of a 10-mile
    diameter colony with 1 gee nominal surface "gravity."  Anybody care to
    compute?

  The formula for centripetal acceleration is velcocity squared divided
by radius.  Converting to metric, the radius is 8045 meters, the
circumference is 50,550 meters, the desired acceleration is 9.8 meters
per second per second, so the circumferential velocity must be 281
meters per second, and the spin rate must be one revolution per three
minutes, or twenty revolutions per hour.
								...Keith

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

Date: 9 Jan 87 16:14:32 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

While Voyager made a flight with regular fuel, does anybody know
whether or not this would have been an easy thing to do (and perhaps
years ago) using nuclear power?  It seems to me that if you could build
a nuclear powered aircraft it could fly around the world as many times
as you like.

What are the weights and sizes for the reactors they have in submarines?
What about the simple reactors used in satellites and the Apollo program?
These must surely be light - do they have the power?

I know that somebody managed to build a solar powered aircraft once.
If this is true, then possibly a solar-powered drone could stay up
forever.

The above technologies have application to ariel surveys of Mars.  I
don't think such would be done using fossil fuels.

Of course, more efficient aircraft and engine designs are always
interesting.  Better ways of storing fossil fuels aren't quite as neat.

Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

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

Date: 9 Jan 87 13:40:33 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: planets.c again
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I've received alot of requests for the source copy of Planets.c and in
most of the cases I have been able to respond via electronic mail.
However, there are some of you that my return mail spun around in the
nether world of the electronic maelstrom and ended up back on my
doorstep.

Therefore, to the rest of the net I beg your forgiveness but I intend to
repost the source. It is fairly long and terribly dull reading so when
you see the subject "planet.c source" and you don't want a copy throw it
in the bit bucket before it reaches your screen.

					Fred Mendenhall

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

Date: 10 Jan 87 23:30:01 GMT
From: ur-laser!larry@ROCHESTER.ARPA  (Lawrence P. Forsley)
Subject: Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Leaving the tamper aside in what is effectively a fission-fusion-fission
bomb, you have the "small" problem of a few kilotons of a-bomb  used to
produce x-rays and neutrons used to produce the hydrogen bomb.  If one
believes the Progressive Magazine article about the H-Bomb from a few
years back, those x-rays implode a Lithium Deuteride column while the
10%c velocity neutrons come around and breed tritium from Li.  I find
your idea of a neutron absorbing tamper curious.  Those neutrons are
necessary to make the thing go!

Larry Forsley

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

Date: Sat, 10 Jan 1987  23:31 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Around the world non-stop
In-Reply-To: Msg of 10 Jan 1987  06:20-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at angband.s1.gov>


To me the funniest part was how the news services all agreed that
a non-stop around the globe flight was the "last and final record to
be accomplished in aviation".

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

Date: 11 Jan 87 06:57:15 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> While Voyager made a flight with regular fuel, does anybody know
> whether or not this would have been an easy thing to do (and perhaps
> years ago) using nuclear power? ...

Not easy.  The weight problems, especially in shielding, are monumental.
Maybe not impossible, but not at all simple.

> What are the weights and sizes for the reactors they have in submarines?

I don't have numbers offhand, but subs tend to be volume-limited rather
than weight-limited, so I doubt that they're light.

> What about the simple reactors used in satellites and the Apollo program?
> These must surely be light - do they have the power?

The Apollo lunar experiment packages, and some satellites, use isotope
generators, not reactors.  Just an isotope slug and something to turn its
heat into power.  They are relatively compact, independent of sunlight
(which is why the Voyagers and the Viking landers used them), and fairly
long-lived, but they are heavy for their power output.  I don't think
they'd scale up well, either -- those generators are small.

The Soviet radar satellites do use reactors.  They probably don't have the
shielding a human crew would need, though, and I doubt that their output
is high enough to be useful for major propulsion applications.  A megawatt
is a very powerful radar, but 1400 horsepower ( = one megawatt) isn't a lot
for propulsion.

> I know that somebody managed to build a solar powered aircraft once.
> If this is true, then possibly a solar-powered drone could stay up
> forever.

That one is more promising, I'd say.

				Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
				{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 11 Jan 87 22:21:57 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: around the world on nuclear power?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> 
>> What are the weights and sizes for the reactors they have in submarines?
> 
> I don't have numbers offhand, but subs tend to be volume-limited rather
> than weight-limited, so I doubt that they're light.
> 
When submerged, the specific gravity of a submarine is very
slightly less than that of sea water.  So if you know the size, you
can calculate the mass of the whole submarine. The reactor shielding
and the outer wall are the only really heavy parts, so my uninformed
estimate would be that each comprises half the mass.  I presume that
power outputs are classified, so it might be hard to make an estimate
of how effective submarine reactors would be in other applications.

By the way, the U.S. Air Force did have a nuclear airplane project back in
the 1950's.  The idea was to keep bombers flying at all times so they
would be much less vulnerable to an enemy first strike.  As far as I
know, the project was never even close to getting off the ground, but
there was a very nice story in Analog (1984 or 85?) based on this project.-- 
Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #104
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08382; Thu, 15 Jan 87 03:02:23 PST
	id AA08382; Thu, 15 Jan 87 03:02:23 PST
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 87 03:02:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701151102.AA08382@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #105

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 87 03:02:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #105

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 105

Today's Topics:
     Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization
       Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
		    Re: Around the world non-stop
			 Re: Nuclear devices
	       Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jan 87 23:49:44 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Nuclear weapon's technology and space industrialization
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <195@ur-laser.UUCP>, larry@ur-laser.UUCP (Lawrence P. Forsley)
writes:
>                                                           . . .I find
> your idea of a neutron absorbing tamper curious.  Those neutrons are
> necessary to make the thing go!

	What the idea meant (if I am understanding all the terms
correctly) is that a shell of neutron-absorbing matter (preferably
chosen so that no radioisotopes with significantly long half-lives form)
would get useful work from outgoing neutrons while reducing the amount
of radioactive contamination (it still would not solve the problem of
fission waste from the trigger).  It would not affect the nuclear
reactions because the only neutrons absorbed would be ones that would be
lost to the surroundings if not absorbed, and thus not important to
either the fission trigger or the breeding of tritium from lithium.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis!lucius

Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out
of this system is unreliable).  Please send only to the address given above.

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

Date: 11 Jan 87 23:14:12 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <727@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP writes:
> While Voyager made a flight with regular fuel, does anybody know
> whether or not this would have been an easy thing to do (and perhaps
> years ago) using nuclear power?  It seems to me that if you could build
> a nuclear powered aircraft it could fly around the world as many times
> as you like.

	We don't need to go over all the horrible details of what would
happen if the contents of a fission reactor got strewn all over the
place (and if you make it tough enough to stay perfectly intact (even a
crack is unacceptable) in a crash it will be too heavy for an aircraft).
Even with a fusion reactor you would have the problem of the tritium
fuel, and probably also of pieces of the reactor which would become
radioactive due to the neutron irradiation (although this is not as bad
as fission waste).

> What are the weights and sizes for the reactors they have in submarines?
> What about the simple reactors used in satellites and the Apollo program?
> These must surely be light - do they have the power?

	I think NASA has done some studies on using fission reactors for
rocket propulsion.  They are too heavy for takeoff from Earth.  If you
are trying to use them for something other than rocket propulsion your
problem is even worse because you have to have a huge cooling apparatus.
(Using the air as your propellant in something similar to rocket
propulsion might be possible, but this presents other problems, and
still doesn't solve the problem that a crash would be a large-scale
disaster.)

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis!lucius

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

Date: 11 Jan 87 19:01:02 GMT
From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (but... but...)
Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <MINSKY.12269961493.BABYL@MIT-OZ> MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:
>
>To me the funniest part was how the news services all agreed that
>a non-stop around the globe flight was the "last and final record to
>be accomplished in aviation".  

Kinda like when Captain Kirk used to say, "Space -- the final frontier".
I suppose that circumnavigating the globe twice, or faster, or *solo*
wouldn't count...

		--Craig
		...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good

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

Date: 12 Jan 1987 01:54-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Nuclear devices
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 11 Jan 87 03:12:06 PST

I agree with Gary. I also believe that anything to do with nuclear
physics is considered 'born classified'. No other area has this
doctrine. It says that even if a kid genius out there has a break
through, if he makes it public he can be prosecuted, or so I understand
it.

I can see secrecy if you go into a project with eyes open and have the
right to examine your contract. I cannot condone the above doctrine and
see it as a serious infraction of the Bill of Rights as written. I see
it as quite Fascist.

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

Date: 8 Jan 87 22:12:55 GMT
From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Re: Alternatives to the mass driver
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7471@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP writes:
>One thing that gives me the heebie-jeebies about ideas like lunar laser
>launchers and such is the use of oxygen as a propellant for a thermal
>engine.  Lordy, but that stuff is corrosive at high pressures and
>temperatures.  Such engines will present formidable materials problems.

Depends how sneaky you are.  Using only materials indigenous to the
moon for fuel, one could make a chemical engine fueled by aluminum and
liquid oxygen.  An excess of oxygen would serve to provide reaction
mass (I doubt that Al2O3 has a high vapor pressure).  I can think of
several ways to make chamber walls that are refractory and non-combustible;
ceramics such as zirconium oxide are fine.  Bleeding oxygen over the
throat would help keep it cool.  The aluminum could be injected as
a liquid, if suitably preheated.  Stratified combustion would keep the
hot stuff off the chamber walls.  You only need to get up to 1 mi/sec
or so; who cares about efficiency so long as it's CHEAP?

Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
{ihnp4|online}!itivax!mnet!russ

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #105
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01387; Fri, 16 Jan 87 03:02:15 PST
	id AA01387; Fri, 16 Jan 87 03:02:15 PST
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 03:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701161102.AA01387@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #106

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 03:02:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #106

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 106

Today's Topics:
	     Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1987 January 12 14:09:52 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
To: "KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU"@mc.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?

<KFL> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 87 19:42:53 EST
<KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
<KFL> Subject: Re: Why invest for all mankind?
<KFL> To: REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
<KFL> cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU
<KFL> Message-ID: <964983.870111.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU>

BACKGROUND:
            From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
            ... Our nation ... must consider investments which help the human
            race at large rather than the United States alone. ...

        From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU>
        Why?
...


MY PREVIOUS MESSAGE (INDENTED), KFL'S LATEST REPLY (<KFL> FLAGGED),
AND MY REPLY HERE (NORMAL):


    Helping the rest of the world isn't bad providing we help ourselves enough
    to pay back our investment.

<KFL>   But if some other investment has an even higher payoff, why not make
<KFL> that one instead?

Because we absolutely need several different things, all of them not
just one. Like the missing wheel on a bicicle, the part we miss is
more important than all the things we have; all the other parts are
worthless if that one part is missing. We absolutely must invest in
several areas, one of which is space. The payoff of other endeavors is
zero if we absolutely need space in the long run, we invest in the
others but forsake space, and go extinct. Therefore we can't compare
payoff of non-space endeavors against payoffs of space, we must
compare payoffs of space stuff against one another, and each of the
other absolutely-essential categories among themselves too, but not
one essential category against another. We absolutely need air, water,
absense of thermonuclear war, food, space, and a few others. If we
forsake any one of those to the point where we lose that resource for
long enough (3 minutes without air, a week without water, 20 minutes
without absense of thermonuclear war, 3 weeks without food, 200 years
without space at this time when the Earth is nearly full already,
etc.), we all die.


    Optimally the whole world should make investments that benefit the whole
    world.

<KFL>   Why?  Why shouldn't each country make investments that best benefit
<KFL> that country.  Better yet, why shouldn't each individual make
<KFL> investments that best benefit that individual?

You misunderstand me, I think. I mean THE WHOLE WORLD qua committee,
not each nation or individual sacrificing for the "common good". I.e.
optimally there should be a world government to tax each world citizen
to pay for projects of a world-wide nature that wouldn't be of
advantage to a specific nation, just like there are national
governments to tax their citizens for projects of a national nature
that wouldn't benefit just particular provicences or counties, etc.
There are various kinds of tasks that are best handled at various
sizes of government. Space benefits the whole world so should be
handled by world government, but that doesn't yet exist, so next best
thing is for the largest nations/economies to develop space either
invidivually or in consort with each other.

Note, no one individual would benefit from building a coast to coast
freeway, only state governments by piecemeal or cooperation, or a
national government, can perform such a task. Therefore if each
individual did what benefits him individually but nobody ever
cooperated for mutually-beneficial tasks, highways and space
development and many other wonderful tasks would just never ever happen.


    But the whole world doesn't have any agency for making such investments,
    the United Nations notwithstanding.

<KFL>   I don't know how the UN or anyone else would decide what investment
<KFL> was for the greatest benefit of the whole world, even if one conceeded
<KFL> that such an investment was desirable.

They would decide that poisoning the air was bad for everyone, so they
would have a committee work toward keeping the world's air suitable
for breathing. They would decide that poisoning the water was bad, so
they would have a committee work toward keeping international rivers
clean, leaving local rivers to the individual nations. They would
decide that extending our habitat out to space is in the long run
virtually necessary for preventing various kinds of worldwide
catastrophe from destroying the whole species, so they would have a
committee work on developing space. In each absolutely-necessary
category, i.e. within the provence of each committee, they would weigh
the various ways of getting the job done, consider investment and
payoff, and come up with a decision as to what investment was the
greatest benefit within that general category.


    Therefore the large nations and other economic forces must make such
    investments.

<KFL>   Why not individuals?

No individual has enough money to make a dent in space, and no
individual can reap such a significant fraction of an investment to be
worth it even if a dent could be made.  Someday when space access is
routine, a small investment could result in immediate payoff that can
be captured by an individual. But currently, payoff is so long down
the road, the company or individual that makes the investment can
hardly expect to anticipate the correct payoff and arrange to capture
it for himself. Only in a few special cases like comsats can payoff be
captured by the investor within a few years, and even in that case we
have large international corporations (ITT, Xerox, Western Union,
etc.) not individuals making the investment and reaping the payoff.

<KFL> What is an "economic force"?

Large corporation such as listed above, common market of nations such
as Europe, consortium of corporations or corporations&nations, etc.

<KFL> And what do you mean by a nation?  Do you mean the nation's government?

Yes. More correctly, their economic force as wielded by their
government agencies such as NASA, DOD, DOE, ...

<KFL> If so, how do they get the money to invest?

Taxation, or a pool of private investors that is insured by the
government (ultimately via the tax base; i.e. banks are trusted not
because they don't fail but because FDIC protects them, thus it's safe
to invest in banks via ordinary deposits). Thus NASA uses tax money
directly to go to space, but also NASA could underwrite a private
company if that company was willing to keep all the books in order and
not do anything that NASA thought grossly dangerous/foolish.


<KFL>   You still haven't said why any of this is desirable.

Why go into space you ask?? Why get out of bed? (1) you can certainly
survive for a few weeks without getting out of bed, but ultimately you
starve if you stay in bed. (2) you can certainly survive for a few
decades without getting out of Earth, but ultimately you blow yourself
up or ruin the ecology or get hit by a comet or suffer any number of
calamaties if you don't get off this planet.


    Japan is making investment in computer technology that while helping
    Japan's economy most will also benefit the world at large,

<KFL>   You can bet that they are doing it exclusively for their own benefit.
<KFL> If it benefits others, it is simply because they know that to get
<KFL> things that others have they have to offer them values in return.  This
<KFL> is capitalism in action.  Each individual or group making decisions,
<KFL> not based on what is best for the world, but on what is best for
<KFL> themselves.

Right. But in fact Japanese computer/robotics technology benefits the
whole world. It's just that Japan gets more than its equal share of
the benefit, so it's worthwhile to make the investment. They don't
care if the rest of the world benefits, so long as they benefit a lot
more. But an individual in Japan wouldn't be smart to try to develop
5th-generation computers or the robotics industry all alone because
he'd go broke before he got the task done while the rest of the world
would be in shape to pick up where he left off and reap the profit
eventually. It's all a matter of what scale of cooperation is big
enough to reap profit before going broke. Writing a small software
system is dandy for an individual, like an operating system on a micro
(CP/M), or a game, but a really large software system (SDI) isn't
feasible for an individual to even attempt except as a fun teaching
experience (if it doesn't take too much time away from paying work).
Pushing into space isn't presently appropriate for an individual, even
piggybacking on NASA/STS with getaway specials.

    and the USSR is developing habitat in space mostly for their own use
    but of great value to mankind. ...

<KFL> I don't think that a Soviet space presense is of any benefit to
<KFL> makind in general.  Quite the opposite.

I respectfully disagree. Although USSR military presence in space is
ominous, the general technology of longterm habitat can't help but
leak out to the spacefaring world at large.


    As to payback, if payback is 4 times investment, and if we receive
    half the payback (the rest of the world receiving the other half),
    then our individual payback is 2 times investment, so is worthwhile.

<KFL>   Unless we can get more by investing in some other way.

Our payback is survival, which is infinity, mediated by our
uncertainty as to whether our survival is really at stake. It's
impossible to come up with good estimates since we have no experience
in this area (surviving global thermonuclear war or loss of
rainforests etc.). The 4:1 payback is merely an illustrative example.

Do you have a way to indefinitely expand our separation, and thus
vulnerability to natural and man-made disasters, without going into
space?? I think space is absolutely necessary in the near future (less
than 200 years, but with need to get starting bootstrapping within the
next 30 years or less).

<KFL>   I'm still not sure who "we" is.  Do you mean the government?  Or
<KFL> individuals in the United States?

Governent and other large economic forces as stated before.


    ... Of course with scientific investments we can't compute payback. We
    have to take a chance, making scientific investment with no promise of
    payback. Mostly we just get lots of good science, enriching the world
    conscience, ...

<KFL>   I didn't know their were consciences except in individuals.
<KFL>   Are you saying that the world somehow collectively feels guilty
<KFL> when it doesn't invest enough in science?

Sorry for the spelling error. Let me check the dictionary this time...
I meant to say "consciousNESS", unfortunately there's no noun form for
the basic word without the "NESS" ending. Anyway that's what I meant
to say, according to webster's "the thoughts and feelings,
collectively, of an individual <not that>, or of an aggregate of the
people <that's the meaning I intended>". An individual tends to forget
things, but in a community that is communicating such as these Arpanet
digests there's lot of back and forth information/idea flow that keeps
an idea alive even when there's not any single person who has
continuously kept the idea alive inside himself. It's sort of like
copies of genes (on chromosomes) in lots of individuals, so if one
gene dies the others can continue on anyway, except they get
replicated and cross-planted so they breed even faster than the
individuals. I guess it's like network worms, which replicate
themselves from one machine to another, and even though they are
exterminated at every machine over and over, they are never
exterminated simultaneously across the board, there is always at least
one copy somewhere which can repopulate the rest of the machines after
their system maintainers have gone offline. So an idea, killed by
natural forgetfulness in each person, nevertheless remains alive in
the community consciousness by being replicated and communicated from
the temporary holder-person to those who have forgotten. Anyway, ideas
not only stay alive but develop as the pass through many minds, so the
overall consciousness is a lot more than any individual's consciousness.


    It is the nature of scientific inquiry that the whole world benefits
    but the society that makes the investment gets more than its fair
    share ...

<KFL>   Huh?  How much is its fair share?  Why wouldn't ALL OF IT be its fair
<KFL> share?

I meant to say EQUAL SHARE, i.e. fair share under socialism. Of course
under lassaize faire (sp?), 100% to the investor and damn the rest of
the world is "fair". What I mean is the result is more cornered (in
sense of cornering the market) than socialism but less cornered than
lassaize fair (sp?). Some people can't tolerate anything less than
100% of their profit, so they sit waiting for world society to do it
instead. Others can live with others reaping some of their profit, so
they do it now. I prefer the latter approach during this interim
period until world governent exists or space profit is cornerable.


    the USA would invest in space travel and nuclear fusion, not in
    transcendental meditation or religion,

<KFL>   How would one invest in transcendental meditation or religion?

Same way you invest in anything else, you have some idea what
experiment to try, it takes money, so you "throw money at it".  I
personally think/feel/believe such investments would be a waste of
money and human energy, but others would disagree. I'm saying for the
most part the USA hasn't set up billion-dollar TM-research facilities,
whereas the have set up billion-dollar space shuttle and fusion research.


    thus the USA which is technological would reap more profits from any
    practical use than would some non-technical society such as Buddhist
    monks or Catholic Church ...

<KFL>   I would think that something real, such as transistors, would benefit
<KFL> every user, whether or not they believe in transistors, while something
<KFL> bogus, like Buddhism, would benefit nobody, whether or not they believe
<KFL> in Buddhism.  The idea being that reality is real and does not depend
<KFL> on one's beliefs.

You and I are obviously not Buddhists, at least not adament ones. I
completely agree with your above paragraph and am glad the USA
government agrees too. But look at Iran or Tibet.


    Why shouldn't we make investments that will benefit all of mankind?

<KFL>   Because such investments don't benefit us.  If they do, then perhaps
<KFL> they should be made.  But for that reason only.  Not because of any
<KFL> benefit which accrues to anyone else.

WRONG. We are part of mankind. If we benefit mankind at large, we
benefit ourselves to whatever fraction we are mankind. Thus if I
personally benefit mankind, I reap 1/5,000,000,000 of that personally.
If I could singlehandedly save the human race, and I couldn't find any
way to singlehanded save myself and California without saving the rest
of the human race, I'd go ahead and save everybody even though most of
them (in my opinion) don't deserve that gift. You are making the
incorrect assumption (stated clearly above; if you didn't mean that
you'll have to retract it like I retracted my spelling mistake) that
if an investment benefits all of mankind then it won't benefit
yourself personally. I say it is possible for an investment to benefit
both myself (or my nation etc.) and the world at large simultaneously.
You don't seem to admit that possibility.  I agree with the second
part, which seems to contradict the first part. If an investment
benefits both the world at large and the investors, then it is
worthwhile (providing of course the payback is greater than the
investment). My point is we should't dismiss an investment out of hand
just because we reap only half or less of the payback. If the payback
is enormous, and we get a reasonable share (say a third or so), it may
be well worth doing.

<KFL>   How could we possibly calculate what is of the greatest benefit to
<KFL> all mankind, anyway?

We don't have to. We just have to calculate something that we
understand well enough to have a pretty good idea it'll be a bonanza,
and we can't think of anything much better that we understand well
enough to work towards. Maybe somebody will come up with something
better, so they make more profit than we do, but we all make profit,
and we all make the world better, so who cares if we really did our
absolute best we could have.


    Why should we restrict our investments to those which will benefit
    us only?

<KFL>   Because we are us.  Why should one eat when one is hungry rather than
<KFL> feed others?  Why should one take home a salary for one's work rather
<KFL> than donate it all to charity?

It looks like you misunderstand my use of "only" an are knocking down
a straw man. I was comparing investments that help us but nobody else,
vs. those which help both us and everybody else, saying we shouldn't
exclude the latter. My use of "only" refers to "us". You thought I was
comparing investments that help us with investments that don't help us
at all. Your mis-interpretation was that my use of "only" referred to
investments that help us.

I agree that we shouldn't go around doing things to help others at our
own expense when that help doesn't help us at all. I think most
foreign aid is stupid, especially now when our own economy is in
trouble, deep in debt, deeper each year. I disagree that we shouldn't
do anything that helps others and ourselves too, we should if we have
no hope of capturing the profit all to ourselves alone.

<KFL>   If you insist on looking at things on a national rather than an
<KFL> individual scale, why should only United States residents be eligible
<KFL> for our welfare and Social Security systems?  Aren't people in other
<KFL> countries just as needy?

It is our national taxbase that pays for our national welfare system,
so it is our national citizenry that should maximize its benefits,
ignoring whether others benefit or not. It's pretty easy to prevent
large numbers of aliens from getting welfare, and that prevents our
benefits from being thinned by sharing, so we should go ahead and
restrict the benefits. But we can't absolutely prevent any alien from
getting welfare intended for our citizens, therefore we shouldn't
insist on such absolute restrictions. We should have welfare because
it benefits us a lot, prevent gross sharing with others, but not worry
that a few others sneak past our restrictions. With space development
it's not feasible to make such restriction that only our own citizens
reap benefits, so we either do nothing or share with world a bunch.

<KFL>   Perhaps it would be clearer if you were to read Ayn Rand's book
<KFL> _Atlas Shrugged_.  Except for all the smoking in the book, it pretty
<KFL> closely represents my ideas.

Jan Kok gave it to me many years ago and I did read it and liked it.
It's too long to read again now.
I do believe in payback on investment, but I also believe in
insurance. Welfare is a form of insurance when not carried to extreme.
Each individual can be confident that he won't starve to death due to
some business failing. I prefer to live in a society that such
insurance against starving. If I lose my job and can't find another, I
may lose my apartment and car and much of my property, but I'll be
around to try again when my luck changes.

What happened in Atlas Shrugged wasn't a little insurance, but gross
flattening of income to where nobody could get any return on
investment whatsoever, so nobody invested any more, and the whole
industrial base went kaput with everybody lazing around instead of
investing. It's a good example of where socialism can lead if we go
too far. USA is in no danger of that, even before Reagan, but it is in
danger of refusing to make investments that we urgently need because
the government refuses to make those kinds of investments that just
are too big for any smaller economic force to make.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #106
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03020; Sat, 17 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
	id AA03020; Sat, 17 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701171102.AA03020@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #107

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 87 03:02:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #107

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 107

Today's Topics:
			   What is a tamp?
		Anniversity of the Challenger Accident
	Stop this trash!  (nuclear reactors and use of `men')
		    Re: Around the world non-stop
		       Aerospace anniversaries
			 Re: Nuclear devices
		 Re: Voyager flight -- around the wo
		  My mistake, it's Beryllium-9 not 8
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 12 Jan 87 16:00:43-PST
From: Steve Oliphant <OLIPHANT@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: What is a tamp?
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The recent discussion of the possibility of clean nuclear explosives has
refered to a tamp. What is it?
     Steven Oliphant
     OLIPHANT@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
-------

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

Date: 12 Jan 87 17:42:57 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: Anniversity of the Challenger Accident
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

To the readers of Space Digest:  I thought you might like to know about a memo
we have received from the Director at NASA/Ames which also goes for the
other NASA Centers and JPL.  The memo came from advice from the Office of
the Administrator.  At 8:38 PST (9:38 MST, 10:38 CST, 11:38 EST) the
flags at the Centers will be lowered to half mast for the day.  This is
for January 28 (Wednesday).  Immediately following, this time, all
employees are being asked to observe 73 seconds of silence at their desks.
This moment of silence will recognize the sacrifice of all astronauts
who have died serving the space program.  And the memo further notes that
January 27, 1987 marks the 20th anniversary of the Apollo 1 fire
where Grissom, White, and Chaffee lost their lives.  It is not supposed
to affect other observances of the National Day of Excellence and
National Teacher Recognition Day, or business.

--eugene miya
  NASA/Ames Research Center

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

Date: 12 Jan 87 18:07:06 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: Stop this trash!  (nuclear reactors and use of `men')
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Please stop the trash! (second time)
Recent postings about nuclear technology (non flying or orbiting)
and gender problems with the English language diverge from the point of
this group.  I started reading this news group (again) when the Usenet
reorganized.  My management gave me the nod to do this.  Increasing
levels of irrelevance waste NASA's (my) time.  I try and answer
questions as best as I can, but don't tax my resources.

Sure nuclear technology is interesting.  You humans have a gender problem with
your language, but USE MAIL, not news to reply.  Flame all you want to
the sender, but don't do it over the net.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

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

Date: 12 Jan 87 20:01:16 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> 
> To me the funniest part was how the news services all agreed that
> a non-stop around the globe flight was the "last and final record to
> be accomplished in aviation".  

Yeah, to me the last and final record in aviation will be a human-powered
non-stop around the globe flight. :-)

Clayton E. Cramer

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

Date: 12 Jan 87 15:12:51 GMT
From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Aerospace anniversaries
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

One day none of us will forget to mark this year is of course the day 28
January 1987, one year since the disintegration of the shuttle orbiter
Challenger and the death of the crew of NASA mission 51-L.  It is not
the only significant anniversary related to aerospace exploration that
will come up in 1987.  There are several I've noted in my calendar file,
some of them just as tragic, others landmarks of achievement.  The first
that comes to mind is for me permanently connected to the 51-L disaster,
for several reasons.  The day before the last launch of Challenger I
remember thinking to myself, "Nineteen years ago . . . I heard a radio
bulletin after dinner that three of my heroes had died."  I know I'm not
the only one who got an eerie feeling the next morning.  January 27 this
year will be twenty years since astronauts Gus Grissom, Ed White and
Roger Chaffee died when a flash fire swept through their Apollo
spacecraft at Cape Kennedy launch complex 34 while undergoing a practice
countdown.

A couple other important anniversaries in 1987:
Feb. 20 - 25 years since John Glenn became the first U.S. astronaut to orbit
	the Earth.
Apr. 24 - 20 years since Soviet cosmonaut Komarov died when Soyuz 1 impacted.
May 21  - 60 years since Charles Lindbergh landed near Paris in "The Spirit
	of St. Louis" at the end of his solo transatlantic flight.
Aug. 20 - 10 years since Voyager 2 was launched.
Sept. 5 - 10 years since Voyager 1 was launched.
Oct. 4  - 30 years since the first artificial Earth satellite (Sputnik I) was
	launched.
Oct. 14 - 40 years since the first supersonic flight (Chuck Yeager in the X-1).

I'm sure there are others that would be of interest to readers of these
newsgroups, this is just what I found in my own calendar file.
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe
	Uniq Digital Technologies	rjnoe@uniq.UUCP
	28 South Water Street		+1 312 879 1566
	Batavia, Illinois  60510	41:50:56 N.  88:18:35 W.

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

Date: 13 Jan 87 01:44:31 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Nuclear devices
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <537432846.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> I agree with Gary. I also believe that anything to do with nuclear
> physics is considered 'born classified'. No other area has this
> doctrine. It says that even if a kid genius out there has a break
> through, if he makes it public he can be prosecuted, or so I understand
> it.
> 
> I can see secrecy if you go into a project with eyes open and have the
> right to examine your contract. I cannot condone the above doctrine
> and see it as a serious infraction of the Bill of Rights as written. I
> see it as quite Fascist.

	Our society is far from perfectly democratic (or perfectly
representatively democratic, even), and getting worse under the current
administration.  If they get their way, even statements like the above
could be used against you (maybe they already can. . . ?).  It is cause
for concern that no one here showed any interest in the previous posting
on the evil of making information classified.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis!lucius

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

Date: 12 Jan 87 02:32:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the wo
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Those who know might not be able to tell you.  A nuke-powered,
ultra-long- duration aircraft would make an excellent scout/recon craft
for the military.  Anybody connected with such a project is unlikely to
be *allowed* to tell you anything about it.

        -- Ken Jenks
		jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
		{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp
		              	Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 87 09:59:04 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: My mistake, it's Beryllium-9 not 8

Henry Spencer and Lucius Chiaraviglio caught me on a typographical error
where I incorrectly stated that the neutron bomb uses a Beryllium-8
tamp.  Actually it uses a Beryllium-9 tamp.  The reaction is:

         Be-9  +  n  >>>>  Be-8  +  2n  -  1.666 MeV

The reaction doubles the number of neutrons and absorbs blast energy,
which are features desired in a neutron bomb.  My source is "The
Physical Principles of Thermonuclear Explosive Devices" by Friedwardt
Winterberg.  I recommend buying this book ***second hand*** or xeroxing
a library copy because the book is published by the Fusion Energy
Foundation whose politics is extremely unsavory.  Never-the-less this
book is the best unclassified source that I've seen on nuclear weapon's
physics.

                      Gary Allen

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #107
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04141; Sun, 18 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST
	id AA04141; Sun, 18 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701181102.AA04141@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #108

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #108

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 108

Today's Topics:
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
			 Re: Nuclear devices
			 Re: Nuclear devices
		   More on clean nuclear explosives
		     Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 87 23:43:59 GMT
From: cbatt!osu-eddie!chris@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Chris Krieg)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <3026@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU> ix241@sdcc6.ucsd.EDU (ix241) writes:
>
>"Look at what free men can do!" D. Rutan, 23 Dec 1986.   That is the
>significance of Voyager.
>


Let's here it for people who believe!!!

I don't see how someone could think that the around the world flight,
without refueling , of Voyager as just some stunt. first of all it
proved something that many said couldn't be done. It wasn't "just some
stunt".  It took years of planning, research and hard work to show what
man can do. Did most people look at the first cross- Atlantic flight as
just a stunt? Look where that got us today, regular flights to Paris,
London, and other european cities. Who knows what the information from
Voyager can do for us. I don't think you could condemn the flight to
being "just a stunt" just because it didn't have instant answers to
world problems. Those people had a dream. They took the newest
materials, gathered ideas, set to building, and made the dream come
true. If thats not exiting, I don't know what is!!

Chris Krieg @osu-eddie.uucp
Ohio State University
CIS department

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

Date: 13 Jan 87 02:32:58 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Nuclear devices
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

While nuclear technology is at present the only field riddled with "born
secret" rules, the government has repeatedly attempted to extend the
same sorts of controls into two other fields: cryptography, and most
recently, SPACE TECHNOLOGY.

As director of the NSA, Bobby Inman went on a crusade a few years back
to grant to the NSA pre-publication censorship rights over ALL
cryptological research (whether or not funded by the United States
Government).  Even as recently as several years ago the US government
had the "right" to issue secrecy orders on any patent application (no
matter who funded the work) whose publication it considered "detrimental
to the national security".  These were done authority of a "state of
emergency" declared during the Korean War by President Truman!  For the
details, read the Puzzle Palace by James Bamford.

Now I have heard that Reagan wants to extend the "born classified"
tradition to SPACE TECHNOLOGY, because of its applications to strategic
defense. No matter that much space technology has extremely important
and peaceful applications in the civilian world, or that Reagan says he
wants to give our Star Wars technology to the Soviets.

Those who support SDI because they hope to ride their free enterprises
into space on the backs of the military should perhaps ponder this.

Phil

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

Date: 13 Jan 87 10:16:03 GMT
From: news@csvax.caltech.edu  (Usenet netnews)
Subject: Re: Nuclear devices
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <245@ka9q.nnj.ampr.us> karn@ka9q.UUCP writes:
>Now I have heard that Reagan wants to extend the "born classified"
>tradition to SPACE TECHNOLOGY, because of its applications to strategic
>defense. No matter that much space technology has extremely important
>and peaceful applications in the civilian world, or that Reagan says he
>wants to give our Star Wars technology to the Soviets.

>Those who support SDI because they hope to ride their free enterprises
>into space on the backs of the military should perhaps ponder this.

>Phil

	I'd be interested in reading your reference for this. Along similar
lines, I am disturbed by the recent reports in Av Week that the military
now wants access to the Space Station. This seems to be making our
international partners even more unhappy. If the military needs a space
station, let them build their own, I say. I suspect even they would be happier
this way in the end.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date: Tue, 13 Jan 87 15:41:40 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: More on clean nuclear explosives

   "Clean" nuclear explosives will be of extreme importance in such
space industrial activities as mining, colony construction, propulsion,
and asteroid breakup and deflection.
   In response to my earlier message on clean nuclear explosives, I've
received some mail that expressed complete misconceptions on how nuclear
weapons work.  I make no claims on being an expert in this field and
welcome correction if any errors are made.  The "explosive" used in
fusion weapons is a lithium-deuterium compound.  The main reaction is:

                T  +  D     >>>  He-4  +  n  +  17.6 MeV

    4.8 MeV  +  T  +  He-4  <<<  Li-6  +  n

Li-6 is transformed by a neutron into tritium.  The tritium fuses with
deuterium yielding helium and a neutron.  The neutron is then used in
the next cycle.  This cycle is self contained.  Neutrons from the tamp
aren't required to sustain it.  The tamp serves mainly as a reflecter
of x-rays and gammas that compress the lithium-deuterium explosive into
fusion.  This compression is achieved either through direct photon
pressure or by transforming a foam surrounding the lithium-deuterium
into a high temperature plasma.  This plasma in turn compresses the Li-D
explosive.  Modern nuclear weapons are in three stages.  The first stage
is either an A-bomb or a boosted A-bomb.  The second stage involves the
lithium-deuterium explosive employing autocatalytic thermonuclear
detonation.  The third stage is the tamp itself that was used in the
second stage.  By constructing it out of uranium-238 (the common and
normally useless isotope of uranium), additional yield is gained
by transmuting it into a fissile isotope.  Most of the radiation and
fission products come from this U-238 tamp.  This source of radiation
could be removed by replacing the U-238 with another material (I had
earlier suggested tungsten).  Apparently the Russians once used lead
for this purpose.  However the first stage, (A-bomb trigger) will
produce some fission products as well.
    Here is the sixty five dollar question.  Is it possible to select
a tamp material that generates little amounts of radioactive material
and neutrons, **plus** produces lots of very hard gamma rays such that
the gamma radiation transitions the nuclei of the fission products from
the A-bomb trigger into stable isotopes?  If such a tamp existed, then
you'd have a very clean nuclear explosive.  Does anyone out there
**really** know his nuclear physics well enough to answer this question?

                                  Gary Allen

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

Date: 10 Jan 87 19:44:07 GMT
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!hpfcmp!rjn@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Niland)
Subject: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

re:  "Actually, what bothered me was that this [the Voyager flight] was
      billed as the first flight around the world without refueling.

      We all know this was done over 25 years ago by Yuri Gagarin, and three
      times in a row shortly thereafter by a certain senator."

As numerous other netters have pointed out, the Vostok/Gagarin flight
does not qualify for the aircraft record, because it drops so much mass.
Moreoever, there is some question about whether or not the early USSR
orbital flights even qualified for the FAI spacecraft records.  The
following is from "Red Star in Orbit", by James E.  Oberg, Random House,
1981.

Page 54     "The earliest published Soviet descriptions of the landing
	 told of Gagarin swining from a personal parachute, singing
	 hymms to the motherland.  But suddenly the official accounts
	 became vague.  At the post-flight press conference, a Western
	 newsman asked the question directly: At touchdown, was Gagarin
	 inside or outside his ship?  After a moment's consultation with
	 the political official in charge of the conference (who had
	 already approved the script of questions and answers for the
	 Soviet journalists), Gagarin delivered a hymm of praise to the
	 brilliance of the "chief designer" of the spaceship (Korelov,
	 of course - but it was forbidden to reveal his name, so the job
	 title was used instead), who had made BOTH modes of descent
	 possible.  But he would not answer the question: WHICH mode had
	 been used.

	     This uncertainty came to a head in Paris three months
	 later, when the International Astronautical Federation, or FAI
	 (the acronym for the French name), convened a meeting to
	 certify the world records being claimed for the flight.  A
	 longstanding FAI rule could have meant an embarassing
	 propaganda defeat: to qualify for any new world flying record,
	 a pilot must take off AND LAND in his aircraft or spacecraft.
	 The rule book was quite explicit on this point.

	     As it turned out, the Vostok capsule was equipped with an
	 ejection seat, which served to catapult the pilot clear of the
	 booster in the event of a launch failure.  The same system was
	 to be used during the final descent to earth, since the three
	 ton spherical landing capsule did not pack a parachute large
	 enough to ensure a gentle (or even a survivable) landing.  The
	 pilot was supposed to fire the ejection seat at about 20,000
	 feet and come down separately.  Gagarin had almost certainly
	 used this method.

	     In Paris, the FAI director-general confronted the Soviet
	 delegate with the crucial question: "Where was the pilot on
	 return in relation to the space vehicle?"  Perhaps sensing a
	 plot to deny the Soviet Union its rightful recognition, the
	 Soviet spokesman loudly protested: "Ask the Americans if the
	 U.S.A.  believes that these records claimed for Gagarin were
	 actually made.  All the people of the world have already
	 endorsed Gagarin's flight and have accepted it as fact."  The
	 wrangling went on for five hours, with the FAI officials
	 demanding documentation that Gagarin had landed inside the ship
	 and the Soviet delegates denouncing such requirements as
	 obstructionist and insulting.  Finally, as dinnertime
	 approached, the FAI officials gave in and agreed to certify the
	 Soviet version of the flight that Gagarin had been inside the
	 capsule.

	     Subsequently, when foreign newsmen asked for evidence that
	 Gagaring had landed inside the ship, Soviet officials would
	 point to the FAI certification as independent proof of their
	 claims.  But as the proverb goes, nobody has a good enough
	 memory to be a successful liar.  A year later cosmonaut
	 Popovich was asked how he landed, and without checking he
	 blurted out, "Like Titov and Gagarin, I landed outside the
	 ship"; in 1964 the three-man Voskhod capsule would include a
	 small retrorocket to cushion the final landing, and boastful
	 Soviet space officials would point to it as "the first time
	 that a crew could land in its ship."  Ten years later a book by
	 chief Soviet space correspondent Evgeny Riabchikov would
	 describe how the Vostok came down in a plowed field while
	 Gagarin himself came down in a pasture near a deep ravine."

On the page 53, Oberg also points out that the first flight was entirely
on automatic pilot.  The manual controls were secured by a lock, and
Gagarin never even open the sealed envelope containing the combination.
So some might make a case that Gagarin was a passenger rather than a
pilot.  Nonetheless, no one apparently disputes that the Soviets were
the first to orbit a human being and return him safely to earth (by
whatever means).

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland                                            3404 East Harmony Road
[ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn                             Fort Collins CO  80525

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #108
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00830; Mon, 19 Jan 87 03:03:03 PST
	id AA00830; Mon, 19 Jan 87 03:03:03 PST
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 87 03:03:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701191103.AA00830@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #109

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 109

Today's Topics:
       Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #103
		       This group (netiquette)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jan 87 21:19:57 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7511@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> While Voyager made a flight with regular fuel, does anybody know
>> whether or not this would have been an easy thing to do (and perhaps
>> years ago) using nuclear power? ...
>
>Not easy.  The weight problems, especially in shielding, are monumental.
>Maybe not impossible, but not at all simple.

Once I was in a class with an engineer who claimed that he worked on a
prototype nuclear powered airplane for the U.S. government.  (Take all
this with a large grain of salt) According to him the project was
cancelled in the late 50's or early 60's for environmental reasons.  Air
and some liquid (water?) were heated by injecting them into a pipe lined
with a fissionable material. The engines consisted of many of these
'pipes' and were air-breathing and air-cooled, like the early fission
reactors. As the careful reader will notice there are some environmental
problems associated with this type of cooling system.  He mentioned that
the shielding for this plane only needed to exist on the front part of
the engines (I.E. the parts facing the pilot).

I don't know anything about this project, but what this person
told me. It may or may not be true, but I thought it was an
interesting idea, nevertheless.

	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

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

Date: 13 Jan 87 18:41:55 GMT
From: cbatt!osu-eddie!tanner@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Tanner)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <446@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.UUCP (The question you have to ask yourself, Punk, is "Do I feel lucky?") writes:
>In article <2835@osu-eddie.UUCP> tanner@osu-eddie.UUCP (Mike Tanner) writes:
>>It's worth remembering that before Lindbergh's flight it was widely
>>believed by engineers and scientists (not universally, but widely) to
>>be technologically impossible to fly non-stop from New York to Paris.
>
>That's interesting considering the fact that some 72 people had flown
>the Atlantic before Lindbergh.  His claim to fame was doing it non-stop
>and solo.  Multi-engined, multi-manned planes had already made the trip
>in hops or non-stop.  This in no way diminishes the feat of tenacity and
>endurance that was Lucky Lindy's flight.  Similar to the Voyager flight,
>it involved a great amount of stamina and luck, and deservingly captured
>public attention.
>		--Craig
>		...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good

Please re-read what I wrote (and you quoted) more carefully.  I did
not say "fly the Atlantic".  I said "fly non-stop from New York to
Paris".  There's a difference, the NY-Paris flight is much farther.
No one had done it non-stop before AND many experts WERE saying it
couldn't be done.

-- mike

...cbosgd!osu-eddie!tanner

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

Sender: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com
Date: 13 Jan 87 07:25:45 PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #103
From: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Cc: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com
In-Reply-To: ota%angband.s1:GOV:Xerox's message of 13-January-87
 (Tuesday) 3:29:20 PST
Reply-To: "Norm_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com

I agree with the positive sentiments expressed by several others on the
Voyager flight, especially Walker Seestedt and Jim Horn.

I have a question. 

Does anyone have any idea as to why the other Yeager (the General),
whose book about himself, "Yeager" I read recently, and who from all I
know about him (or think I know) is a genuine hero himself, denigrated
this accomplishment with some disparaging remarks such as something like
(not an exact quote): "What's so great about it? It's like adding extra
fuel tanks to a plane."

I don't understand this. That doesn't sound like it could be coming from
a guy who's supposed to have all the "right stuff".

Are all the TV commercials he's been doing recently going to his head?
What don't I know about this? I'm surprized more hasn't been made of
this. I wonder if it's because the press simply doesn't want to
embarrass a genuine American hero by making too much of his snap remark,
assuming it was one.

Signed,
Bothered and bewildered Norm Schuster.

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

Date: 13 Jan 87 22:42:44 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: This group (netiquette)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I was just Cc'ed by Bob (Snake Dike on Half Dome next year) Ayers about
the discussion about terminology and gender.  I think the problem is
partially a technical one and partially a sociological one.  The
technical problem is that because this group is gatewayed to the
ARPAnet, many people read this group using a mail system as opposed to
others who use News or Notes software.  At one time I read mail, too.
Flaming is partially a consequence of this.

We have to set up some conventions to reduce trash similar to Mark
Horton Summer's Emily Post of the Usenet.  I propose the following:

1) Because I don't trust mailers, everybody should append a short
return address in the body of the message (a signature in the Usenet
providence).  It is assumed everybody has a reasonable mailer and knows
how to use the mail system on their machine, otherwise ask your
administrator.  [Yes I read space for a while from a destructive (read
once) mail system on TSS/370.]

2) If you see something posted you disagree with, SEND MAIL to that
person, post a followup only if you are absolutely certain everybody
should see it (I don't know how else to say this in nice words).
If you want a 3 or more way discussion, consider using mail aliases.
If you have something for the greater group summarize and post FOR the
group.

3) It will be the responsibility (courtesy) of the original poster
to summarize followups.  (Assuming a good mailer to embed contents.)
Perhaps raw deals (poor editing or summaries) can be responded
by the reader to the net.

4) If you as a reader do not see a summary forthcoming, ASK for a
summary or further information from the original poster.  (Like: you ask
for info X, another reader sends you mail and says ME,too! then it's
worth a wider post if say three or more people request the same).

5) A comment: sure it's neat to occasionally see a mail message from
notables like Minsky [sure, I wrote him "fan mail" while I was
junior high school [1968]], but most people on the net are not Minsky.
Perhaps if you try bouncing ideas off a few people responsive to
ideas (like a referee) before noting on the net).

Some one should post a message like this periodically (maybe twice
yearly) to remind people (network memory).  (maybe Ted Anderson).

This junk has to stop.  I'm travelling back East next week, and I don't
want 100 space articles (alone) to wade thru when I get back.  I'll
unsubscribe before then and it would take another net reorg to consider
reading.  Stepping down from soap box.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #109
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02183; Tue, 20 Jan 87 03:01:48 PST
	id AA02183; Tue, 20 Jan 87 03:01:48 PST
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 87 03:01:48 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701201101.AA02183@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #110

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 87 03:01:48 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #110

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 110

Today's Topics:
	   1987 NASA-ASEE Summer Faculty Fellowship Program
       Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
		      Re: Nuclear powered flight
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jan 87 23:42:25 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: 1987 NASA-ASEE Summer Faculty Fellowship Program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Since 1964, NASA has had a program for summer faculty fellows.
The program is held jointly with the American Society of Engineering
Education (ASEE).  The Centers and educationally institutions working on
this are:

The Jet Propulsion Lab and Caltech
NASA/Lewis Research Center and Case Western Reserve
NASA/Langley Research Center, Old Dominion and Hampton Universities
The NASA/Marshall and NASA/Kennedy Space Centers with U Alabama
Huntsville
NASA/Johnson and U of Houston-University Park and Texas A&M
NASA/Goddard SFC, Univ. of Maryland and Howard U
NASA Ames, Dryden Flight Research Facility and Stanford.

Duration is 10 weeks.

A wide variety of topics are available from computing, mechnical
engineering, life sciences, aeronautics, propulsion, materials, earth
science, atmospheric science, robotics, etc. Stipends are $800 per week,
there is a travel allowance.  There are 150 first-year fellowships.
Application DEADLINE is Feb. 1 1987. Offers made about March 1, 1987.

I have participated in these in the past.  I recommend them for any
JUNIOR faculty (1-3 years experience).
I have only received one of these forms.  The questionaire asks all the
typical information about past research, recommendations, etc.  GET A
FORM IF YOU ARE INTERESTED.  You are wasting time if you call me.
If you are interested, I would not delay.  I would suggest calling:

	American Society for Engineering Education
	Suite 200 Eleven Dupont Circle
	Washington DC 20036 USA
	(202)-293-7080

Get the ASEE form first.  Ask for NASA-ASEE fellowship.
Specific research topics are too detailed to reproduce here. Get the
form and it will detail which Centers and Universities are covering
which topics.
The form gives points of contact where the materials should be sent:

Caltech/JPL:
Dr. Harry Ashkenas
MS 180/900
Jet Propulsion Lab
Caltech
4800 Oak Grove Dr.
Pasadena, CA 91109

Case Western Reserve and NASA/Lewis:
Dr. Joseph Prahl
Dept. of Mechnical and Aerospace Engineering
Glennan Bldg.
Case Western Reserve Univeristy
Cleveland, OH 44106

Old Dominion U, Hampton U, and NASA/ Langley:
Dr. Surendra Tiwari
Dept. of Mecahnical Engineering and Mechanics
Old Dominion University
Norfolk, VA 23508

U Alabama, NASA Marshall and Kennedy:
For Marshall SFC:
Dr. Gerald Karr
Dept. of Mechanical Engineering
University of Alabama
Huntsville, AL 35899

For Kennedy SC:
Dr. Ernest Spivey
System Training and Education Development
PM-TNG
Kennedy Space Center, Florida 32899

Texas A&M, U of Houston, NASA/Johnson
Prof. William Jones, Jr.
Dept. of Electrical Engineering
Texas A&M University
College Station, TX 77843-3128

U Maryland, Howard U, NASA/Goddard SFC
Dr. Harold Boroson
Dept. of Electrical Engineering
University of Maryland
College Park, MD 20742

Stanford University/ NASA Ames RC and Dryden Flight RF
Mrs. Nita Girard
Dept. of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

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

Date: 13 Jan 87 17:17:17 GMT
From: wdl1!mas1!gulvin@sun.com  (Tom Gulvin)
Subject: Re: Voyager flight -- around the world on nuclear power?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


In the '50s, General Dynamics was contracted by the Air Force to produce
a nuclear powered airplane. It was to be called the X-6 (as in X-1,
X-15, etc. - ever wondered where all the other numbers went?). It was
to have 4 or 6 jet engines powering a (probably) B-36. The actual nuclear
powered airplane was not built, but a specially shielded B-36 was flown with
a moderately sized test reactor in its tail for a few years.
	Tom Gulvin - MAS, Cupertino, CA

P.S., it was only conventionally powered and a B-50 filled with test gear
and a C-119(?) filled with Marines flew near it all the time.

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

Date: 14 Jan 87 02:36:06 GMT
From: bzs@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Nuclear powered flight
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I thought this was proposed during the Eisenhower administration and had
gone down as one of the great guffaws of technological proposals?

Perhaps technology has changed sufficiently to make it less of a joke
than in the 50's, but it still sounds like a mediocre idea to me (just
asking for trouble.)

Now, constructing one out in space for a long range space flight seems
rational enough, but I can't imagine anywhere in *this* world I want to
get to badly enough to risk flying about with a reactor strapped to my
tail. How about more creative methods of storing energy, the world isn't
that big, powerful batteries and rubber bands (so to speak), now that
might be clever! But nuclear driven steam turbines?! Sounds silly to me
(ok, maybe not steam turbines, but what is this alleged nuclear reactor
supposed to do to drive the ship? Seems like steam turbines are the
current state of the technology, I'd hate to fly about with Lake
Michigan in the cargo bay.)

	-Barry Shein, Boston University

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

Date: 14 Jan 87 02:05:43 GMT
From: princeton!puvax2!6080626%PUCC.BITNET@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2881@osu-eddie.UUCP>, chris@osu-eddie.UUCP (Chris Krieg) writes:
 
>I don't see how someone could think that the around
>the world flight, without refueling , of Voyager as
>just some stunt. first of all it proved something that
>many said couldn't be done. It wasn't "just some stunt".
>It took years of planning, research and hard work to show
>what man can do. Did most people look at the first cross-
>Atlantic flight as just a stunt? Look where that got us
>today, regular flights to Paris, London, and other european
>cities.
 
Hold on a minute. It was inevitable that cross-Atlantic flight be
developped once the airplane was invented; someone had to be the first
to fly across solo. However Lindbergh, like most pioneers of this sort,
did something before it was really safe to do. Lindbergh's flight had
nothing much to do with the orderly progression of aviation technology
from Kitty Hawk to today.
 
As an example, look at space travel. Presumably in 50 years or whenever
we will have some kind of lunar base, and space stations, and flights
between them. But it would be an error then to say that the Apollo
program was what was responsible for them. The moon landing was a stunt,
specifically designed to show up the Russians who had had the gall to
put up a satellite before the Americans did. All the hoopla about it
masked the fact that while it was certainly a great technological
achievement, it was not at all the logical way for the U.S. space
program to proceed. It took ten years before the space shuttle flew and
the orderly colonization of space began.
 
Voyager is a triumph, but it was still a stunt. What is the point of a
plane that can only take off from a 15000-foot runway, subject its two
occupants to extreme physical and mental discomfort for 9 days while
staying aloft, and then land again at the same runway? Right now, none
at all. When the materials and ideas used to create it are applied to
the design and construction of planes, some. But the real breakthrough
will come when after many small steps forward, improvements in wing
shape and engine design, a reasonably comfortable, reasonably safe, and
reasonably useful plane manages to fly around the world without
refueling. And when that happens, the connection between it and Voyager
will be very slim.
 
Incidentally, did Voyager set any sort of record for time of flight?  Or
has the Navy already kept planes up for weeks with midair refueling?
Just wondering....Voyager was up longer than the Mercury missions and
almost all of the Gemini and Apollo ones.
 
                                                - Adam Barr, 6080626@PUCC

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #110
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04102; Wed, 21 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST
	id AA04102; Wed, 21 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701211102.AA04102@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #111

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 87 03:02:25 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #111

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 111

Today's Topics:
			 SPACE Digest V7 #104
		     NASP: Rockets just as cheap?
			   Nuclear airplane
		       The NEXT aviation record
		  A try for some forwarded NASA news
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 14 Jan 1987  11:31 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #104
In-Reply-To: Msg of 14 Jan 1987  06:21-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at angband.s1.gov>

A nuclear airplane would be practical and one was once designed for SAC.
As I recall, several billions were spent on it before congress wisely
put a stop to the project.  One by-product was a huge remote manipulator
for servicing the engine - on the ground.

The only thing wrong with the solar powered plane is that the sun goes
off at night.  It would work if one could carry enough batteries to
power the plane for, say, 12 hours.  However, it seems to me that this
would be impractical with present-day technology because our
rechargeable batteries hold only the order of a few percent of their
weight in chemical energy.  Since Voyager needed fuel for 20 12 hour
periods, this means that batteries would probably not make it!  However,
NASA-type fuel cells might do the job.  In order for the plane to stay
in sunlight, it would need supersonic speed, and that would surely make
the size and weight of solar cells impractical.

A practical solution might be to use solar cells to electrolyse
atmospheric water to refill a hydrogen balloon.  A solar-powered
lighter-than-air ship would easily be able to stay aloft for the night.
The flight would take the order of months and perhaps set the record for
the slowest flight around the world.

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

Date:     Tue, 13 Jan 87 17:59 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  NASP: Rockets just as cheap?

The January 1987 issue of Technology Review has a scathing article on
the national aerospace plane.  Some points it makes:

  -- The vehicle or spinoffs have no chance of being effective passenger
    transports, and would have no plausible military utility beyond
    being a shuttle replacement.

  -- Many of the technologies critical to NASP will work just as well in
    reusable rocket powered vertical takeoff vehicles.  For example, a
    space shuttle redesigned to use modern composite materials (instead
    of aluminum, for example) would save over 15,000 pounds.  Some NASA
    people think an advanced shuttle with dual-fuel rockets would be as
    economical as a scramjet powered launch vehicle.  Crucial common
    technologies are low maintenance subsystems, highly simplified &
    automated checkout and launch, and advanced materials.

  -- Development costs have been grossly understated.  The author of
    the article estimates NASP will cost $17 billion, not the $3 billion
    DOD says.

  -- According to the author, a vehicle the size and weight of
    a conventional aircraft could get to orbit using scramjets only
    if the scramjets can operate up to about Mach 17.

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

Date: 15 Jan 87 05:42:27 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Nuclear airplane
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>   TOM GULVIN: In the '50s, General Dynamics was contracted by the
>   Air Force to produce a nuclear powered airplane.  

>   MINSKI: As I recall, several billions were spent on it before
>   congress wisely put a stop to the project.  

Actually, I recall reading a fairly detailed "historical" article about
this project in the IEEE Spectrum magazine, some 10--15 years ago.
Sorry, but I don't have more details.  Happy hunting...

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

Date: 15 Jan 87 13:54 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: The NEXT aviation record
To: space@angband.s1.gov

	There is still at least one aviation record left to accomplish:
Non-stop Un-refueled SOLO flight around the world.  I see a few ways to
do this : incredible endurance, a very good autopilot, a very fast
plane, or a blimp ( or does a blimp count? ).

	BTW, I understand that once it gets up in the air ( it refuels
immediately after takeoff ) the SR71 goes 'round the world without
refueling. I think it's a solo cockpit, but obviously the Blackbird is
disqualified from the above ( needs to refuel after takeoff, really just
ballistic [just kidding], not in the atmosphere [depending on your
definition] ).

	The implications of a SOLO non-stop no-refuel circum-global ( NO
MORE HYPHENS! AAAGGH!! ) flight? How 'bout safer commercial airflight (
some crashes caused by pilot fatigue, especially medical helicopters ),
through better foul weather aids, better autopilots, and better
automatic fatigue monitoring, or whatever else it takes to do the job?

	Oh another goal : how 'bout the first NS NR CG flight around the
world by an unmanned craft ( super cruisemissile )?  Two categories
here: remote controlled and totally autonomous.  Put the auotpilot from
the latter in a 747 as pilot backup!!

	As they say in New York, EXCELSIOR!
				Dennis O'Connor

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

Date: 15 Jan 87 18:23:40 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@ames.arpa  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: A try for some forwarded NASA news
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #111
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06353; Thu, 22 Jan 87 03:02:29 PST
	id AA06353; Thu, 22 Jan 87 03:02:29 PST
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 87 03:02:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701221102.AA06353@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #112

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 87 03:02:29 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #112

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 112

Today's Topics:
		      AEROSPACE DAILY - JAN. 14
		    Voyager, Drones and Fuel Cells
			 SPACE Digest V7 #104
			 Re: Nuclear devices
		    Re: Around the world non-stop
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 15 Jan 87 10:19:51 PST
From: ames!telemail!hqnewsroom
Article 21 of nasa.telemail.lf:
Path: ames!telemail!hqnewsroom
Newsgroups: nasa.telemail.lf
Subject: AEROSPACE DAILY - JAN. 14

             VOLUME 141 AEROSPACE DAILY, ISSUE 09
                   WEDNESDAY JANUARY 14, 1987  


WEINBERGER EYES SOPC FUNDING OPTIONS

     Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger and other officials at 
the Office of Secretary of Defense level are reconsidering 
funding options in fiscal 1988 for the Shuttle Operations 
Planning Complex at Falcon Air Force Station, Colo. 
     The Reagan Administration recommended that no funds be spent 
for the complex in fiscal 1988, but apparently Weinberger 
realized on a "second glance" last week that the program should 
not be terminated, said a legislative spokeswoman for Rep. Joel 
M. Hefley (R-Colo.).
     Thus, the decision now is whether to continue funding SOPC, 
or terminate it, said a Defense Department official who asked not 
to be identified.
     Construction of the complex has begun, but it won't become 
operational until at least 1992. The complex would be used as a 
backup to NASA's Johnson Space Center during military Shuttle 
missions. It essentially will control Shuttle flight operations 
from liftoff to landing.
     "They must consider whether they want bombs and bullets or 
something more important," said the DOD official.
     He said a decision on whether to terminate SOPC, which is a 
part of the Consolidated Space Operations Center may be made any 
time between "today and a few months." IBM is the prime 
contractor, and a spokesman for the company in Washington 
declined to comment on how the Administration's actions might 
affect its $330 million firm-fixed priced contract. 
     The Strategic Defense Initiative Organization wants to 
temporarily house its National Test Facility in the SOPC 
building. NTF will direct SDIO's National Test Bed, which is to 
demonstrate and evaluate alternative strategic defense systems, 
battle management/command and control communications, 
architectures and technologies throughout the U.S., Europe, 
Israel and other allied nations. 
     Some industry sources have speculated that NTF might become 
a "permanent fixture" of SOPC. However, the DOD official said 
that if this were true, SDIO would not have requested $100 
million in the fiscal 1988 military construction budget to build 
an NTF adjacent to the Shuttle complex. "This signals intent" to 
eventually vacate the SOPC facility, the DOD official noted. 
     SOPC, after NTF vacates in a few years, could house 
satellite programs now "in their infancy," the official added. He 
declined to specify which ones. 
     SDIO also is seeking an additional $115 million in research 
money to begin the third phase of its NTB contract. Solicitation 
is expected to begin in March, and a winner is to be selected by 
spring, the spokesman said. Either Rockwell International or 
Martin Marietta, the contractors working on NTB's second phase, 
will probably be selected to proceed in the next stage of the 
procurement, he added.

                             - 2 -

FEDERAL EXPRESS signed a contract under which RCA's Astro-Space 
Div. will build two Ku-band communications satellites, a Federal 
Express spokesman said yesterday. Terms and value of the 48-month 
contract could not be disclosed, he said. Expresstar A and B will 
be launched into orbital slots at 124 and 77 degrees West 
longitude and each will carry 34 transponders with a power level 
of 50 watts per transponder. RCA said they will be the most 
powerful commercial communications satellites in service. 
Memoranda of understanding have been signed with Martin Marietta 
for Titan and Arianespace for Ariane launch vehicle reservations 
but no firm dates have been scheduled, the spokesman said. 



NOAA FUNDING PLAN FOR EOSAT AWAITING CONGRESSIONAL APPROVAL 

     A plan worked out by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric 
Administration and the Office of Management and Budget for FY 
'87-'89 funding for the Earth Observation Satellite Co. is 
awaiting congressional approval, an Eosat spokeswoman reported. 
     In the meantime, all subcontracts at Hughes Aircraft Co.'s Santa
Barbara Research Center, Goleta, Calif., and RCA's Astro-Space Div.,
Princeton, N.J., were terminated as of Jan. 9 due to lack of FY '87
funds. The termination "was basically what we were hoping we wouldn't
have to do," the spokeswoman said.
     All 260 people working at Hughes have been assigned to other 
programs and about eight remain on the program at RCA. "We're 
down to the minimum," she said. 
     The plan approved by NOAA and OMB after a month of 
discussions (DAILY, Dec. 11, 19, 1986) provides for $62.5 million 
in FY '87 funding. Of that, $18 million would go toward launch of 
the Landsat 6 satellite and $44.5 million would go to Eosat for 
the satellite and ground system development.
     The original contract, won by the Hughes/RCA joint venture 
in 1985, called for operation of the land remote sensing system 
(Landsat 4 and 5 satellites) and funding for construction of two 
more satellites, sensors and ground systems. 
     The revised plan reduces the system to one satellite. For FY 
'88, Eosat funding would be $62.6 million, including $12 million 
for the Landsat 6 launch and $50.6 million to Eosat for ground 
system and spacecraft development. For FY '89, funding would be 
$44.1 million with $20 million for launch and $24.1 million for 
the remainder of ground system development. 
     To date Eosat funding has totalled $90 million. The original 
contract called for $250 million. If Congress approves the 
revised plan, the Eosat spokeswoman said, total funding through 
fiscal 1989 would be $209.2 million for Eosat and $50 million for 
the Landsat 6 launch. 

                             - 3 -

     Whether those numbers are sufficient is still in question, 
she said, because Eosat gave NOAA a figure "more like $236 
million" for a one-satellite system and $285 million for two 
satellites. 
     "There's been a lot of mixed messages that we've been 
getting from the Hill," she said, particularly whether or not a 
one-satellite system would do what was called for in the original 
legislation.
     If the plan is approved, Eosat would have to renegotiate its 
terminated subcontracts. "Hopefully we could do that pretty 
quickly," she said.
     Eosat efforts, she said, are geared toward getting "some 
sort of a long-term commitment...that will show a U.S. commitment 
at least for the next few years." If Congress approves the plan, 
she added, "at least there is some funding showing for FY '88, 
and that gives us some sort of intention on the future."
     Launch of the Landsat 6 satellite was scheduled for March 
1989, but that date is threatened by the subcontract termination 
which pushes back completion of the satellite and sensors. 



AEROSPATIALE TEAM GETS ESA AWARD FOR ISO SATELLITE STUDY

     A team led by France's Aerospatiale has been awarded a 
European Space Agency contract for a study of the Infrared Space 
Observatory (ISO) astronomy satellite, company spokesmen said.
     Development and manufacture are likely to cost $40 million, 
and the satellite is expected to be launched in 1992 or 1993 by 
an Ariane 4 rocket as part of ESA's scientific program, they 
said.
     ISO is designed to increase the sensitivity of observation 
in the infrared spectrum. It will screen out elements in the 
Earth's atmosphere that have impeded such observation in the 
past.
     ISO's telescope will be placed inside a cryostat containing 
2000 liters of liquid helium which will maintain the payload at a 
temperature of 270 degree Centigrade for 18 months. Improved 
technology will make it possible to fly detectors two to three 
times more sensitive than those flown on earlier missions, 
spokesmen said. 
     ISO will fly in an elliptical orbit with a perigee of 1000 
kilometers and an apogee of 39,000 km. The payload will be a 
telescope with a diameter of 60 centimeters and a focal length of 
nine meters. It will supply images for experiments designed by a 
British/German/French/Dutch consortium. The service module 
carrying the payload will provide high pointing accuracy, 
spokesmen said. 

                             - 4 -

     Aerospatiale's ISO team members include West Germany's 
Messerschmitt-Boelkow-Blohm, Italy's Selenia, Holland's Fokker, 
Belgium's ETCA, and Spain's CASA. 
     Aerospatiale has responsibility for design, manufacture and 
integration of the telescope. MBB is responsible for the payload; 
Selenia for the service module telecommunications and data 
processing; Fokker for attitude control; ETCA for the power 
supply, and CASA for the module's structure, thermal control and 
harness.


    - END OF AEROSPACE DAILY FOR WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 14, 1987 -

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

Date:     Thu, 15 Jan 87 18:17 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space%angband.s1.gov@relay.cs.net
Subject:  Voyager, Drones and Fuel Cells

Re Voyager: I've been reading about a new fuel cell from Argonne
National Labs, developed by Darrell Fee, that would have been very
useful to Rutan.  The design consumes fuel (hydrogen, methane, propane,
octane, and ethanol have been tried) and air to produce electricity with
60% efficiency.  What's impressive is the size: the power/weight ratio
of the cell rivals that of internal combustion engines.  At 60%
efficiency, Voyager could have flown *twice* around the world using
these things.

According to Scientific American, Fee says the raw materials for the
cell will cost $2.50 per kilowatt, vs. $70 to 80 for conventional fuel
cells (manufacturing costs were not stated; I assume they are dominant).
I have a copy of a paper Fee and cohort wrote; the fuel cell uses yttria
stabilized zirconia (an oxygen ion conductor) as the electrolyte,
strontium doped lathanum manganite as the cathode and nickel-zirconia
cermet for the anode.  It runs at around 1000 deg. C.

According to SciAm, Fee hopes to have 50 KW modules available in 3 to 5
years, operating at twice the efficiency of current gas fired
generators.  This could turn the economy of scale of electric power
generation on its head -- even *residential* cogeneration might make
sense (application to industrial cogeneration would be even more
likely).

One can imagine applying these fuel cells to automobiles.  Power could
be supplied under computer control to four independent dc motors at the
wheels.  Add a flywheel and use the motors as generators and one can
recover energy currently lost in the brakes as heat.  Nifty options like
anti-skid braking or intelligent four wheel independent torque control
could be added in software.

The cells could also be used in solar powered drone aircraft.  The drone
would electrolyse water during the day, saving hydrogen for use at night
(this is an old idea).

According to SciAm, the cells may be used in the NASP.  I'd imagine
they'd replace the APU's currently used to supply power to hydraulic
systems.  Electrical controls should require much less maintenance.

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

Date: 15 Jan 87 17:07:07 GMT
From: necntc!cullvax!drw@husc6.harvard.edu  (Dale Worley)
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #104
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU writes:
> The only thing wrong with the solar powered plane is that the sun goes
> off at night.  It would work if one could carry enough batteries to
> power the plane for, say, 12 hours.  However, it seems to me that this
> would be impractical with present-day technology because our
> rechargeable batteries hold only the order of a few percent of their
> weight in chemical energy.  [...]

There was a solar-powered plane built that worked!  The energy storage
system was its potential energy of altitude.  It was a very light
glider.  During the day it rose to about 100,000 feet, and glided down
to about 10,000 feet during the night.  (It couldn't go below 10,000
feet, because you get into weather, and clouds may block the sun.)

Dale Worley		Cullinet Software
UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!cullvax!drw
ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu

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

Date: 13 Jan 87 20:43:49 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Nuclear devices
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I just looked up the details I mentioned earlier regarding patent
secrecy orders in my copy of the Puzzle Palace. According to Bamford,
the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 provides that secrecy orders be for no
more than 1 year unless renewed. However, in the event of a
"Presidentially declared national emergency" the order remains in effect
for the entire duration of the emergency plus six months.  It just so
happens that the Korean War emergency declared by Truman wasn't
officially declared "over" until 1978!!

It would seem that Nicaragua and South Africa aren't the only countries
who use phony "states of emergency" to violate the fundamental rights of
their citizens.

Phil

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

Date: 13 Jan 87 17:58:14 GMT
From: hpcea!hpsrla!hpsadla!jimh@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Horn)
Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Re: "last and final record..."

   I know this is going to be difficult to believe, but the above saying
came from either the original poster or the media, not Dick, Jeanna, or
anyone else from the Voyager team.  The concept was "the last first in
aviation", to use Jeanna's terms, referring to the last major milestone
that they were able to come up with back in the beginning of the project
(circa 1980).

   Dick and Jeanna have between them any number of aviation world
records (you should see their living room wall - lots of nifty NAA and
FAI certificates, mementos of various aircraft - even a radio-controlled
helecopter hanging from the ceiling...).  After setting so many of them
(such as solo nonstop nonrefulled flight from Anchorage to Grand Turk in
the Bahamas), they were wondering what the next major milestone to be
achieved would be.  After much discussion involving Dick, Jeanna, Burt,
Mike, Sally, and others, this is the only major one that arose.  So
that's why they chose it.

   The sticking point is "milestone".  Everyone remembers Lindbergh, who
was the first to fly the Atlantic NON-STOP (May, 1927), even though it
was flown by a brace of seaplanes in 1919 (with many stops).  Everyone
remembers the Wrights, who first FLEW (under control) a heavier than air
(and self powered) airplane, even though down under and other places
similar attempts were made earlier (but the experimenters hadn't solved
the problems of propulsion and control).  Everyone remembers Chuck
Yeager (no relation to Jeanna), who first exceeded the `sound barrier'
of Mach 1 - but not Scott Crossfield, who first broke Mach 2.  Everyone
remembers Neil Armstrong, the first man on the moon.  How many remember
`Buzz' Aldrin, the second?  And so it goes.

   In short, the difference is between records and milestones.  All the
first may be significant, but most aren't.  The second set is much more
select.  It was a conscious decision to select such a goal and achieve
it which marks the Voyager effort.  Media hype and misquoting doesn't
diminish the achievement.

Jim Horn, Secretary
The Comparitive Aircraft Flight Efficiency (CAFE) Foundation, Inc.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #112
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08580; Fri, 23 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST
	id AA08580; Fri, 23 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701231102.AA08580@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #113

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 87 03:02:27 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #113

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 113

Today's Topics:
		     Year In Review: part 1 of 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 87 03:51:37 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Year In Review: part 1 of 3
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

NASA NEWS RELEASE 86-177
NASA 1986: THE YEAR IN REVIEW

	The Space Shuttle Challenger accident, the subsequent
investigation and the recovery activities were the dominant National
Aeronautics and Space Administration events of the year 1986.
	However, while the agency concentrated on the resumption of
Shuttle flights in early 1988, major accomplishments in other areas were
taking place.
	Following the spectacular encounter with planet Uranus in
January, the Voyager 2 spacecraft continues its scientific journey
through the solar system towards an encounter with Neptune in 1989.
	A new baseline configuration for the Space Station was adopted
and draft requests for proposals were issued to prospective contractors
- a major milestone for beginning development next year.
	NASA and the Department of Defense initiated the joint National
Aero-Space Plane research program. This program will lead to an
entirely new family of aerospace vehicles capable of horizontal takeoff
and landing, single stage operations to orbital speeds and sustained
hypersonic cruise within the atmosphere using airbreathing propulsion.
	Late in the year, NASA and the 3M Company signed an agreement
under which the firm will conduct 62 materials processing experiments
aboard the Space Shuttle over an extended period.
	These topics, including the appointment of NASA Administrator
Dale D.  Myers and other major managerial changes are detailed in this
release.

ADMINISTRATION
	Dr. James C. Fletcher became administrator of NASA for the
second time on May 12, 1986, succeeding James M. Beggs who had resigned.
Dr. William R.  Graham was acting administrator when Fletcher assumed
office. Fletcher previously served as NASA administrator from April 1971
to May 1977.
	The agency was deeply involved in the investigation of the
Challenger accident, serving in a research and analysis role for the
Presidential investigation commission, when Fletcher assumed office. His
statement upon receiving the report of this commission set the tone for
his administration:
	"Where management is weak, we will strengthen it," he said.
"Where engineering or design prcesses need improving, we will improve
it. Where our internal communications are poor, we will see that they
get better."
	Fletcher immediately sought the opinions and advice of a large
number of persons in the agency and out., then initiated a major study
of NASA management structure.
	Working with the National Academy of Public Administration,
Fletcher appointed retired Air Force General Samuel C. Phillips, who had
headed the Apollo program in 1964, to direct this study. In addition,
three separate committees of the National Research Council were
organized to provide oversight of Space Shuttle redesign efforts.

In other important activities during the year, the administrator:
	Secured Presidential and Congressional support for an orbiter to
replace the Challenger.
	Secured Presidential and Congressional support to keep Space
Station development on track towards its original goal - to achieve a
permanent manned presence in space in 1994.
	Made a substantial number of changes among the agency's top
management personnel, especially in the Space Shuttle and Space Station
programs.
	Initiated a complete reassessment of Space Station design and
assembly procedures which has lead to major changes in this program. He
has encouraged continuing negotiations over Space Station issues with
international partners.
	In the two major program management restructurings, which
involved the Space Shuttle and the Space Station, the concept of a "lead
center" was abandoned and the highest levels of program management moved
to NASA Headquarters. In both cases, focal points of program authority
and responsibility were clearly identified and lines of communications
and decision-making channels and processes well defined.
	The action involving the Space Shuttle program responded to
recommendations byt the Presidential 51-L accident investigation
commission, which had recommended that NASA consider emphasizing
centralized authority for programs that involve several NASA centers.
	Decisions concerning the agency's overall structure and
management were expected to be announced shortly after Jan. 1, 1987.
Changes in the Space Shuttle and Space Station programs are compatible
with the agencywide adjustments to be announced.
	In the area of key personnel, Fletcher appointed new directors
for the Kennedy Space Flight Center, whose directors had retired, and
for the Johnson Space Center, whose director was reassigned within the
agency. He also appointed a new associate administrator for the Space
Station program. These appointments led to numerous additional
appointments in key positions in each of the centers and NASA
Headquarters, especially in the Space Shuttle and Space Station
programs.
	In one of the most important moves during the year, Fletcher
created the new Office of Safety, Reliability, Maintainability and
Quality Assurance, also in response to a recommendation by the
Presidential commission, to reemphasize these areas in the wake of the
Challenger accident. It is headed by an associate administrator who
reports directly to the administrator.
	As the year ended, Fletcher announced to all civil servants and
contract employees a new set of goals for the agency, developed by
NASA's Strategic Planning Council, which he chairs. He also explained a
continuing effort to identify specific objectives to meet the goals. In
the document the agency explicitly stated, for the first time in its
history, a goal of expanding the human presence beyond the Earth.
	The administrator established a group to determine NASA's
response to the long-term goals for the U.S. Space Program recommended
byt the President's National Commission on Space, and initiated an
effort to develop short term goals to take the agency to 1995. The
latter effort is under the direction of Dr. Sally Ride. These activities
took place within the context of growing national concern about the
health of the American space effort compared to expanding space programs
in the Soviet Union, Western Europe, Japan and China.

SPACE FLIGHT
	NASA's launch year for 1986 began on Jan. 12 with the launch of
Space Shuttle mission 61-C using the orbiter Columbia. Robert L. "Hoot"
Gibson commanded the 6-day flight with Charles F. Bolden Jr. serving as
pilot.  Mission specialists included George D. "Pinky" Nelson, Steven A.
Hawley and Franklin R. Change-Diaz (the first Hispanic American to
journey into space).  Also aboard were payload specialists Robert J.
Cenker of RCA and U.S. Rep.  Bill Nelson of Florida. Payloads on 61-C
included RCA's Satcom K-1 communications satellite, successfully
deployed; the Materials Science Laboratory; the first Hitchhiker
payload-of-opportunity carrier; the Infrared Imaging Experiment; and 13
Getaway Specials. Mission 61-C concluded on Jan. 18 with a landing at
Edwards Air Force Base, Calif.
	Ten days later on Jan 28, mission 51-L with commander Francis R.
"Dick" Scobee, pilot Michael J. Smith, mission specialist Judith A.
Resnik, Ellison Onizuka and Ronald E. McNair and payload specialists
Gregory B. Jarvis of Hughes and Christa McAuliffe, the first teacher in
space, was launched from Kennedy Space Center, Fla., at 11:38 a.m. EST.
AT 73 seconds into the flight, the orbiter Challenger broke under severe
aerodynamic loads, after the leaking right-hand solid rocket motor
caused the external tank to fail setting off an explosive burn of
propellants which destroyed the external tank. The crew and the vehicle
were lost.
	Jan. 28 - Shortly after the accident, a 51-L Interim Mishap
Review Board was established to investigate the cause of the mission
failure. This group, headed by Jesse Moore, Associate Administrator for
Space Flight, NASA Headquarters, consisted of Richard Smith, Director
of Kennedy Space Center, Fla.; William Lucas, Director of Marshall Space
Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.; Arnold Aldrich, Manager, National Space
Transportation System at Johnson Space Center, Houston; James
Harrington, Director, Spacelab, NASA Headquarters; and Walter Williams,
NASA consultant to the administrator.
	Feb. 3 - President Reagan announced the formation of the
Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, headed
by William P.  Rogers, former Secretary of State. The commission was
directed to (1) review the circumstances surrounding the accident to
establish probable cause; and (2) develop recommendations for corrective
or other action based upon its findings and determinations.
	Feb. 5 - NASA Acting Administrator William R. Graham established
the 51-L Data and Design Analysis Task Force (replacing the Interim
Mishap Investigation Board) to support the Presidential commission by
analyzing facts, circumstances and design issues surrounding the
accident. The Associate Administrator for Space Flight was designated
Chairman of the task force.
	Feb. 20 - Rear Admiral Richard H. Truly was appointed Associate
Administrator for Space Flight, replacing Jesse W. Moore, who had been
named director of Johnson Space Center on Jan. 23. On Feb. 22, Truly
named Thomas L.  Moser as his deputy.
	March 1 - James R. Thompson, Princeton University, was appointed
vicechairman of the NASA 51-L Data and Design Analysis Task Force.
	March 25 - A Solid Rocket Motor Redesign Team was formed to
requalify the motor of the Space Shuttle's solid rocket booster. The
group was managed on an interim basis by James E. Kingsbury, director
of Marshall's Science and Engineering Directorate.
	May 3 - Delta 178 carrying the Geostationary Operational
Environmental Satellite (GOES-G), launched at 6:18 p.m. EDT, from Cape
Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla., was destroyed by range safety due to
premature main engine shutdown.
	May 4 - An investigation board headed by Lawrence J. Ross, Lewis
Research Center, Cleveland, was formed to investigate the Delta 178
flight failure.
	May 9 - John W. Thomas, Spacelab Program Office Manager at
Marshall Space Flight Center, assumed management responsibility for the
Solid Rocket Motor Redesign Team.
	June 6 - The report of the Presidential Commission on the Space
Shuttle Challenger Accident was submitted to President Reagan. This
report included nine recommendations by the commission to help assure
the safe return to flight.
	June 11 - Astronaut Robert L. Crippen was assigned to head a
group formed to review overall Space Shuttle program management.
	June 19 - NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher announced the
decision to terminate the development of the Centaur Upper Stage for use
aboard the Shuttle. This decision was based on the fact that, even
following certain modifications identified by ongoing reviews, the
resultant stage would not meet safety criteria being applied to other
cargo or elements of the Space Shuttle system.
	June 25 - TRW, Inc., was selected by NASA for negotiations
leading to the award of a contract to develop the Orbital Maneuvering
Vehicle (OMV). A reusable, remotely operated, propulsive vehicle to
increase the range of the Space Transportation System, the OMV will be
used primarily for spacecraft delivery, retrieval, boost, deboost and
close proimity visual observation beyond the operating range of the
Space Shuttle.
	July 14 - NASA's plan to implement the recommendations of the
Rogers commission was submitted to President Reagan.
	Aug. 5 - James R. Thompson was named director of Marshall Space
Flight Center, replacing Dr. William Lucas, who retired July 1.
	Aug. 15 - President Reagan announced his decision to support a
replacement for the Challenger. At the same time, it was announced that
NASA no longer would launch commercial satellites, except for those
which are Shuttle-unique or have national security or foreign policy
implications.
	Aug. 18 - Astronaut Sally Ride was named Special Assistant for
Strategic Planning, responsible for reviewing NASA's goals and
objectives for nearto long-term planning.
	Aug. 20 - Lt. Gen. Forrest S. McCartney, Commander of the Space
Division, Air Force System, Los Angeles, was named director of Kennedy
Space Center, replacing Richard G. Smith who retired from NASA on July
31.
	Aug. 22 - NASA announced the beginning of a series of tests
designed to verify the ignition pressure dynamics of the Space Shuttle
solid rocket motor field joint. The series will be conducted over the
next year at Morton Thiokol's Wasatch Division in Utah and Marshall
Space Flight Center.
	Sept. 5 - Study contracts were awarded to five aerospace firms
for conceptual designs of an aternative or Block II Space Shuttle
solid rocket motor.
	Sept. 5 - A Delta vehicle carrying a Strategic Defense
Initiative payload was launched successfully from Cape Canavaral Air
Force Station.
	Sept. 10 - Astronaut Bryan O'Connor was named chairman of a new
Space Flight Safety Panel. This panel, with oversight responsibility for
all NASA manned space program activities, reports to the Associate
Administrator for Safety, Reliability, Maintainability and Quality
Assurance.
	Oct. 2 - Aaron Cohen was appointed director of Johnson Space
Center, replacing Jesse Moore, who left the position to become special
assistant to the NASA General Manager at Headquarters. Cohen had been
director of research and engineering at Johnson.
	Oct. 2 - After an intensive study, NASA announced the decision
to test fire the redesigned solid rocket motor in a horizontal attitude.
This test best simulates the critical conditions on the field joint
which failed during the 51-L mission.
	Oct. 3 - NASA announced February 1988 as the target date for
resuming Shuttle flights. A 3 -year projected manifest was released
based on a reduced flight rate and accomodating as far as possible the
payload backlog.
	Oct. 16 - NASA announced that it would proceed with the
construction of a second horizontal test stand for redesigning and
recertification of the Space Shuttle solid rocket motor at the Morton
Thiokol Wasatch facility in Utah.  The new test stand will be designed
to simulate, more closely than the existing SRM stand, the stresses on
the SRM during an actual Shuttle launch and ascent.
	Oct. 29 - The Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of
Representatives, released its report on the Investigation of the
Challenger Accident.
	Nov. 5 - A new management and operations structure for the
National Space Transportation System was announced by NASA Deputy
Administrator Dale Myers.  Arnold D. Aldrich was named director of the
National Space Transportation System in Washington, D.C. He had
previously been manager of the NSTS in Houston.
	Nov. 13 - A Scout launch vehicle carrying the Polar Beacon
Experiments and Auroral Research satellite was launched successfully
from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.
	Nov. 26 - NASA announced the selection of the Inertial Upper
Stage (IUS), a launch vehicle which fits into the cargo bay of the
Shuttle as the baseline option for three planetary missions - Galileo,
Magellan and Ulysses. In addition, the Transfer Orbit Stage (TOS),
which also fits in the Shuttle payload bay but has the potential for
being integrated with a Titan launch vehicle, was selected to place the
Mars Observer spacecraft into the proper interplanetary trajectory.
While these missions all are baselined for the Shuttle, an option was
kept open until early 1987 to fly one of them on a Titan.
	Dec. 4 - An Atlas-Centaur carrying a FLTSATCOM military
communications satellite was launched successfully from Cape Canaveral
Air Force Station at 9:30 p.m. EST

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #113
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11284; Sat, 24 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST
	id AA11284; Sat, 24 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701241102.AA11284@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #114

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 87 03:02:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #114

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 114

Today's Topics:
		     Year In Review: part 2 of 3
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 87 03:51:37 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Year In Review: part 2 of 3
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

		SPACE STATION
   
	This was a year of progress and transition for the Space Station
as NASA laid the organizational and programmatic framework for beginning
development during which the final design, construction, launch and
initial operation of the permanently manned Space Station will take
place.
	A new baseline configuration for the Space Station, called the
"dual keel," was adopted as the reference configuration to guide the
final 8 months of preliminary design activities.
	Former Lewis Research Center Director Andrew J. Stofan was named
Associate Administrator for Space Station in June and Dr. Franklin D.
Martin was subsequently named the deputy associate administrator.
	A major review of Space Station program management was conducted
by former Apollo Program Director Gen. Samuel Phillips. Based on that
review, the NASA Administrator announced in June the decision to locate
a Space Station Program Office in the Washington, D.C. area. The program
office is responsible for overall technical direction and content of the
Space Station. Thomas L. Moser was selected as the Space Station program
director.
	In July, the NASA administrator directed the Space Station
Office to review all aspects of the Space Station program, including
design, work package assignments and functions. The review was to
address Congressional concerns over the implications of the work
packages and examine technical issues involving the Station. Primary
among the technical issues was the ability of the Shuttle to support the
Space Station assembly sequence and the ability of the crew to support
the extensive extravehicular acitvity (EVA) required for both assembly
and maintenance of the Station.
	Based on the review, NASA modified the Station baseline
configuration including expanding the "resources" nodes used to
connect the working and living modules together adn establishing a
revised assembly scenario.
	Expanding the resource nodes permits flight critical command and
control equipment, previously located outside on the Space Station's
framework, to be housed inside the nodes. This alleviates the need for
crew members to perform EVA for routine maintenance and replacement of
these components. The expanded nodes also provide about 4,000 cubic feet
of additional pressurized volume to the Space Station.
	The revised assembly sequence concentrates on accommodating
payload instruments during early assembly missions and on obtaining
permanent occupancy as soon as possible to enhance the ability of the
Station to generate early scientific return.
	Following considerable analysis, NASA field center work package
assignments for the various Space Station components were developed
and approved by the NASA administrator.
	On the international front, program level agreements were
reached with Japan, Canada and the European Space Agency (ESA). Japan is
conducting preliminary design on an attached multipurpose research and
development laboratory including a pressurized module, an exposed work
deck, a scientific/ equipment airlock, a remote manipulator arm and an
experiment logistics module.
	Canada is concentrating its preliminary design activities on a
mobile servicing center, a multi-purpose system equipped with
manipulator arms to help assemble and maintain the Space Station,
instruments and experiments.
	ESA is conducting preliminary design of a permanently attached
pressurized laboratory module and a polar orbiting platform. In
addition, NASA and ESA agreed to jointly study an ESA man-tended free
flyer (pressurized module and resource module).
	The Task Force on Scientific Uses of the Space Station published
it's second and final summer study report, examining ways the manned
Space Station could contribute to scientific research and calling for
NASA to generate general guidelines for ensuring the Station's
effectiveness as a research facility. The task force will become part of
a permanent advisory group under the NASA Advisory Council.
	Draft requests for proposals (RFPs) for the Station's
development phase were issued to prospective contractors in November,
marking a major milestone in the preparations for beginning development
next year.
	A Technical and Management Information System (TMIS) RFP was
issued in July. The TMIS is a computer-based system that will support
the technical and management functions of the overall Space Station
program.
	A Software Support Environment (SSE) RFP was issued also. The
SSE will provide "the environment" that will be used for all computer
software developed for the Space Station program.
	A Space Station Operations Task Force was formed in September to
recommend optional concepts for managing and conducting operations
aboard the manned base and the platforms.

		SPACE SCIENCE AND APPLICATIONS

	The temporary loss of U.S. space launch capability precluded
what was to have been "A Year For Space Science." Five major scientific
mission launches were planned for 1986, including Spartan Halley,
Astro-1 and three planetary mission Galileo, Ulysses and Hubble Space
Telescope. However, NASA science and applications continued working a
variety of activities not requiring launches.
	The Space and Earth Science Advisory Committee (SESAC), of the
NASA Advisory Council, issued an in-depth report on the status of
space science within NASA. The 2-year study entitled "The Crisis in
Space and Earth Science, A Time for A New Commitment," called for
greater attention and higher priority for science programs.

		SOLAR SYSTEM/PLANETARY SCIENCE

	The most notable science achievement during 1986 was the
successful encounter with planet Uranus by the Voyager 2 spacecraft in
January. The Uranus encounter provided prime scientific data on a
planetary body never before examined by a space probe at such close
range. The 9-year-old robotic spacecraft, Voyager 2, is continuing its
scientific journey through the solar system towards and encounter with
planet Neptune in 1989.
	The Galileo mission to Jupiter, a joint project with the Federal
Republic of Germany, was planned to make a comprehensive, long term
study of the planet's atmosphere, magnetic field and its moons. The
Galileo could be launched from the Shuttle either in November 1989, or
June 1991, or be launched by an expendable launch vehicle.
	The Ulysses mission, a cooperative effort between NASA and The
European Space Agency, will provide the first view of the sun and the
solar system from above the ecliptic plane. The data will provide
knowledge about the sun and also will help scientists to better
understand the effects of solar activity on the Earth's weather and
climate. The Ulysses mission is being considered for launch in September
1989 or October 1990.
	Atlas (formerly Earth Observation Mission 1 and 2), planned as a
1986 launch, will be the first of a flight series to study long-term
changes in solar irradiance and to monitor changes in the chemical
composition of the middle and upper parts of Earth's atmosphere over an
11-year solar cycle.  Atlas is manifested for November 1990.
	The Hubble Space Telescope originally scheduled for launch in
October 1986, will carry five scientific instruments to study the stars,
planets and intersteller space. Four telescopes are provided by the
United States and the fifth by the European Space Agency. During "down
time," the Space Telescope has undergone continual "end-to-end" testing
to maintain the health of the instruments. The current NASA manifest
calls for launching the Hubble Space Telescope in November 1988.
	Astro-1 is a Shuttle-borne observatory to explore the universe
by observing and measuring the ultraviolet radiation from celestial
objects. The Astro instruments can peer deeply into the ultraviolet
spectrum, gaining more information than previously possible and study
objects of interest to optical and radio astronomers. Astro-1 is now
manifested for January 1991.

		EARTH SCIENCES

	1986 marked a notable interest in the Earth and its environment.
NASA, NOAA and the National Science Foundation supported the scientific
research efforts of the National Committee for Atmospheric Research in
outlining new science data detailing the dangers to the Earth's
environment.

		LIFE SCIENCES

	An effort to develop a "breadboard" or a basic life support
system for use in outer space aboard the Space Station or long term
space flight was highlighted by continued interface with project
offices, colleges and universit ies.

		APPLICATIONS

	Satellite Aided Search and Rescue System (SARSAT) developed by
NASA and its international partners, is credited with saving the lives
of more than 600 persons who were stranded or injured in remote areas
around the world.

		AERONAUTICS

	NASA's aeronautical research and technology efforts continued to
expand U.S. capabilities in civil and military aviation, contributing
significantly to U.S. world aviation leadership and to national
security. These efforts covered the spectrum from fundamental
disciplinary research to flight testing.
	In President Reagan's State of the Union address, he said "We
are going forward with research on an aerospace plane.... that could
shrink travel times between Washington, D.C. and Tokyo... or any other
cities no matter how distant... to less than 2 hours." At the
President's request, NASA and Department of Defense initiated the joint
National Aero-Space Plane (NASP) research program that will lead to an
entirely new family of aerospace vehicles.
	NASP is an accelerated technology development program leading to
a flight research vehicle (X-30) to validate a wide range of aerospace
technologies and capabilities including horizontal takeoff and landing,
single-stage operation to orbital speeds and sustained hypersonic cruise
within the atmosphere using airbreathing propulsion. A wide variety of
future operational aerospace vehicles will be possible as a result of
this technology development and validation program, ranging from civil
space launch vehicles and hypersonic transports to long range defense
interceptors.
	Other joint NASA/DOD programs, such as the X-29 forward swept
wing experimental aircraft, X-wing research aircraft, the tilt
rotor/JVX aircraft and the mission adpative wing, substantially
augmented the military data base.  Joint NASA/Federal Aviation
Administration programs addressed lightning strikes, wind shear, icing
and other issues affecting aviation safety.
	The forward swept wing X-29 aircraft completed its flight
envelope at the Ames-Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif.,
in November. The X-29 is a joint Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency/ U.S. Air Force/ NASA flight research program.
	A modified F-15 jet aircraft performed the maiden flight of the
highly integrated digital elelctronic control (HIDEC) system. HIDEC
provides coordinating communications between the aircraft's flight
control computer and engine control computer for better performance.
	The world's most powerful supercomputer facility, the Numerical
Aerodynamic Simulation (NAS) system located at Ames, became available
to scientists and engineers throughout the United States in July. The
NAS system is chartered to progressively incorporate the world's most
advanced supercomputer technology into the NAS facility and serve as a
pathfinder in supercomputing for government, industry and universities.
	The NAS CRAY-2 computer is unique in having a 256 million word
memory (largest yet available) and can perform 250 million computations
a second.
	Accomplishments in the turboprop research area include
successful completion of ground tests of both singleand counter
rotation propfan concepts in preparation for flight tests to verify
large scale propeller structures, aeroelastics and acoustics. The
unducted fan, gearless counter rotation propfan has attained 0.72 Mach
number, exceeding all previous propeller design capability, during
flight tests on a modified production aircraft under industry
sponsorship.
	The 1986 tilt rotor research accomplishments included the use of
the XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research Aircraft to investigate rotor/wing
aerodynamic interaction flow phenomena. NASA, FAA and DOD signed an
agreement to study the potential national benefits of tilt rotor
technology.
	The fabrication and assembly of the Rotor System Research
Aircraft/X-Wing research vehicle was completed in August. The joint
DARPA/NASA program continues to advance the state of technology in
high speed rotorcraft flight.
	The United States (DOD/NASA) and the United Kingdom signed a
joint research agreement in early 1986 to foster collaboration in the
development of advanced Short Take-Off and Vertical Landing (ASTOVL)
technologies aimed at reducing the technological risk associated with
potential ASTOVL aircraft development.
	A take-off/landing monitor was developed and successfully
evaluated by more than 30 pilots. The monitor provides pilots with an
integrated display of aircraft state during take-off and landing
including safety warnings and indications of optional stopping positions
on the runway.
	NASA and FAA signed an agreement for a 5-year, $24 million
research project to develop technology for airborne wind shear
detection and avoidance.
	NASA Ames Research Center, Mountain View, Calif. signed a Small
Business Innovation Research contract with ACA Industries, Palos Verdes,
Calif., to build the advanced concept joined wing. Initial flight tests
are planned by ACA Industries for early 1988 at Mojave, Calif. The
joined wing incorporates a swept-forward rear wing. Lighter aircraft
structures and increased fuel efficiency are the primary benefits
anticipated.

		SPACE TECHNOLOGY

	The NASA Space Research and Technology program provides critical
and sometimes unique elements of the technology base which enables
national leadership in space activities. It is focused on technology
for the development of more capable, less costly space transportation
systems, large space systems such as growth space stations,
geosynchronous communication platforms and advanced scientific, Earth
observation and planetary exploration.
	A cryogenic bearing mechanical/thermal model is now operational
and is being used to determine cooling, lubrication and bearing design
characteristics supporting increased bearing life.
	A hollow core, single crystal, turbine blade design has shown
the potential of up to 20 times the low cycle, fatigue life of
directional solidified blade materials currently in use.
	Technology for space-based liquid oxygen/hydrogen expander cycle
engines has progressed in the areas of combustion, heat transfer,
materials compatibility, high expansion ratio nozzle performance and
engine level system testing.
	The technology for small chemical thrusters advanced
significantly in 1986.
	Progress continues in improving the performance of solar
photovoltaic cells and arrays. Recent successes include reducing
performance loss caused by natural radiation.
	Phase II of the joint DOD/Department of Energy/NASA Space
Nuclear Reactor Power System Development Program (SP-100) started in
1986. NASA supported DOE's major SP-100 ground engineering systems
acquisition process which led to a multi-year contract award to the
General Electric Co.
	New lightweight composite materials of titanium and graphite or
tungsten fibers were demonstrated to be feasible for heat pipe
fabrication for use at temperatures of 1,000 degrees C.
	NASA completed initial evaluations of teleoperated robotic space
servicing tasks. Orbital refueling and space structural assembly tasks
were evaluated.
	NASA investigations of titanium doped saphire laser materials
have resulted in a 5-fold increase in power efficiency. This
improvement was the result of close cooperation between NASA system
modelers and materials manufacturers.  The new lasers offer the
potential for the important scientific objective of space sensing of
atmospheric water vapor profiles.
	Future and long-duration manned missions and bases will require
revolutionary new concepts in environmental control and life support
systems.  Progress was made in developing and testing advanced
components which are more reliable, lighter and more efficient in the
areas of regenerable air revitalization and water reclamation.
	Research has focused on the development of advanced thermal
protection systems for the Space Shuttle, advanced space transportation
systems and hypersonic vehicles including the Aeroassisted Orbital
Transfer Vehicle and the National Aero-Space Plane. A chemical vapor
deposition facility is now in operation for studies on ceramic/ceramic
composite processing for the development of highly durable, high
temperature hot structures.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #114
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12740; Sun, 25 Jan 87 03:02:03 PST
	id AA12740; Sun, 25 Jan 87 03:02:03 PST
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 87 03:02:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701251102.AA12740@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #115

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 87 03:02:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #115

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 115

Today's Topics:
		     Year In Review: part 3 of 3
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #82
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jan 87 03:51:37 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Year In Review: part 3 of 3
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

		SPACE TRACKING AND DATA SYSTEMS

	The Space Tracking and Data Systems program plans, implements
and operates the worldwide tracking, data handling and communications
facilities and services in support of NASA and other agency programs.
Support is provided to planetary spacecraft, Earth-orbiting satellites,
Shuttle missions, sounding rockets and balloons, and aeronautics
research vehicles.
	The launches of the next two Tracking and Data Relay Satellites
(TDRS) to complete the satellite constellation of three in-orbit for an
operational system were planned for 1986. The TDRS launched on Jan.
28, was lost in the Space Shuttle 51-L accident. The current Shuttle
manifest includes launches of the next two TDRS satellites in 1988.
Ground-based tracking network operations, which support low-Earth
orbital spacecraft, are being extended to provide needed coverage until
TDRSS becomes operational.
	An upgrade of the Deep Space Network (DSN) was key to the
success of the Voyager 2 encounter with the planet Uranus in late
January 1986. Nearly 500 images of the planet, its satellites and rings
were obtained during the nearencounter phase. This support was
possible due to a new method of arraying NASA's large antennas and by
combining signals with Australia's large antenna at their Parkes
facility. Also during March and April, the DSN completed its rather
extensive support to the various Halley's Comet observations.
	Work also began in 1986 to increase the sensitivity of the DSN
in preparation for the Voyager 2 encounter with the planet Neptune in
1989. This will be accomplished by improving the efficiency of the large
DSN antennas and by simultaneously combining signals received by the DSN
antennas, during the encounter, with other antennas at non-NASA
facilities.
	A major development in NASA's ground communications program, the
Program Support Communications Network (PSCN), became operational in
1986. The PSCN is a common user, integrated, digital network connecting
NASA installations, major contractors and universities. The network
provides voice and data services to support the agnecy's institutional
and programmatic requirements.  It employs advanced technologies
developed by the communications industry.

		COMMERCIAL PROGRAMS

	A memorandum of understanding was signed with SPACEHAB, Inc.,
Seattle, establishing a framework for cooperation in SPACEHAB's efforts
to develop and market payload bya habitable modules that would augment
the Space Shuttle crew compartment.
	Twenty-five teams were selected as a result of NASA's second
solicitation to establish Centers for the Commercial Development of
Space. The objective of these centers is to stimulate high technology
research in the microgravity of space.
	An agreement with Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle was established
to fly a series of materials processing experiments on the Shuttle. The
objective of the experiments is to prove that crystals of a size and
quality, impossible to create on Earth, can be produced in space.
	Lawrence F. Herbolsheimer was appointed deputy assistant
administrator for the Office of Commercial Programs. He is responsible
for advancing the interests and participation of the private sector in
the U.S. space program.
	Four teams (from 25 submissions) were selected under the second
program solicitation, establishing Centers for the Commercial
Development of Space.
	Using NASA Apollo program technology, a UNISTICK control system
was developed by the Johnson Engineering Corp., Boulder, Colo., under
a joint agreement with the U.S. Veterans Administration. When installed
in a road vehicle, the system allows the handicapped to drive by using a
joystick.
	Boeing Aerospace Co., Seattle, was selected for contract
negotiations to develop and implement a program to stimulate and sustain
interest by U.S. companies in the utilization and application of
aeronautics and space technology.
	An agreement was reached with Space Services Inc. of America,
Houston, for use of NASA's Wallops Flight Facility for launch of the
expendable Conestoga booster.
	NASA selected 172 research proposals for immediate Phase I award
negotiations in the agency's 1986 Small Business Innovation Research
Program. Included were 144 small, high technology firms located in 31
states and territories.
	NASA and the 3M Co. signed an agreement under which the firm
will conduct 62 materials processing experiments aboard the Space
Shuttle over an extended period.

		INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

SPACE STATION -
	NASA and its Space Station partners reached agreement on
hardware elements that would be carried into preliminary design,
including permanently-attached laboratories (ESA and Japan), a polar
platform (ESA) and a mobile servicing center (Canada). In addition, NASA
and ESA jointly will study a man-tended free flyer to provide a basis
for determining its utility to the Station.
	U.S. negotiations began with Canada, ESA and Japan on agreements
for the detailed design, development and operational Station program
phases. It is anticipated that agreements will focus on programmatic
and management mechanisms for program implementation and on political
commitments and the legal regime within which the program will operate.
	NASA, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and
their counterpart agencies in Europe, Japan and Canada, have begun
planning the research and operational Earth observation payloads for
the NASA and ESA Space Station polar platforms.

IACG -
	Interagency Consultative Group for Halley's Comet (IACG)
representatives witnessed, from control centers in the Soviet Union and
the Federal Republic of Germany, the historic Halley encounters byt the
Soviet Vega and ESA's Giotto missions. The IACG presented the scientific
results from the six spacecraft encounters with Comet Halley to the
international community, the President of the Republic of Italy and
Pope John Paul II. The IACG is comprised of NASA, ESA, the U.S.S.R.
Intercosmos Council and Japan's Institute of Space and Astronautical
Science.

ESA RECEPTION OF ERS-1 DATA -
	The Acting Administrator and the ESA Director General signed a
memorandum of understanding that permits NASA reception of limited
quantities of synthetic aperture radar data from ESA's Earth Remote
Sensing Satellite-1. Under the agreement, NASA also will exchange its
scatterometer and rada imagery for other ERS-1 data of interest. In
permitting NASA direct readout from ERS-1, ESA reciprocates similar
provisions made by NASA for European data readout from the Seasat and
Nimbus-7 spacecraft.

LAUNCH SERVICES -
	NASA and the Government of Indonesia concluded an agreement with
the launch of the Palapa B2-P communications satellite on a Delta
vehicle in March 1987. The Palapa system provides essential
telecommunications to the Indonesian archipelago.

AIRCRAFT SURVEY OF THE AMAZON -
	NASA and the Brazilian Space Institute conducted the first phase
of an extensive aircraft survey over the Amazon, known as the Global
Tropospheric Experiment/Amazon Boundary Layer Experiment. The program
goal is to better understand the global atmospheric circulation and to
contribute to long-term research objectives in climatology. The second
phase is planned for the April-June 1987 rainy season over the Amazon.

AGREEMENTS -
	Annex III to the Protocol on Cooperation in Aeronautical Science
and Technology was signed by China and the U.S. to cover a second
phase of cooperation, including a cooperative basic research program
in fatigue and fracture mechanics. A joint symposium on propulsion
research instrumentation was held in China.
	The text of a new U.S./U.S.S.R. Space Cooperation Agreement was
negotiated. The proposed agreement envisages bilateral cooperation in
solar system exploration, life sciences, solar terrestrial sciences,
Earth sciences and astronomy/astrophysics.
	The United States and the Kingdom of Morocco agreed on the
one-time establishment of a Space Shuttle emergency landing site at
Casablanca/Mohamed V Airport, in advance of Mission 51-l. The two sides
also discussed development of a longer-term agreement for the use of the
airfield at Ben Guerir as a Shuttle emergency landing site.

INTERNATIONAL TRACKING SYSTEM HIGHLIGHTS -
	The Australian Commonwealth Science and Industrial Research
Organization, Parkes Radio Astronomy Observatory provided support to the
Voyager encounter with the planet Uranus under an arrangement involving
the NASA Deep Space Network.
	The Japanese Institute of Space and Astronautical Science's
Usuda Deep Space Station participated with NASA in the first experiment
to take orbiting Very Long Baseline Interferometer measurements. The
same quasar radio source was observed simultaneously from space and from
the two ground stations successfully for the first time.

U.N./COMMITTEE ON THE PEACEFUL USES OF OUTER SPACE -
	After a decade of negotiation, the United Nations adopted a set
of nonbinding principles governing remote sensing operations by member
states.  The principles reflect U.S. policies and practices for the
conduct of remote sensing operations, specifically by encouraging
international cooperation and the availability of data on a public,
non-discriminatory basis.

END
========================================================================
NASA News Release NO: 86-177   December 19, 1986
Reprinted for electronic distribution with permission
By David W. Garrett Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 13 Jan 87 11:56:57 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #82
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8612231302.AA05297@angband.s1.gov> A6@DDAESA10.BITNET (Hermann Schneider) writes:
>Re: New Space Shuttle
>Just send me the order for a few HERMES. We are trying hard to set it
>up.  And I am shure if you would order some, we would finish the job
>earlier.

Better still, Put in an order for a British Aerospace HoToL, and jump
twenty years in technology.  (Orders are about the only thing that will
persuade thm to start building.)
	Sort of half :-)

	Bob Gray
	ERCC

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #115
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14058; Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:02:20 PST
	id AA14058; Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:02:20 PST
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:02:20 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701261102.AA14058@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #116

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:02:20 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #116

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 116

Today's Topics:
    Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?  [part 1 of 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 20:05:29 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?  [part 1 of 2]
To: Space@angband.s1.gov

    From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SU-AI.ARPA>

        But if some other investment has an even higher payoff, why not
	make that one instead?

    Because we absolutely need several different things, all of them not
    just one. Like the missing wheel on a bicicle, the part we miss is
    more important than all the things we have; all the other parts are
    worthless if that one part is missing.

  Then investing in that "missing part" will have the highest payoff.

    We absolutely must invest in several areas, one of which is space.

  Any evidence for this?

    You misunderstand me, I think. I mean THE WHOLE WORLD qua committee,
    not each nation or individual sacrificing for the "common good".
    I.e.  optimally there should be a world government to tax each world
    citizen to pay for projects of a world-wide nature that wouldn't be
    of advantage to a specific nation, just like there are national
    governments to tax their citizens for projects of a national nature
    that wouldn't benefit just particular provicences or counties, etc.

  I consider this a good reductio ad absurdum of the necessity of
ANY government with authority to tax.
  Who is to run this world government?  People in different countries
have radically different ideas as to the proper function of government.
If it is run by pure majority vote, for instance, don't you think the
billions of people in third world countries would vote themselves
massive welfare at the expense of the more productive countries?
Who gets to decide which investments are essential for the future of
mankind?  Different individuals have different ideas as to what
investments are essential.
  If there is a world government where would the "boat people" go?
There are sure to be people who dislike the way the government is
run and wish to move to a country organized along different lines.
  If it is organized along "desirable" lines, what is to ensure that
the billions who would prefer it to be organized along different lines
would never gain control.  And if they did, could the United States
secede from the union?
  How could such a world government get started, and how could it
hold together?  There are so many seperatist movements, and the
number of countries in the world increases with time, due to more
and more groups seeking self determination.  Even if I were to concede
that a world government were desirable, which I certainly do not,

    There are various kinds of tasks that are best handled at various
    sizes of government. Space benefits the whole world so should be
    handled by world government, ...

  Why does space development benefit the whole world, except in the
same sense that growing food benefits the whole world?  I assume
you would not use the latter as an argument for a world governement.

    Note, no one individual would benefit from building a coast to coast
    freeway, only state governments by piecemeal or cooperation, or a
    national government, can perform such a task.

  Not at all.  It is only because individuals benefit from such a
freeway that it is built.  I don't agree that it has to be done by
governments.  Coast to coast railways were built by private companies.

    Therefore if each individual did what benefits him individually but
    nobody ever cooperated for mutually-beneficial tasks, highways and
    space development and many other wonderful tasks would just never
    ever happen.

  Cooperating for mutually beneficial tasks DOES benefit each person
individually.  This is why most people work in an organization with
others rather than living as hermits.
  Note that this is VOLUNTARY cooperation.  You seem to be speaking of
INVOLUNTARY cooperation, i.e. if a person doesn't want to give his time
and money to a project of the world government's choice, his property
should be confiscated and he should be imprisoned or put to death.

        I don't know how the UN or anyone else would decide what
	investment was for the greatest benefit of the whole world, even
	if one conceded that such an investment was desirable.

    They would decide that poisoning the air was bad for everyone, so
    they would have a committee work toward keeping the world's air
    suitable for breathing. They would decide that poisoning the water
    was bad, ...

  I think individuals are capable of deciding these things for
themselves.  This is why there are laws against polluting the air
and water on another individual's property without his consent.
  It is not clear what a committee would be able to do.

    They would decide that extending our habitat out to space is in
    the long run virtually necessary for preventing various kinds of
    worldwide catastrophe from destroying the whole species, so they
    would have a committee work on developing space.

  Are you sure they would conclude that?  Why do you think they would
come to the same conclusions that you do, even if you are right?  The
UN of today is dominated by people who think not at all like most
Americans do, and they often conclude quite amazing things.  I don't
see why a world government would be any different.

    In each absolutely-necessary category, i.e. within the provence of
    each committee, they would weigh the various ways of getting the job
    done, consider investment and payoff, and come up with a decision as
    to what investment was the greatest benefit within that general
    category.

  Regarding pollution, what is wrong with simply telling a factory that
it is forbidden to pollute more than some small amount, and leaving it
to the factory owners to decide which of several technologies, all
developed in the free market, would reduce the pollution to acceptable
levels most cost effectively?
  Regarding space, what is wrong with allowing individuals and private
organizations to spend as much or as little on space development as
they choose to, and to do so in whatever ways, if any, that they think
are best.  Why would a small committee of bureaucrats be better able to
plan mans future in space than the workings of millions of free minds?
  So far, government has given us the Apollo program, which has left us
no worthwhile technology, no space infrastructure, no launch system,
and has served mainly to "prove" to people that space exploration costs
billions of dollars and produces nothing but a few common rocks similar
to those found on Earth and some pretty pictures that Hollywood could
have done better.
  So far, the UN has given us the "Moon treaty" which outlaws private
property in space, making space resources legally usable only by
governments, and taxable for the benefit of the third world and the
communist countries.  Fortunately, the United States did not sign this
treaty, though we came amazingly close to doing so.
  So far, private enterprise has given us communication satellites, the
only space development which has been unambiguously profitable.

	    Therefore the large nations and other economic forces must
	    make such investments.

        Why not individuals?

    No individual has enough money to make a dent in space, and no
    individual can reap such a significant fraction of an investment
    to be worth it even if a dent could be made.

  That's false.  Individuals are all there are.  The wealth owned by
individuals is all the wealth there is.  The work done by individuals
is all the work that is done.  The thinking done by individuals is all
the thinking that is thought.
  One could equally well argue that only "the large nations and other
economic forces" should eat food, since a million tons of food need to
be eaten each day and no individual has a large enough mouth to eat
that much.

    ... But currently, payoff is so long down the road, the company or
    individual that makes the investment can hardly expect to anticipate
    the correct payoff and arrange to capture it for himself.

  Space is a high risk investment.  As such, people will invest in it
only if the potential payoff is high.  You have been arguing that it
IS high.  So what's the problem?
  Each launch may cost millions of dollars today.  Few individuals have
that much money.  So?  Who said that one individual must pay for one
launch?  If millions of people invest a few hundred dollars apiece,
that is a lot of money.  And if there ISN'T enough money to pay for
space development, there will hardly be any more if it comes from
people via taxation rather than via voluntary investment.  It is the
same people and the same money either way.
  If you are arguing that people SHOULD invest in space but WON'T
because they are shortsighted fools, and that YOU know better than
they do how their money should be spent, therefore you or people who
think like you should be given the power to confiscate their money
and spend it according to your whims, you are no better than any
other tyrant or thief.
  If your argument is that people tend not to make long term
investments, I will agree with you, and I will point out the reason
for that.
  In the United States as it is today, it is virtually impossible
to make long term financial decisions.  This is because the laws,
especially the tax code, change from year to year in a way that
cannot be predicted in advance.  People save as much as they can for
their future security, and inflation takes it all away.  People spend
and borrow as quickly as possible to avoid inflation, and inflation
drops, leaving them with debts they can't pay off.  People make long
term investment in IRAs, and the tax deferal for IRAs is suddenly
repealed.  People invest their life savings in real estate, renting
it out to people who cannot afford to buy a house of their own, and
suddenly the tax break for mortgages on houses the owner doesn't
live in is repealed, making the investment worthless, and throwing
millions of renters out on the street.  People invest in a high
quality private bus service, and the government starts running a
taxpayer subsidized bus system in parallel with theirs, putting
it out of business.  People keep their life savings in silver
certificates, and the government suddenly announces that they are
no longer backed by silver or anything else.  People create a large
corporation, and it is broken into pieces by antitrust laws.  People
invest in an overseas corporation, and it is nationalized by the
overseas government.
  People invest in launchers, and the government is likely to resume
subsidizing their own launchers.  People invest in space mining, and
the government is likely to sign some treaty which allows the third
world to keep half of their profits.
  Is it any wonder, in a financial climate like this, that people are
not willing to risk very much on long term investments?  Governments
are no better than pickpockets, who complain after years of success
at picking pockets that people aren't carrying as much cash, and that
the neighborhood they haunt seems to be going into a decline.

    Only in a few special cases like comsats can payoff be captured by
    the investor within a few years, and even in that case we have large
    international corporations (ITT, Xerox, Western Union, etc.) not
    individuals making the investment and reaping the payoff.

  Who do you think invests in those companies if not individuals or
other companies which are invested in by individuals?

        If so, how do [governments] get the money to invest?

    Taxation, or a pool of private investors that is insured by the
    government

  Why should money be taken from people against their will?  And how
does government afford this?  By increasing the national debt even
further?  By raising tax rates even more?  Or by cutting back on
current spending?  If the latter, what should be cut?

    (ultimately via the tax base; i.e. banks are trusted not
    because they don't fail but because FDIC protects them, thus it's
    safe to invest in banks via ordinary deposits).

  I have never understood why banks can't join in a private insurance
pool.  Not all banks are insured by FDIC anyway.  And what makes FDIC
so reliable?  Do you really think they would pay off if many banks
failed at once?  Where would they get the money for that?
  Banks are not a totally safe investment.  Most bank deposits actually
shrank with time in the 1970s, thanks to inflation and high taxes on
the interest.  A portfolio of high risk high return investments is
actually safer than a bank account.

    Thus NASA uses tax money directly to go to space,

  We have seen what that has bought us.

    but also NASA could underwrite a private company if that company was
    willing to keep all the books in order and not do anything that NASA
    thought grossly dangerous/foolish.

  If companies suspect that NASA or a NASA subsidized company will be
developing space resources, they will be a lot less likely to invest
in such things themselves.

        You still haven't said why any of this is desirable.

    Why go into space you ask?? Why get out of bed?

  No, I was refering to your plan to set up a world government which
would have the power to steal money from all of us and invest it
according to their own whims.  I wasn't refering to why go into space.

    ... you can certainly survive for a few decades without getting out
    of Earth, but ultimately you blow yourself up or ruin the ecology or
    get hit by a comet or suffer any number of calamaties if you don't
    get off this planet.

  Certainly we have to evacuate by the year five billion, but can we
really not survive here for a few more centuries?
  I would like to see human civilization spread beyond this planet, but
not just any human civilization.  I would not want to see the Soviet
empire or a Fascist dictatorship colonize space.  If we have the choice
between freedom and space we should choose freedom.
  Not that I think those are our only choices.  In fact I don't think
non-free societies can maintain an advanced technology without free
societies to parasitize.  The Soviets may be able to put up all manner
of things in space, but they aren't making any profit.  The more active
they are in space, the more they are draining their economy.  Which is
not to say they cannot afford to put up a ring of battle stations in
orbit with which to threaten us and extort our wealth.  In that sense
only can Soviet space activity be profitable - in the same sense that
an armed robber can use a gun to rob people of many times the cost of
the gun.
  I do not know whether space will be profitable in the next few
decades.  Stolfi has made a good argument on the SPACE digest that it
will not.  But I don't think it should be up to you and I to decide
that space is or is not worthwhile and therefore everyone should be
required or forbidden to spend money on it.  It should be up to the
choices of millions of free individuals.
  If space is not profitable it cannot be used to any great extent.
We can have occasional Apollo projects and Shuttle projects, but they
will be a net drain on the economy and there will be little pressure
not to abandon them except from people who favor space for space's own
sake at other people's expense.  I don't think such people will ever
be the majority.  At least I hope not.
  If we are to move large portions of mankind and the industrial base
into space, space must be profitable.  If it IS profitable, then
private companies and individuals will be willing to invest in it.
  The only argument you might have left is that it will EVENTUALLY
be profitable, but not yet.  But the same thing could be said for
any investment.  That doesn't stop people from investing in it in
expectation of future gains.

        You can bet that they are doing it exclusively for their own
	benefit.  If it benefits others, it is simply because they know
	that to get things that others have they have to offer them
	values in return.  This is capitalism in action.  Each
	individual or group making decisions, not based on what is best
	for the world, but on what is best for themselves.

    Right. But in fact Japanese computer/robotics technology benefits
    the whole world.

  Of course.  If it was of benefit to nobody, they would have known
they could have gained no benefit by offering it to others.  So they
would have invested in developing some technology which would be of
benefit to others.
								...Keith

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #116
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16648; Tue, 27 Jan 87 03:02:32 PST
	id AA16648; Tue, 27 Jan 87 03:02:32 PST
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 87 03:02:32 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701271102.AA16648@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #117

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 87 03:02:32 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #117

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 117

Today's Topics:
			     In Honor Of
    Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?  [part 2 of 2]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jan 87 20:23:42 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: In Honor Of
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

January 27 marks the anniversary of the Apollo fire and January 28th is
the date of the Challenger tragedy. In honor of our fallen heros, you
might consider wearing a NASA, Shuttle or other pro-space insignia
during either of those days.

				Fred Mendenhall

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

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 20:06:13 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?  [part 2 of 2]
To: Space@angband.s1.gov

    It's just that Japan gets more than its equal share of the benefit,
    so it's worthwhile to make the investment. They don't care if the
    rest of the world benefits, so long as they benefit a lot more.

  It doesn't matter whether they benefit MORE or LESS than everyone
else.  If there was some way I could make myself slightly wealthier
that entailed making everyone else much wealthier, I would do it.  My
only standard of value is what benefit accrues to ME.  I don't really
care whether it benefits other a great deal, a little, or not at all.
Though it isn't clear what I could offer to others that would benefit
them not at all that they would offer me great wealth for.  Tobacco,
perhaps?

    But an individual in Japan wouldn't be smart to try to develop
    5th-generation computers or the robotics industry all alone because
    he'd go broke before he got the task done ...

  Nobody is suggesting that any individual develop a major technology
all alone (though it has been done).  I am simply advocating voluntary
cooperation.  Japanese comapanies have been able to do what they have
because of Japanese individuals investing in them.  And because the
Japanese government has made it clear that it won't change the rules
in midstream, for instance impose massive new taxes on successful
businesses, or subsidize a companies competitors without warning.
  Japan is not a pure capitalist society, their government does
heavily regulate their industries and levy large taxes.  But they do
not change the rules at whim and take financial potshots at wherever
wealth seems to have accumulated, as the United States and Great
Britain have done.  It is that sort of bureaucracy which puts the
brakes on useful economic activity.  And which results in economic
problems which are used to justify further monkeying with the
economy, a vicious cycle.

    It's all a matter of what scale of cooperation is big enough to
    reap profit before going broke.

  Perhaps nobody dares form a company large enough to do meaningful
space development because they fear the wrath of the trust busters.
  The antitrust laws are a good example of non-objective laws, i.e.
laws which nobody can figure out whether one is breaking or not.
Forming large companies in the United States today is sort of like
one of those childrens games that involves pulling out straws until
all the marbles come crashing down.  Who wants to take that kind of
risk with billions of dollars?

    Writing a small software system is dandy for an individual, ...  but
    a really large software system (SDI) isn't feasible for an
    individual to even attempt ...  Pushing into space isn't presently
    appropriate for an individual, ...

  For the Nth time, I am not advocating that people should live like
hermits having nothing to do with eachother.  I am completely in favor
of cooperation.  My argument is that such cooperation should be
voluntary, not coerced, and that coercively financed programs tend to
accomplish little or nothing at great expense, and that stealing from
people even for a good cause is immoral, even if that was the only way
to get into space, which I am not convinced it is either practical or
necessary to colonize in the coming century anyway.  Whew.
  It is curious that you mention SDI as a programming project that
no individual can do.  Many people feel it is something that no
government or company can do either, regardless of the manpower
brought to bear on the problem.

        I don't think that a Soviet space presense is of any benefit to
        makind in general.  Quite the opposite.

    I respectfully disagree. Although USSR military presence in space is
    ominous, the general technology of longterm habitat can't help but
    leak out to the spacefaring world at large.

  What makes you think there is a non-military Soviet space presense?
Or that they are doing anything but using OUR ideas to do it with?

        Unless we can get more by investing in some other way.

    Our payback is survival, which is infinity, mediated by our
    uncertainty as to whether our survival is really at stake.

  Then there should be no dearth of private investors, unless virtually
all of potential investors disagree with you on whether our survival is
at stake, in which case I would ask why you feel that your opinions are
of more value than theirs.

    Do you have a way to indefinitely expand our separation, and thus
    vulnerability to natural and man-made disasters, without going into
    space??

  Mankind has survived every natural disaster in the billions of years
we or our ansestors have been on Earth.  I can't think of any man-made
disaster which could wipe out all human life with the remotely possible
exception of nuclear war.  And I don't see why moving to space would
make mankind-wide nuclear war any less likely.  If manned spacecraft
can reach Mars, for instance, so can nuclear missiles.

    ...  an idea, killed by natural forgetfulness in each person,
    nevertheless remains alive in the community consciousness by being
    replicated and communicated from the temporary holder-person to
    those who have forgotten. Anyway, ideas not only stay alive but
    develop as they pass through many minds, so the overall
    consciousness is a lot more than any individual's consciousness.

  There is no such thing as group consciousness.  Only individual
consciousness.  Groups can't make decisions or have ideas or hopes
or thoughts or ideals or aspirations or emotions.  Only individuals
can.
  It is true that people can get ideas from others, and can develop
new ideas inspired by ideas from others.  But this is not community
consciousness.

            It is the nature of scientific inquiry that the whole world
            benefits but the society that makes the investment gets more
            than its fair share ...

        Huh?  How much is its fair share?  Why wouldn't ALL OF IT be its
        fair share?

    I meant to say EQUAL SHARE, i.e. fair share under socialism. Of
    course under lassaize faire (sp?), 100% to the investor and damn the
    rest of the world is "fair".

  Nasty Freudian slip there.  Someone might suspect you of being a
comsymp or something.
  Under socialism, the share (I won't say "fair") is not evenly divided
among everyone, it is 100% to the government, which distributes it
according to whim.  Under capitalism, the fair share is not 100% to the
investor, it is divided according to the voluntary agreements between
individuals.  Usually the investor gains only a small profit.  Most of
the money goes to pay for raw materials, labor, real estate, etc.

    What I mean is the result is more cornered (in sense of cornering
    the market) than socialism but less cornered than lassaize fair
    (sp?).  Some people can't tolerate anything less than 100% of their
    profit, ...

  Their PROFIT is defined as their gain after everything else is taken
out.  As such, yes, their profit is 100% of itself by definition.
  If you are saying that since capitalism and socialism are extremes,
the correct approach must lie between them, I would ask whether you
would say that if the legistlature decides pi is 3 and mathematicians
insist it is 3.13159... that the correct value must lie between the
two extremes.  I would ask you whether in the 1850s the correct
approach to slavery was to allow only moderate amounts of it, or
whether the correct approach to Indians was to massacre only half of
them, or whether the correct approach when Galileo said Jupiter has
at least four moons and the authorities said it had none was to
compromise on two moons.
  Truth can be found by processes of experiment and reason.  It cannot
be found by processes of compromise or polling.

        How would one invest in transcendental meditation or religion?

    ... I personally think/feel/believe such investments would be a
    waste of money and human energy, but others would disagree.

  Exactly.  And in a free market system, nobody has to invest in such
things, or in anything, unless they choose to.
  What if your world government were inaugurated and it decided to
invest nothing in space, but to invest trillions into pyramidology and
Buddhist temples?  That's YOUR MONEY we are talking about.  Yours, and
billions of people like you, at least to the extent that they want to
be free to live their lives in their own way, and invest their time and
money into projects of their own choosing, if any.

            Why shouldn't we make investments that will benefit all of
            mankind?

        Because such investments don't benefit us.  If they do, then
	perhaps they should be made.  But for that reason only.  Not
	because of any benefit which accrues to anyone else.

    WRONG. We are part of mankind.

  So?  We are also part of a family, a county, a state, a country, a
continent, a hemisphere, animal life, all life, all matter, and all
mass-energy.  Do we have some responsibilty based on each of these
inclusions?

    If we benefit mankind at large, we benefit ourselves to whatever
    fraction we are mankind. Thus if I personally benefit mankind, I
    reap 1/5,000,000,000 of that personally.

  That's right.  If you had fifty million dollars and gave it to
everyone evenly, you would get one penny of it, same as everyone
else.  So?
  If everyone did this, everyone would get some fraction of a cent
from each person, and perhaps more than one cent from a few really
wealthy people.
  The world would not then be any wealthier, except perhaps the
postal employees :-)

    If I could singlehandedly save the human race, and I couldn't find
    any way to singlehanded save myself and California without saving
    the rest of the human race, I'd go ahead and save everybody even
    though most of them (in my opinion) don't deserve that gift.

  So would I.  I find mankind of benefit to me.  In fact I would spend
or risk quite a lot to save them, since I would not enjoy life very
much if I were the only person alive.

    You are making the incorrect assumption ... that if an investment
    benefits all of mankind then it won't benefit yourself personally.

  Nope.  I know that is wrong, since I am part of manking.  As in the
above example, for the expenditure of a mere fifty megabucks I could
be the proud owner of a new shiny penny.

    I say it is possible for an investment to benefit both myself (or my
    nation etc.) and the world at large simultaneously.

  Of course.  That is how capitalism works.  People invest their time
and/or money in ways that they expect will be most profitable to
themselves.  Generally it is profitable precisely because other people
are willing to give them value in return for their using their time
and/or money in the profitable way.  My company pays me for writing
useful programs, so I write useful programs rather than pointless
hacks.  My bank pays me interest for depositing money, so I deposit
money in the bank rather than keeping it in my mattress.  A grocery
store gives me food in return for money, so I give them money rather
than old leaves, and so I shop there rather than at a hypothetical
store which gives me only rubbish in return for my money.

    If an investment benefits both the world at large and the investors,
    then it is worthwhile (providing of course the payback is greater
    than the investment).

  If it benefits the investors, it is worthwhile.  They need take no
account of the world.
  Are you proposing some authority which would check all proposed
investments and forbid those which did not benefit the world?  Or
are you saying that everyone should voluntarily behave like that?
What is to be done with those who don't?

    My point is we should't dismiss an investment out of hand just
    because we reap only half or less of the payback.  If the payback is
    enormous, and we get a reasonable share (say a third or so), it may
    be well worth doing.

  The investors will rationally be interested only in what their
return on investment is.  You seem to think I was arguing that they
would (or should) not accept an investment if others benefit.  This
is silly.  Why should they care whether others benefit?

    I agree that we shouldn't go around doing things to help others at
    our own expense when that help doesn't help us at all.

  True.  The standard should always be whether it is to one's net
benefit.  But you seem to be saying one should help others even if
one takes a loss, so long as it isn't a total loss.  Why?

    I think most foreign aid is stupid, especially now when our own
    economy is in trouble, deep in debt, deeper each year.

  Are you saying it would be less stupid if the government was NOT
deeply in debt?  Why is a national debt worse than taxes anyway?

    It is our national taxbase that pays for our national welfare
    system, so it is our national citizenry that should maximize its
    benefits, ignoring whether others benefit or not.

  Right.  Of course one could reason similarly on the state level,
the county level, on down to the individual.  From which one could
conclude that there shouldn't be a welfare system at all.  If one
decides there should be, the question remains, why shouldn't everyone
in the world be eligible?  If you say because they don't pay the
taxes that support it, I would point out that neither do the welfare
recipients in our own country.

    I do believe in payback on investment, but I also believe in
    insurance. Welfare is a form of insurance when not carried to
    extreme.

  Why not make it voluntary, like other forms of insurance?

    What happened in Atlas Shrugged wasn't a little insurance, but gross
    flattening of income to where nobody could get any return on
    investment whatsoever, so nobody invested any more, and the whole
    industrial base went kaput with everybody lazing around instead of
    investing. It's a good example of where socialism can lead if we go
    too far.

  I think you misunderstood the book.  It shows, not just the harm
of a lot of socialism, but of even small amounts.  It shows how the
process once it takes hold tends to spread, and how the byproducts
of the system tend to encourage its further spread, exactly like a
fire.  This is explained in her several nonfiction books, most of
which are still in print.

    USA is in no danger of that, ...

  I strongly disagree.

    even before Reagan, ...

  Social spending, taxes, and the national debt, have all gone UP in
the Reagan years.  In the past thirty years every winning presidential
candidate, in fact every major presidential candidate whether he won or
lost, has promised to cut government spending and decrease the national
debt.  And yet spending and the debt are not only larger than every
before, they are growing faster than every before.
  In any case, Objectivists (followers of Ayn Rand) do NOT support the
Republican party, most of the conservative ideals, or Ronald Reagan
personally.

    but it is in danger of refusing to make investments that we urgently
    need because the government refuses to make those kinds of
    investments that just are too big for any smaller economic force to
    make.

  To sum up, there is no investment which government can make which
individuals cannot voluntarily make, government investments tend to
be buy less at a higher price than private investments, since taxation
is theft government cannot morally get any money to make any
investments in any case, free individuals differ on which investments
are urgently needed, and nobody has the right to compell others to
invest according to his own ideas of what is urgently needed.
								...Keith

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #117
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19267; Wed, 28 Jan 87 03:02:33 PST
	id AA19267; Wed, 28 Jan 87 03:02:33 PST
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 87 03:02:33 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701281102.AA19267@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #118

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 87 03:02:33 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #118

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 118

Today's Topics:
		    Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		     Re: The NEXT aviation record
		   Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI
		      Mars Observer Upper Stage
		       Launch Forecast for 1987
		    Upper Stage Planetary Missions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 16 Jan 87 22:43:27 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
To: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@lll-lcc.arpa
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

    From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA  (Russ Cage)

    ... Using only materials indigenous to the moon for fuel, one could
    make a chemical engine fueled by aluminum and liquid oxygen.  An
    excess of oxygen would serve to provide reaction mass (I doubt that
    Al2O3 has a high vapor pressure). ... The aluminum could be injected
    as a liquid, if suitably preheated.

  It doesn't have to be liquid.  The company I work for (SAIC) has
developed a liquid oxygen/powdered aluminum "rocket".  We don't use
it for propulsion - it is anchored to the ground and the flame points
upwards - but as a twenty million watt continuous pure white light
source.
  The vapor pressure of Al2O3 is very low even at white heat, but it
would make a perfectly good reaction mass as a solid.
  A launch of such a rocket on the moon would probably be visible from
Earth.  It gives off a LOT of light.
								...Keith

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

Date: 16 Jan 87 16:00:43 GMT
From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <817@rosevax.Rosemount.COM> carole@rosevax.Rosemount.COM (Carole Ashmore) writes:

>The fact that 'men' has a primary meaning of 'human males' and a
>secondary meaning of 'people' is precisely the problem.  Particularly
>in documents where rights or freedoms are being described or
>guaranteed, the ambiguous meaning allows the sort of double bind
>where demanding that 'people' rather than men be used can be ignored
>because "everybody knows that men means men and women" and then when
>the document is quoted in favor of the rights of some man who happens
>to be a woman, they can switch around and say "well, 'All men are
>created equal' means all men, not all men and women".  Happened a lot
>when women were trying to get the vote.
>
>In the case of real events with real people, we end up with female 
>acomplishments and female role models being ignored.  When I was a 
>girl I read all about 'the men who gave us the atom bomb', and saw 
>nothing about Lise Meitner.  
>
>In case you haven't noticed it, the English speaking world needs to
>develop all the talent it can in technical and scientific fields.
>Using the sort of language that hides the few female role models there
>are harms the civilization as a whole by discouraging half our
>potential talent.
>					Carole Ashmore

Other way round: the primary meaning of "men" is "humans"; this is
the meaning any native English speaker would assume unless context
dictated otherwise.  As can be seen by studying the OED quotations
under that dictionary entry.

If females are so sexist that they won't consider a career without
a "female role model" then we are surely in trouble, but I suggest
the answer is curing the disease rather than pandering to it.

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

Date: 17 Jan 87 03:04:58 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

There was originally a solo-circumnavigation project competing with
Voyager.  The idea was to operate at much higher altitudes, riding the
jet streams extensively for dramatically higher ground speeds.  Still
long enough to be hard on a single pilot, but not impossible.  The idea
died when the fellow behind it died, as I recall.  Alas, I don't recall
his name.

Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 15 Jan 87 19:45:00 GMT
From: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uicsrd!xia@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


I say let's not put V against V here.  They are both great achievements.
I think Voyger burned a few hundred gallons of fuel.Where did that go.
They go into the Atmospher.  If you insist on not dropping anything, you
ought to ask them to collect all the fuel exaustion.  I think the rule
is stupid about not dropping anything.  I think the rule should be not
ADDING anything during the flight.  I think the difference is that one
is within, and and the other is outside the aptomspher.

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

Date: 16 Jan 87 19:31:37 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Mars Observer Upper Stage
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

NASA NEWS RELEASE 86-162

NASA AWARDS UPPER STAGE CONTRACT FOR MARS OBSERVER

	NASA has signed a contract with Orbital Sciences Corp., Fairfax,
Va., for acquisition of the company's solid-fuel upper stage to place
the agency's Mars Observer spacecraft, weighing approximately 4,700
pounds, into the proper interplanetary trajectory, so that the
spacecraft can proceed on its mission to study Mars. The launch is
expected in the early part of the next decade.
	Called the Transfer Orbit Stage (TOS), the vehicle fits in the
cargo bay of the Space Shuttle and has the potential for being
integrated with a Titan launch vehicle. While the Mars Observer mission
is baselined for the Shuttle, an option using an expendable launch
vehicle is being kept open unitl early next year when a decision will be
made.
	The TOS will thrust NASA's Mars Observer spacecraft into its
interplanetary trajectory and separate from the spacecraft. The Mars
Observer will then continue on its planetary mission under its own
propulsive power. After about a year of flight, the spacecraft will come
to orbit Mars to begin a 2-year study with a variety of scientific
instruments.
	The 12-ton, 11 foot long upper stage is being built for Orbital
Sciences by Martin Marietta's Denver Aerospace Division.
	NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala., has acted
as technical monitor of the commercial development of the TOS effort.
NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif., manages the Mars
Observer spacecraft and its responsibility for its mission.
	The TOS is a medium capacity vehicle designed to economically
carry payloads in the range between the Payload Assist Module (built by
McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co.) and the Inertial Upper Stage (built
by Boeing Aerospace Co.).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA NEWS RELEASE - 86-162 Nov. 26, 1986 Reprinted with permission for
electronic distribution By Barbara Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Leon Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C.  Terry Eddleman Marshall Space
Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
________________________________________________________________________

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

Date: 16 Jan 87 19:34:52 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Launch Forecast for 1987
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

NASA NEWS RELEASE 96-179 

NASA ANNOUNCES LAUNCH FORECAST FOR 1987

	NASA plans six launches during 1987, which will include the
Atlas Centaur, Delta and Scout expendable launch vehicles.

	Two missions are scheduled for February.

	The first launch is GOES-H weather satellite aboard a Delta
rocket for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
GOES-H will become GOES-East in orbit and be stationed over the Atlantic
Ocean. The single GOES satellite now in orbit will be shifted to the
Pacific region becoming GOES-West.
	The Fleet Satellite Communications (FLTSATCOM) F-6 spacecraft
also will be launched in February aboard an Atlas Centaur rocket. This
FLTSATCOM will be a continuation of a launch program to place a set of
three second generation communications satellites into orbit for the
Navy. The first of this series was launched in December 1986. The
FLTSATCOM satellites are also shared with the Air Force and other
Department of Defense users.
	In March, a Delta rocket will place a Palapa communications
satellite into orbit for the government of Indonesia.
	The FLTSATCOM F-8 spacecraft, will be launched in May,
concluding the current series of FLTSATCOM satellites.
	During the fourth quarter, a Strategic Defense Initiative launch
is planned. This will be the second of four planned Delta launches in
this series.
	Also, at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., a Scout launch is
planned for September with SOOS-2 (Stacked Oscar on Scout), a pair of
navigation satellites for the Navy. NASA launched SOOS-1 in August 1985.

1987 NASA EXPENDABLE LAUNCH FORECAST

Cape Canaveral Air Force Station, Fla.:
	Feb. 19 - Delta 179/GOES-H
	Feb. 26 - Atlas Centaur (AC-67)/FLTSATCOM F-6
	March 19 - Delta 182/Palapa B2-P
	May 21 - Atlas Centaur (AC-68)/FLTSATCOM F-8
	4 TH Quarter - Delta 181/SDI

Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif.:
	September - Scout/SOOS-2

-------------------------------------------------------------
NASA RELEASE 86-179  Dec. 22, 1986
Reprinter with permission for electronic distribution
By Barbara Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
George H. Diller Kennedy Space Center, Fla.
_____________________________________________________________

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

Date: 16 Jan 87 19:29:04 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Upper Stage Planetary Missions
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

NASA NEWS RELEASE - 86-161

UPPER STAGE SELECTED FOR PLANETARY MISSIONS

	NASA has selected the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS), a launch
vehicle which fits in the cargo bay of the Space Shuttle as the baseline
option to carry probes to Jupiter, Venus and the Sun. However, an option
is being kept open until early next year to fly one of these missins on
a Titan IV.
	NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher selected the upper stage,
built by the Boeing Aerospace Co. under Air Force contract, for three
planetary missions -- Galileo, Magellan and Ulysses -- to launched in
1989 and 1990.  These missions will be the first to employ an IUS to
carry payloads to study other bodies in the solar system.
	Each of the planetary payloads will use a standard two-stage
IUS, with the exception of Ulysses -- a probe to study the poles of the
sun -- which will require the addition of a Payload Assist Module, built
by McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Co. The added module, a smaller "kick"
stage, will be needed for additional energy to reach proper orbit around
the sun.
	Ulysses is a joint mission of NASA and the European Space Agency
(ESA).  ESA funded and built the Ulysses spacecraft which will have on
board several American scientific instruments.
	The IUS is a two-stage, 17-foot-long vehicle weighing more than
16 tons.  It has already been employed to carry payloads to
geostationary orbit - where satellites match the turning of the Earth
and appear unmoving in the sky - although it has always been designed
for both Earth-orbital and planetary missions.
	The Magellan mission will orbit Venus and map its surface with
radar, since the cloud cover of the planet obscures direct vision.
	Gallileo will orbit Jupiter for nearly 2 years to measure such
things as electromagnetic fields and plasma particles. The orbiting
spacecraft also will send down an atmospheric probe for on-site
readings, although the probe is expected to last for no more than a few
hours because of the intense atmospheric pressure. Galileo is a joint
mission of NASA and Germany, which developed the retropropulsion system
for the probe's descent into the Jovian atmosphere.
	The study of the solar poles by Ulysses will be the first time
in the history of the space program for such an area to be investigated.
	The Magellan, Galileo and Ulysses missions are managed by NASA's
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. The IUS and payload-to-IUS
integration for the planetary mission will be managed for NASA missions
by the agency's Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
	In August a Commerce Business Daily announcement gave notice of
a proposed NASA action to study aternative launch vehicles for planetary
missions following cancellation of the Shuttle/Centaur Upper Stage.
Because of an urgent and compelling need to reestablish NASA's planetary
program following the Challenger accident, the space agency concluded
that IUS had the unique capability to meet the mission requirements.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA NEWS RELEASE 86-161  Nov. 26, 1986
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
By Barbara Selby Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Leon Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Terry Eddleman Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #118
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21110; Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:02:38 PST
	id AA21110; Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:02:38 PST
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:02:38 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701291102.AA21110@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #119

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:02:38 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #119

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 119

Today's Topics:
			Space Station Analysis
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		  Re: "Voyager" flight around world
		     Nuclear aircraft and rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Jan 87 00:38:30 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: Space Station Analysis
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

NASA NEWS RELEASE 86-181

SPACE STATION ANALYSIS RESULTS

	NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher accepted the additional
analysis conducted by the Office of Space Station and directed Andrew J.
Stofan, associate administrator for the Space Station to implement the
recommended technical and work package modifications to the Space
Station configuration that resulted from the review conducted this past
summer.
	The additional analysis was in the areas of Space Station
management, use of expendable launch vehicles (ELV), and cost impacts
resulting from design changes.
	In September, Fletcher directed the Space Station office to
provide additional details in the three areas as prerequisite to
approving recommendations following a review of the Space Station
program.
	A detailed engineering review of the Space Station configuration
was performed by the Critical Evaluation Task Force (CETF). The task
force examined the Space Station baseline configuration, specifically
with respect to issues of transportation capability, flight assembly and
checkout, operations and safety.
	An Executive Technical Committee, headed by Stofan, provided
technical oversight to the task force and performed the review of the
Space Station work package alignment.
	Design changes recommended by the CETF included replacing the
nodes and tunnels in the original Space Station design with larger
"resource" nodes.  The nodes are used to connect the pressurized
modules.
	The expanded nodes will house racks of command and control
equipment, which in the baseline configuration had been located outside
on the framework of the Station, thereby reducing significantly the
amount of extravehicular activity required to maintain and replace
equipment over the lifetime of the facility.
	The CETF also recommended revising the assembly sequence to
provide early scientific return and reduce extravehicular activity on
early station assembly flights. The design also achieves a permanent
manned capability with fewer Shuttle flights, places the fixed servicing
capabilities closer to the modules, and makes room for early payloads.
The design also reduces EVA requirements for assembly and maintenance of
the Space Station, and features an improved safe haven capability.
	The oversight committee recommended a realignment of certain
work package responsibilities. Under that realignment, the Marshall
Space Flight Center responsibilities included the laboratory, habitation
and logistics modules, engine elements of the Space Station's propulsion
system and the resource node structure. The Johnson Space Center
responsibilities included the external truss, distributed subsystems,
EVA systems, manned space systems, components and hardware in the
habitat module, airlock and resources node outfitting. The Goddard Space
Flight Center's responsibilities included the Space Station platforms,
attatched payload accommodations, robotic servicer and NASA's role in
servicing. And the Lewis Research Center's responsibilities included the
power system. Contractual arrangements for the development phase between
the Johnson Space Center and the Marshall Space Flight Center were to be
reflected in specific exhibits in the contracts for each center's work
package and were further documented in memoranda of understanding signed
by both center directors.
	The additional analysis requested by Fletcher focused on the
functional and organizational dimension of the Space Station
headquarters structure within the overall management of the program, the
potential for using expendable launch vehicles, particularly with regard
to Space Station launch assembly, and the cost impact of the task force
recommended design modifications to the baseline configuration. A
summary of the results follows:

MANAGEMENT -
	A detailed analysis of the management of the Space Station
program, with emphasis on system engineering and integration, was
conducted by a study team headed by Larry Ross, director, Space Flight
Systems at the Lewis Research Center.
	In June 1986, Fletcher announced that a Space Station program
office would be established in the Washington, D.C., area, which would
be responsible for overall technical direction and content of the Space
Station program, including systems engineering and analysis,
configuration management and the integration of all the elements into an
operating system.
	Ross' group examined the relationship between the program office
in Washington, and the project offices at the NASA field centers. The
resulting recommendation was consistent with NASA's earlier decision to
establish a program office in the Washington, D.C., area. A major
portion of the systems integration is to be performed at the NASA
Centers through Space Station field offices which will be established at
Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.; Johnson Space Flight
Center, Houston; Kennedy Space Center, Fla.; Lewis Research Center,
Cleveland; and Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.  The Space
Station project manager at each of the five centers will head the field
office and will report directly to the program director in Washington.

EXPENDABLE LAUNCH VEHICLES -
	The potential use of existing or near-operational ELVs in the
Space Station program was examined by a team headed by John Dunning of
the Space Station Project Office at the Lewis Research Center.
	The teams' analysis demonstrated that, under certain conditions,
the schedule for achieving both the man-tended and permanently manned
milestones in the assembly sequence could be accelerated by 4 to 9
months through the use of ELVs. However, ELVs would increase the amount
of EVA required during the first four Station dedicated Shuttle assembly
flights by 10 to 40 percent, would require basing an Orbital Maneuvering
Vehicle at the Station throughout the assembly phase to control, boost ,
and reboost passive structural elements, and could impact the weight and
design of Space Station components because of the higher dynamic forces
associated with ELVs.
	The analysis also demonstrated that the accelerated assembly
schedule was dependent upon retaining the current Shuttle flight rate to
support assembly of the Station, and required the availability of as
many as three Titan 4 launches during the first 2 years of Station
assembly activity.
	This analysis led the Space Station office to conclude that the
substantial technical and programmatic uncertainties, the increased
operational risks associated with the use of ELVs for the initial
assembly phase and the increase in costs required to compensate for
these uncertainties and risk far outweighed the marginal schedule
benefits to the Space Shuttle be retained as the baseline transportation
system for assemblying the Station's manned base.
	However, the program will continue to retain the option of using
an expendable launch vehicle to launch the polar platform, one fo two
unmanned free flyers that are components of the Space Station program.
The study group concluded an ELV could be used to launch the high
inclination platform in the event of a delayed reactivation of the
Shuttle launch site at Vandenberg Air Force Base.
	Also, recognizing that ELV's can be used for Space Station, and
that the agency is continuing to reevaluate its STS utilization strategy
in the context of overall national needs, Stofan has directed the
program office to participate in the agency's mixed fleet studies and be
prepared to discuss possibile alternative strategies to the baseline for
both assembly, maintenance and resupply of the Space Station.

COST IMPACT -
	The final item that was examined was the cost impact of the
configuration changes recommended by the CETF. The analysis shows a net
increase of approximately $49 million due primarily to replacing the
nodes and tunnels, as defined in the original baseline configuration,
with larger "resource" nodes and to increasing the power level of the
photovoltaic solar arrays from 25 to 37.5 kilowatts. In additon, two
cupolas were added to the configuration as was some support structure
for the reaction control system.
	A separate major review of Space Station cost estimates is
currently underway. This review, which began in September, is being
conducted by a team of approximately 35 technical and resource experts
from the Space Station office and the NASA Comptroller's office. Results
of this review will be presented to the NASA Administrators in
mid-January.
	Based upon these analyses, Fletcher has directed the Space
Station Program to implement the technical and work package
modifications to the Space Station configuration as outlined in the
recommendations of the earlier review. The Administrator has also
approved the memoranda of understanding between the Johnson Space Center
and the Marshall Space Flight Center concerning work package
responsibilities.
	Completion fo the analysis clears the way for final preparation
of the requests for proposals (RFPs) for detailed design and development
of the Space Station which are scheduled to be released to industry in
February 1987

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 86-181 Dec. 23, 1986
Reprinted with permission
By Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Date: 17 Jan 87 16:41:37 GMT
From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa@mimsy.umd.edu  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>Respectfully to those who are not doing so, the reference to "men" as
>including those of the female gender should be discontinued...

>You might wish to turn your eyes inward when appreciating

I would like to point out something here.  A consistent application of
what you state here would require that you avoid such references to
sight, etc... when you really mean to talk about all human beings, since
some human beings are incapable of sight.  Why do you consider it wrong
to (allegedly) imply that all humans are males, yet it's OK to imply
that all humans are sighted?

Kenneth Arromdee
BITNET: G46I4701 at JHUVM and INS_AKAA at JHUVMS
ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA
UUCP: {allegra!hopkins, seismo!umcp-cs, ihnp4!whuxcc} !jhunix!ins_akaa

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

Date: 18 Jan 87 02:36:12 GMT
From: bzs@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" flight around world
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


From: ins_akaa@jhunix.UUCP (Ken Arromdee)
>I would like to point out something here.  A consistent application of
>what you state here would require that you avoid such references to
>sight, etc... when you really mean to talk about all human beings,
>since some human beings are incapable of sight.  Why do you consider it
>wrong to (allegedly) imply that all humans are males, yet it's OK to
>imply that all humans are sighted?

Look, this is getting ridiculous, talk about reductio ad absurdum and
building up straw-men. No one said anything about sighted people, when
they do, maybe someone *will* complain, and maybe in that context it
will even make sense.

The point was that the phrase "free men" was used about a group of
two people, exactly 50% of which was female (well, ok, maybe it was
meant to extrapolate out to the rest of us, who are still about 50%
female.)

Fine, a bunch of males immediately got on the horn and said "but I
find the use of 'men' to describe all men and women's accomplishments
perfectly acceptable and the status quo in English and really hope no
one intends to change it." Ah, the discovery of Radium, "look what free
men can do", spend a lifetime studying the Maori tribe, "look what
free men can do", rule England "look what free men can do", you're
right, it does serve you quite well, I'm not surprised you're so
pleased with the current state of affairs...

In the first place, it's not obviously the "status quo", I've seen
secretarial manuals from the beginning of this century deal agonizingly
over the issue of how to address a mixed or unspecified audience suggesting
variations so as not to offend. It wasn't invented by a feminist in the last
decade, it's been a sore spot for many years and just because the status
quo pleases (serves) you doesn't make it right or cast in concrete.

In the second place, I've heard white southerners try to "explain" to
me till they're blue in the face that the term "nigger" was not
perjorative, that it was simply the status quo and accepted in polite
speech. It comes out sounding about the same as these arguments.

Sometimes things change, sometimes they already have, and sometimes
they just need to. Look at what free speech can do!

	-Barry Shein, Boston University

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

Date: 16 Jan 87 18:20:25 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@UTAH-GR.ARPA  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Nuclear aircraft and rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

During the '50s and '60s the USAF and NASA spent a lot of time and money on
the problems of building fission powered aircraft and spacecraft. What I
know about it is gleaned from a number of books and articles that I read
during the '60s and early '70s. I no longer have the references, but all
the books I read were available in school and public libraries. The
articles were published in Popular Science and Time. At some
point in the late '50s or '60s Popular Science had a cover article on
fission powered aircraft. I even had a model of a proposed nuclear powered
bomber, complete with parasite fighters.

At one time the USAF did have an operating fission reactor installed in a
bomber. It did not provide useful power to the aircraft, but was used to
test the problems involved with operating a fission powered aircraft. The
reactor was operated during flight.

Ignoring moral, ethical, and environmental problems, the main problems
with fission powered aircraft are the weight of the reactor and
shielding, and the low heat transfer rate between the reactor core and
the working medium.

The weight problem can be partially solved by only shielding what must
be shielded, the crew, avionics, and payload ( not nice to put H-bombs
next to unshielded reactors, nasty things might happen ). This technique
is called "shadow shielding".

The other way to solve the weight problem is to build really big
aircraft.  During the '50s a 707 was considered a very big aircraft. I
remember reading that fission powered aircraft were proposed again when
the C5A was delivered. One of the things that killed the nuclear
aircraft program was that no one knew how to build very big airplanes in
the '50s. A nuclear powered aircraft the size of a 707 could have been
built, but it would have had no useful payload, but a nuclear powered
aircraft the size of a C5A would.

Several prototype fission powered turbojets were constructed and tested.
The ones I remember reading about used existing turbine and compressor
stages, but had some kind of heat exchanger where the burners would be
in a normal engine.

One version used liquid sodium as a reactor coolant. The coolant
circulated through the reactor to be heated and then through a heat
exchanger in the engine to heat the air flowing through the engine. The
other version used air as the reactor coolant. Compressed air was taken
from just behind the compressor stage and passed through the reactor
core. The heated air was exhausted through the turbine stage of the
engine. Both of these were ground tested. I don't know how many cubic
miles of air were irradiated during the tests, and I hope there was
never a liquid sodium leak.

Fission rocket engines that were ( to my knowledge ) tested were
graphite cored reactors. The reactors were used to heat liquid hydrogen
which was then exhausted through a standard converging/diverging nozzle.
At least one of these had the core break up during a test firing. Pieces
of the core were expelled from the motor and burned in the atmosphere.

A couple of other types of nuclear rockets were proposed, but I don't
think they were tested. One would have used a gaseous core. The idea is
that hydrogen is a pretty good moderator, the core of the reactor is a
mixture of hydrogen and, I believe, uraniumtetraflouride. The other was
a metal cored reactor with very small holes placed very close together.

I've only seen gaseous cored reactors mentioned as space propulsion
systems. The solid core nuclear rocket engines were originally proposed
for ICBM propulsion but were later developed for space propulsion. NASA
talked a lot about a nuclear stage that would be launched in place of
the third stage of a Saturn-5. It was to be used as a tug for hauling
material from low earth orbit to low lunar orbit.

-- 
-- 
               Bob Pendleton
               Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation

UUCP Address:  {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet
Alternate:     {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet

Riskier than RISC, Ciskier than CISC, the time for microcode is now.


I am solely responsible for what I say.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #119
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23482; Fri, 30 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST
	id AA23482; Fri, 30 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701301102.AA23482@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #120

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #120

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 120

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
		  Re: Voyager vs Vostok and the FAI
		Re: My mistake, it's Beryllium-9 not 8
		Re Nuclear Devices and classification
		 How many shuttles can orbit at once?
			    A tamp is....
		    Re: Around the world non-stop
		Re: Nuclear Devices and classification
		  Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Jan 87 11:35:44 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <965714.870116.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@MC.LCS.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>
>    From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA  (Russ Cage)
>
>    ... Using only materials indigenous to the moon for fuel, one could
>    make a chemical engine fueled by aluminum and liquid oxygen.  An
>    excess of oxygen would serve to provide reaction mass (I doubt that
>    Al2O3 has a high vapor pressure). ... The aluminum could be
>    injected as a liquid, if suitably preheated.
>
>  It doesn't have to be liquid.  The company I work for (SAIC) has
>developed a liquid oxygen/powdered aluminum "rocket".  We don't use it
>for propulsion - it is anchored to the ground and the flame points
>upwards - but as a twenty million watt continuous pure white light
>source.
>  The vapor pressure of Al2O3 is very low even at white heat, but it
>would make a perfectly good reaction mass as a solid.
>  A launch of such a rocket on the moon would probably be visible from
>Earth.  It gives off a LOT of light.

That "lots of light" means lots of radiation cooling of the
reaction mass and energy loss that could otherwise be used to get
a higher thrust.  A longer "drift tube" section (acceleration
chamber),  with highly reflective walls might help reduce that loss.

Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075            
Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222    
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP

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

Date: 18 Jan 87 12:19:12 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Voyager vs Vostok and the FAI
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <41700001@uicsrd> xia@uicsrd.CSRD.UIUC.EDU writes:
>I say let's not put V against V here.  They are both great
>achievements.  I think Voyager burned a few hundred gallons of fuel.
>Where did that go.  They go into the Atmosphere.  If you insist on not
>dropping anything, you ought to ask them to collect all the fuel
>exhaust.  I think the rule is stupid about not dropping anything.  I
>think the rule should be not ADDING anything during the flight.  I
>think the difference is that one is within, and and the other is
>outside the atmosphere.

Well the Vostok wouldn't even get off the ground if the "exhaust" was
included!  Or don't you think that all that polluting rocket reaction
mass exhaust doesn't count where the much reduce planes exhaust does.
The differences are far more spectacular than that, anyway!

One (Vostok) is in free fall like a falling rock and has no power to
modify its orbit.  The Voyager is under continuous power and can fly
a zig zag path to any points on the globe.  One costs like hell
and the other is just quite a bit of money.  

The Voyager can change altitude and land at the field of its choice with
control and the other (vostok) can only "crash" with the "pile it here
or there" bailing out after atmospheric reentry but not terrestrial
reentry (hopefully).

I wouldn't call what the Vostok does "flying", it is more like being
strapped into the giant Ferris wheel at the state fair, and then having
it do a nose dive off the Santa Monica pier as a grand finale.  

                C A P =  (Chinese Air Police)

Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075
Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222    
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP

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

Date: 18 Jan 87 07:15:54 GMT
From: melpad!bigtex!james@ngp.utexas.edu  (James Van Artsdalen)
Subject: Re: My mistake, it's Beryllium-9 not 8
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

IN article <8701130902.AA03948@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET wrote:
> [...]  I recommend buying this book ***second hand*** or xeroxing a
> library copy because the book is published by the Fusion Energy
> Foundation whose politics is extremely unsavory.

Which is more unsavory, the politics, or advocating copyright
violations?  In any case, you didn't tell me whether the politics were
left or right, so I don't know if I should buy two or noneo.  :-)

James R. Van Artsdalen   ...!ut-sally!utastro!bigtex!james
(512)-328-0282

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

Date: Sun, 18 Jan 87 13:14:16 pst
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!angband.s1.gov!Space
Subject: Re Nuclear Devices and classification

>From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
>
>In article <537432846.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>> I agree with Gary. I also believe that anything to do with nuclear
>> physics is considered 'born classified'. No other area has this
>> doctrine. It says that even if a kid genius out there has a break
>> through, if he makes it public he can be prosecuted, or so I
>> understand it.

	In fact this is not quite true.  Cryptography is generally held
to be classified - check the export laws.

	On a further note, I am not sure that I disagree with this
policy.  Given the current world political situation, I do not beleive
it is reasonable to allow somebody to endanger the number of people that
a nuclear weapon in the hands of terrorists would just so that they may
demonstrate their scientific prowness to the world.  It is a matter of
balancing the risks of the uncontrolled spread of the knowledge against
the benefits of the knowledge.  In this case in particular, the risks
are quite high...

					Eric

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

Date: 18 Jan 87 22:28:20 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!cdaf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Charles Daffinger)
Subject: How many shuttles can orbit at once?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Should the need arise, either for rescue or for convenience of a
hypothetical mission, is NASA capable of tracking and maintaining two or
more shuttles in orbit at the same time?

-charles

 Snail : Box 1662 Bloomington, In. 47402-1662
 ATT   : (812) 339-7354
 USEnet: cdaf@iuvax.csnet | iuvax!cdaf
 BITNET: BCHC901@INDYCMS

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

Date: Mon, 19 Jan 87 09:54:21 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: A tamp is....

In Vol. 7, No. 107 Steve Oliphant asked: "What is a tamp?"  In hard rock
mining a tamp is sand or clay packed around an explosive charge.  The
tamp through its inertia keeps the explosive energy contained for a
slightly longer time so that more stone is broken loose from the mining
face.  A tamp in a nuclear explosive device is a hollow cylinder of
metal.  The nuclear explosive material is within and coaxial to the
tamp.  The tamp, before it evaporates from the heat of the nuclear
explosion, acts as a reflector of x-rays which precompresses the nuclear
explosive for nuclear fusion.  Nuclear fusion actually occurs at the
"burn front" on the nuclear explosive.  This burn front is a shock wave
that goes up the length of the tamp-radiation-precompressed nuclear
explosive like a burning match.  It's a "cute" idea, since the longer
the tamp-nuclear-explosive, the bigger the bang.  I think Ed Teller
invented this idea but I'm not certain.
                                         Gary Allen

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

Date: 19 Jan 87 13:39:55 GMT
From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2010002@hpsadla.HP> jimh@hpsadla.HP (Jim Horn) writes:

>   The sticking point is "milestone".  Everyone remembers Lindbergh,
>who was the first to fly the Atlantic NON-STOP (May, 1927), even though
>it was flown by a brace of seaplanes in 1919 (with many stops).

Maybe in the country everyone remembers that.  But in Britain we still
remember that this feat was achieved by Alcock and Brown (cheers, flag
wavings, strains of patriotic music...).  Lindy was the first to do it
SOLO.

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

Date: 19 Jan 87 10:01:57 GMT
From: ulysses!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Nuclear Devices and classification
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> 	In fact this is not quite true.  Cryptography is generally
> held to be classified - check the export laws.

Classification and export control are separate issues. Export control is
what the name implies -- prohibiting the export of certain technologies
from the USA without a license from the federal government. Something
doesn't have to involve classified technology to require such a license.
Much of what falls under export controls involves purely unclassified
items readily available in the US. Computers are the best examples.

Now it is true that the ITAR (International Traffic in Arms Regulations,
the basis of the export control laws) specifically mention "crypographic
devices and related information" and therefore require export licenses.
However, it is NOT yet the case that the government can arbitrarily
classify (i.e., ban the DOMESTIC publication of) work done in cryptology
by someone not funded by or associated with the government.  The only
apparent exception is the Invention Secrecy Act, which as far as I can
tell applies only to patent applications. So the thing to do is to
publish as widely as you can IMMEDIATELY after filing your patent
application.

The NSA, particularly under Bobby Inman, has pushed quite heavily for
the authority to broaden its censorship powers even further, openly
clamoring for the same kind of control over cryptology that the DOE
already has over nuclear energy under the Atomic Energy Act.
Fortunately, Inman's crusade was so incredibly arrogant that it was met
by intense protest particularly from the academic sector. The result was
a "compromise" where authors could submit their papers for "voluntary"
review by NSA.

However, the DoD from time to time still rattles its sabers when
somebody (anybody, not just a government employee under a security
agreement) is about to give a technical paper (any paper) they'd rather
not see published.  They usually cite the ITAR and claim that because
there might be foreign nationals present at the conference, the speaker
would violate US export controls without even leaving the country!  The
best example of this was the NSA employee who intimidated Hellman and
Rivest, two of the inventers of public key cryptography.  (see the
Puzzle Palace, p 444, and the entire "Competition" chapter.)

As SDI and the DoD's infatuation with military space toys of all kinds
mushrooms, I expect that this sort of intimidation will become extremely
common.  As soon as the first space-related venture startup is driven
out of business by this sort of nonsense I suspect that the "free
enterprise in space" types (the ones now so overjoyed at all the money
SDI is pumping into space technology) will start changing their tune.

At a recent talk on cryptology, Prof. Cipher Deavers (editor of
Cryptologia) pointed out that there are healthy cryptography industries
in countries like Sweden, Austria and Switzerland -- neutral countries
without US-style export controls.  I'm becoming convinced that export
controls have become a major contributing factor to the enormous US
trade deficit, since the American products the world wants most and we
are best at building are the ones we can't sell outside our borders
without oppressive red tape.  Even western Europe now considers the US
to be a very unreliable supplier of high technology and avoids buying
from us whenever possible.

It is ironic that Inman went on the lecture circuit as a private citizen
several years ago to speak on the subject of "Regaining America's
Technological Leadership" or something like that. I wonder if he has
contemplated his own part in destroying it.

Needless to say, this article represents my personal views only.

Phil

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

Date: 19 Jan 87 18:44:54 GMT
From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (George Erhart)
Subject: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Although powdered Al would work well, it would be difficult to carry (as
it cannot be packed at 100% density). It would probably be better to
carry a tank of liquid aluminum, and atomize it into the reaction
chamber.

It seems to me that, while you'll have plenty of reaction mass, the exit
velocity of that mass will be quite low. Most chemical propellants are
chosen because of the volume of gases they produce when reacted.  This
aluminothermic engine would trap most of the gas (oxygen) in the oxide.
As mentioned, excess oxygen could produce the necessary expansion ( ->
velocity) but will necessitate a larger fuel load and decrease the
operating temperature and efficiency.

Methinks an honest-to-God thermo analysis needs to be done. I won't
embarrass myself by trying this with my metallurgical thermo, but why
doesn't one of you aero types give it a shot ?

	Bill Thacker    	cbatt!cbosgd!cbdkc1!serial!wbt

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #120
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05952; Sat, 31 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST
	id AA05952; Sat, 31 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8701311102.AA05952@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #121

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 87 03:02:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #121

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 121

Today's Topics:
  "Voyager" aircraft stunt/flight used by Reagan to distract media?
	       Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
		   Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI
			     Re: Voyager
				Yeager
		Re: Nuclear Devices and classification
	       Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
		  Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
		    fission turbojets and rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1987 January 19 09:55:09 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Cc: crvax1.dec.com!kaplow@decwrl.dec.com
Cc: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: "Voyager" aircraft stunt/flight used by Reagan to distract media?

<K> Date: 8 Jan 87 02:29:12 GMT
<K> From: crvax1.dec.com!kaplow@decwrl.dec.com  (There is no 'N' in TURNKEY)
<K> Subject: re: Voyager
<K> Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
<K> To: space@angband.s1.gov

<K>	I've seen several postings regarding the round-the-world flight
<K>     of Voyager. People wonder if it was a publicity stunt, a significant
<K>     aeronautical achievement, or a Reagan plot to take the heat of the
<K>     Iran/Contra scandal. 

Apparently my original posting wasn't worded well. Several people
misunderstood one point. Although I asked whether the flight itself was
just a stunt with not much practical value, I did not ask whether the
flight itself was a cover for Iran/Contra scandal, rather I asked
whether the extra publicity given by Reagan to this stunt (I believe he
got on live nationwide TV to praise the flight) was an attempt to divert
the media from the scandal. That particular point hasn't yet been
addressed. Did Reagan truly think the stunt worthy of his valuable time,
with no thought of getting people distracted from "Gippergate", or did
he have ulterior motives which were active?

...
<K> 	As to what useful technology will come out of this flight, Beech
<K>     Aircraft has already started work on a business jet designed by
<K>     Rutan, and built of similar composite materials. It will be more
<K>     fuel efficient than any current aircraft. 

<K> 	Rutan's canard designs eliminate the possibility of stalls, one
<K>     of the biggest dangers of conventional design private aircraft.
...

Thank you for your excellent answer to my question re original stunt
being just a stunt or having true value. It seems it does have true
value in "spirit" and in general aviation technology, although nothing
earthshaking as far as I can tell so far, about as important as hundreds
of other technological innovations of the past decade.

<ka9q> Date: 7 Jan 87 12:18:33 GMT
<ka9q> From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu

<ka9q> The original purpose of the Voyager flight, as publicly stated by the
<ka9q> Rutan brothers in the press, was to generate publicity for an airplane
<ka9q> business they wanted to start in California. Clearly they suceeded in
<ka9q> the publicity department.

Hmmm, so it *was* primarily a publicity stunt for a business. But I
think we can agree this is a better way to generate publicity than
many we've seen lately.

<ka9q> Rutan is flying up the northeast coast of South America. The
<ka9q> ground comes on and says "I guess you two haven't been
<ka9q> following the news much for the past week, but you probably
<ka9q> know that Reagan is in a real mess over this Iran thing, and he
<ka9q> thinks it wouldn't be such a bad idea to come out to California
<ka9q> to watch you guys land."

Hmmm, this seems to lead credence to my idea of Reagan deliberately
using this as a distraction.

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

Date: 16 Jan 87 22:22:18 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8701151854.AA00437@angband.s1.gov> OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes:
>
>	BTW, I understand that once it gets up in the air
>( it refuels immediately after takeoff ) the SR71 goes 'round
>the world without refueling. I think it's a solo cockpit, but
>obviously the Blackbird is disqualified from the above ( needs
>to refuel after takeoff, really just ballistic [just kidding],
>not in the atmosphere [depending on your definition] ).

I think you've overestimated the capabilities of the SR71 just a bit.
:-) The magazine "Airpower" published an article on the plane in May
1979.  First, it's a dual cockpit, with pilot and 'fire control officer'
(what he does in a recon plane is not clear, the terminology is probably
leftover from when the Blackbird was being considered as an
interceptor).

The capabilities of the plane are Mach 3+ and 80,000+ feet (records set
as of 1 July 1976 are 85,069 feet sustained altitude and 2,194 mph
over a 15/25 km closed course, 2092 mph over a 1000 km closed course).
These are the numbers released to the public, "many knowledgable people 
believe the Blackbird can sustain 100,000 to 120,000 ft. for an hour and
a half". 

They don't explicitly give a range, but the Backbird cannot fly around
the world without refueling.  On the flight between the US and the
Farnborough Air Show in 1976, the plane flew non-stop from Beale AFB but
was refueled just after takeoff and again just past New York.  The tanks
were topped off near Nova Scotia, the total distance was 3490 miles in
just under two hours. I'd guess at a range of about 3000 miles before
the plane has to be refuelled : a typical test flight is Edwards to
Florida at Mach III (2040 miles), fly around for a while until "it
cooled off for a safe level for refueling", take in 7,000 to 9,000
gallons of fuel (maximum capacity 12,300 gallons) then back to Edwards -
total time 3 hours 15 minutes.

There's one interesting quote in the article, made by the pilot of the
flight that set the World Absolute Closed Circuit Speed Record over a
1000 km course (2092 mph) : "The airplane flies best at maximum speed,
and doesn't seem to be really happy at any speed under Mach 3.0.
Because of the way the inlet system is designed, after accelerating past
Mach 3.0, it just wants to keep on accelerating, so the pilot has to
continually reduce power and climb to maintain his programmed speed."

I'd really like to see the *classified* performance stats on this plane.
They are probably truly impressive. 120,000 feet and Mach 5.0 anyone?

The article is quite informative, lots of interview material and stats
and pictures and stuff : Airpower, Vol 9 #3, May 1975.  

Andrew Folkins    ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    53 24' N, 113 30' W
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

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

Date: 16 Jan 87 07:42:00 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


[rjn@hpfcmp.UUCP ]
I am embarrassed to pick on a typo in such a long and interesting
article; but *this* name should be known correctly to all space
fans, like the names of Goddard and Von Braun:

>	 Gagarin delivered a hymm of praise to the brilliance of the
>	 "chief designer" of the spaceship (Korelov, of course - but it
>	 was forbidden to reveal his name, so the job title was used
>	 instead),

It is Korolyov (or Koroliov, or, if you wish, Korolov, but the "l"
is palatalized).  The stress is on the last syllable.

			Jan W.

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

Date: 20 Jan 1987 12:59-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Voyager

Adam Barr:
	There is a flaw in your logic. The driving forces behind
technology are people and politics, NOT logic and orderly progression.
It is the 'too early' dangerous stunts that convince people to put up
the bucks, and that influence minds for generation. Thus the Lindbergh's
are the real drivers of the technology through their HUMAN courage.

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

Date: 17 Jan 87 02:51:29 GMT
From: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!hpfcmp!rjn@hplabs.hp.com  (Bob Niland)
Subject: Yeager
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

re: > Does anyone have any idea as to why the other Yeager (the General),
    > whose book about himself, "Yeager" I read recently, and who from all I
    > know about him (or think I know) is a genuine hero himself, denigrated
    > this accomplishment with some disparaging remarks such as something like
    > (not an exact quote): "What's so great about it? It's like adding extra
    > fuel tanks to a plane."

The really ironic thing about Chuck's statement was that he had just
completed (re-)setting a cross-country record in some obscure class of
light twin.  They just added some extra fuel tanks and strapped him
in...

Regards,                                              Hewlett-Packard
Bob Niland                                            3404 East Harmony Road
[ihnp4|hplabs]!hpfcla!rjn                             Fort Collins CO  80525

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

Date: 20 Jan 87 19:25:38 GMT
From: cae780!leadsv!pat@hplabs.hp.com  (Pat Wimmer)
Subject: Re: Nuclear Devices and classification
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Why is this endless debate being conducted here?  Move it to
arms_discussion, or politics, or where-ever they endless debate these
points!

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

Date: 20 Jan 87 18:06:09 GMT
From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bevare! Bevare the Big Green Dragon who seets on your dooorstep!)
Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <741@cadomin.alberta.UUCP> andrew@cadomin.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes:
>I'd really like to see the *classified* performance stats on this
>plane.  They are probably truly impressive. 120,000 feet and Mach 5.0
>anyone?

I won't reveal my sources, but I've spoken with two people on seperate
occasions who confirm the 120,000 feet part.  I have serious doubts
about the Mach 5.0.  It is known, however, that at least 150 attempts to
shoot it down have been unsuccessful.  I am led to believe that part of
the trick is simply out-running the SAM.

		--Craig
		...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good

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

Date: 20 Jan 87 14:36:58 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>Although powdered Al would work well, it would be difficult to carry
>(as it cannot be packed at 100% density). It would probably be better
>to carry a tank of liquid aluminum, and atomize it into the reaction
>chamber.

If your getting it from the moon then the environment is airless and the
"compactness" of the fuel container is NOT a big issue.  Consequently
powdered Al should be very acceptable.

>It seems to me that, while you'll have plenty of reaction mass, the
>exit velocity of that mass will be quite low. Most chemical propellants
>are chosen because of the volume of gases they produce when reacted.
>This aluminothermic engine would trap most of the gas (oxygen) in the
>oxide.

Nearly all of the chemical fuels do trap most of there oxygen in the
oxide during the burn.

Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075
Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP

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

Date: 19 Jan 87 20:50:10 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@UTAH-GR.ARPA  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: fission turbojets and rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I have reason to believe that this didn't reach the net the first time
I sent it. Sorry if this is a repeat.

During the '50s and '60s the USAF and NASA spent a lot of time and money
on the problems of building fission powered aircraft and spacecraft.
What I know about it is gleaned from a number of books and articles that
I read during the '60s and early '70s. I no longer have the references,
but all the books I read were available in school and public libraries.
The articles were published in Popular Science and Time. At some point
in the late '50s or '60s Popular Science had a cover article on fission
powered aircraft. I even had a model of a proposed nuclear powered
bomber, complete with parasite fighters.

At one time the USAF did have an operating fission reactor installed in
a bomber. It did not provide useful power to the aircraft, but was used
to test the problems involved with operating a fission powered aircraft.
The reactor was operated during flight.

Ignoring moral, ethical, and environmental problems, the main problems
with fission powered aircraft are the weight of the reactor and
shielding, and the low heat transfer rate between the reactor core and
the working medium.

The weight problem can be partially solved by only shielding what must
be shielded, the crew, avionics, and payload ( not nice to put H-bombs
next to unshielded reactors, nasty things might happen ). This technique
is called "shadow shielding".

The other way to solve the weight problem is to build really big
aircraft.  During the '50s a 707 was considered a very big aircraft. I
remember reading that fission powered aircraft were proposed again when
the C5A was delivered. One of the things that killed the nuclear
aircraft program was that no one knew how to build very big airplanes in
the '50s. A nuclear powered aircraft the size of a 707 could have been
built, but it would have had no useful payload, but a nuclear powered
aircraft the size of a C5A would.

Several prototype fission powered turbojets were constructed and tested.
The ones I remember reading about used existing turbine and compressor
stages, but had some kind of heat exchanger where the burners would be
in a normal engine.

One version used liquid sodium as a reactor coolant. The coolant
circulated through the reactor to be heated and then through a heat
exchanger in the engine to heat the air flowing through the engine. The
other version used air as the reactor coolant. Compressed air was taken
from just behind the compressor stage and passed through the reactor
core. The heated air was exhausted through the turbine stage of the
engine. Both of these were ground tested. I don't know how many cubic
miles of air were irradiated during the tests, and I hope there was
never a liquid sodium leak.

Fission rocket engines that were ( to my knowledge ) tested were
graphite cored reactors. The reactors were used to heat liquid hydrogen
which was then exhausted through a standard converging/diverging nozzle.
At least one of these had the core break up during a test firing. Pieces
of the core were expelled from the motor and burned in the atmosphere.

A couple of other types of nuclear rockets were proposed, but I don't
think they were tested. One would have used a gaseous core. The idea is
that hydrogen is a pretty good moderator, the core of the reactor is a
mixture of hydrogen and, I believe, uraniumtetraflouride. The other was
a metal cored reactor with very small holes placed very close together.

I've only seen gaseous cored reactors mentioned as space propulsion
systems. The solid core nuclear rocket engines were originally proposed
for ICBM propulsion but were later developed for space propulsion. NASA
talked a lot about a nuclear stage that would be launched in place of
the third stage of a Saturn-5. It was to be used as a tug for hauling
material from low earth orbit to low lunar orbit, and for manned
interplanetary expeditions.

               Bob Pendleton
               Evans & Sutherland Computer Corporation

UUCP Address:  {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet
Alternate:     {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #121
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07296; Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST
	id AA07296; Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702011102.AA07296@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #122

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #122

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 122

Today's Topics:
			Laser Launched Rockets
Re: "Voyager" aircraft stunt/flight used by Reagan to distract media?
		  A use for nuclear fission in space
			     Mars mission
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
		      Re: Laser Launched Rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 87 04:03:18 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Cohen)
Subject: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The latest issue of High Technology (Feb., 1987), has a short article on
p.61 written by T.A. Heppenheimer about laser launching.  It mentions a
new program in the SDI Organization to investigate feasibility, and do
some experiments with existing lasers.  Current funding level is $2
million.

The basic idea for laser-launched rockets has been around since the
early '70s.  Put simply, the fuel in the rocket is heated by a laser
beam from the ground, so that only reaction mass is needed, not
chemically reactive fuel and oxydizer, and that higher exhaust
velocities than chemical fuels can be attained.  Because the fuel is
solid, there's no need for the mass of tanks, pumps, etc., but the
thrust can be started, stopped, and throttled much more reliably than
with a solid chemical propellant rocket.

Putting the power source for the launch on the ground means that more
payloads can be launched per year.  Heppenheimer talks about 64,000 tons
of payload per year, with one ton payloads and the laser operating just
about continuously.  I have trouble believing that, but I can accept
5,000 to 10,000 tons per year.  If a launch site costs one or two
billion dollars to build, about the cost of a shuttle, and can launch 50
- 100 times as much payload, the economics of space flight change
drastically.

It's not clear from the article that there's any favored technology in
the SDI program, but there is a discussion of the advantages of FEL
(Free-Electron Lasers).  Quote: "... the efficiency may approach 40%,
according to studies at California's Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, compared with 5% for a typical chemical laser."  FEL's are
pumped by a linear accelerator, so the primary energy source is
electricity.

I haven't paid much attention to the laser-launch idea for awhile,
because it seemed to have died on the intellectual vine: the lasers
available when it was first proposed were not powerful enough for the
job, NASA seemed wedded to using conventional rocket technology, and the
post-Apollo budget slump was upon us.  Now, with a different technical
and political environment, it looks as if the laser rocket has another
chance.

The article was short, and didn't cite any papers, so I don't have any
technical details to give you.  It would be helpful if some of you
aerospace types out there could mail me citations for some of the work
that's been done, and I will summarize to the newsgroup.  Assume we
don't know anything about it and need basic material; I don't even know
if Kantrowitz, who developed the idea, ever published any specifics.

If you have been looking around for topics of discussion in this group,
here are several of them, based on various political, economic, and
technical issues relative to laser-launching.

POLITICAL
 o  What is the best way to insure that a research program doesn't
    become hostage to the political controversy around SDI?  Who funds
    it, and how do you insure that the work doesn't become classified
    and shelved?
    
 o  How do you persuade the existing space establishment to spend time
    and energy, let alone money, on something radically different from
    the standard technology?  No offense, but there is a large
    population of technical and managerial workers both in and out of
    the government who have a strong investment in the work done to
    date.

 o  What are the factors which affect launch site selection?  Is this a
    plus, like siting a factory or a government installlation, where
    local governments fight over who gets it, or a minus, like a dump or
    a nuclear waste site?  Cnsider the reaction of people who are going
    to have tons of stuff flying over them on a regular basis.  Can they
    be convinced that none of it will land on their heads?

ECONOMIC
 o  Just how cheap would this technique make delivery to orbit?
    Heppenheimer claims $100/kg, even amortizing the cost of the laser
    (he doesn't mention the rest of the launch facility, which won't be
    cheap), but that's got to be a horseback guess.  There are a lot of
    variables, like the cost of power, and the ease of access to the
    launch site (both of which depend on the site selection) the size of
    the average payload, and the number of launches per year, and so on.

 o  What are the effects on the private enterprise aspects of space with
    a launch technique this cheap available before the end of the
    century?  Will the people who want access to space even be able to
    use that much?  I assume that the governments will be able to use as
    much as they can get, as long as someone else pays for the
    development.

TECHNICAL
 o  What are the factors that affect selection of the type of laser?
    Clearly, efficiency and peak power capability are important.  What
    else?

 o  How about selection of the wavelength?  Atmospheric properties, the
    absorption spectrum of the fuel, and the characteristics of the
    tracking optics are important here.  Tunable lasers look like a good
    answer (FEL's are tunable over a very wide range).

 o  Just how big a laser do we need?  Can we time-share the beam, and
    keep several payloads in the air at once?  This increases the
    tonnage we can launch.

There are lots more topics.  The whole subject is exciting because it
looks like the first real alternative to chemical rockets which is
technically feasible in the near future, and not banned by international
treaty (nuclear rockets and Orion-type propulsion systems).

Bruce Cohen
brucec@orca

tektronix!orca!brucec
M/S 61-028, Tektronix, Inc.,  Wilsonville, OR 97070
(503) 685-2439

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

Date: 21 Jan 87 06:35:39 GMT
From: cbmvax!grr@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (George Robbins)
Subject: Re: "Voyager" aircraft stunt/flight used by Reagan to distract media?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8701192147.AA01566@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>
>Apparently my original posting wasn't worded well. Several people
>misunderstood one point. Although I asked whether the flight itself
>was just a stunt with not much practical value, I did not ask whether
>the flight itself was a cover for Iran/Contra scandal, rather I asked
>whether the extra publicity given by Reagan to this stunt (I believe
>he got on live nationwide TV to praise the flight) was an attempt to
>divert the media from the scandal. That particular point hasn't yet
>been addressed. Did Reagan truly think the stunt worthy of his
>valuable time, with no thought of getting people distracted from
>"Gippergate", or did he have ulterior motives which were active?

Why do you keep calling it a "stunt" - this is a derogatory and irritating
term.  A stunt implies some relativly safe/simple act hyped up to make it
look difficult and/or death-defying.

I've seen nothing from the Rutans or Jeanna that was more than a straight-
forward "here is what we want to do, and here are the problems that we
may encounter".  Don't know what BS the news media cooked up at the last
minute though...

As someone who appreciates the the actual event, I don't give a f**k
about Reagan trying to horn in (if that's the way you care to interpret
his interest).  That and 'gippergate' is a social/political issue that
has only marginal application to this group as compared to say Reagan
vs. the Shuttle or NASA vs. SDI.

	-George Robbins
uucp: {ihnp4|seismo|rutgers}!cbmvax!grr
arpa: cbmvax!grr@seismo.css.GOV
fone: 215-431-9255 (only by moonlite)

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

Date: Wed, 21 Jan 87 15:58:39 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: A use for nuclear fission in space

All this discussion about nuclear energy has reminded me of a crazy
idea.  Construct a very large nuclear reactor to be placed into Earth
orbit.  Attach to the reactor core a long boom upon which you have
radiator panels to dump waste heat.  On the end of this long boom, place
a bit of shielding, a power coupling, and a whole bunch of ion engines
with fuel tanks.  Treat the whole assembly as a self propelled nuclear
power plant.  Such a nuclear power plant would be far more safer than a
terrestrial plant.  A nuclear fission reactor is not particularly
dangerous **if** it has never been powered up.  Technicians initially
load a new reactor without shielding, standing right on top of the core.
It is only after the core has been activated that it becomes a radiation
danger.  Construct the new reactor in low Earth orbit and chemically
boost it to a high safe orbit.  After a safety inspection the reactor is
powered up.  One could then dock the reactor to an orbital manufacturing
facility, or if the technical and environmental problems can be resolved
the reactor could be docked to a microwave transmission facitility and
the power beamed down to earth.  Since the reactor is self propelled, it
could fly from one user to another and would almost always be in use.
The reactor could also be used as a space tug for hauling freight
between earth orbit and the moon or planets.  When the reactor became
old or began to malfunction it could be commanded to fly away from Earth
orbit to a stable position in heliocentric space.  The reactor could
even be commanded to plung itself into the atmosphere of Venus or onto
the ice caps of Mars.  This disposal method could be made fail-safe by
designing the reactor and ion engines such that the energy from the
radioactive decay of fission products (usually a nuisance in terrestrial
reactors) would be sufficient in providing power to the ion engines for
final disposal of the reactor.  Space is an environment well suited for
radioactive processes.  In addition, no other power source has the
power-to-weight ratio of nuclear fission.  Unlike solar power, a nuclear
fission plant would be quite compact and easily assembled in space.  A
nuclear reactor would be more-or-less immune to sun induced radiation
problems, most micro-meteorite impacts and large structure oscillations.
The usual problems of radiation shielding and plant safety would be
irrelevant with a space based reactor.  By placing the reactor into a
stable orbit and using fail-safe, fault tolerant control systems, you
would have a system that represented virtually no public health risk,
and would be environmentally benign
                                              Gary Allen

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

Date:     Wed, 21 Jan 87 11:13:36 EST
From: Les Eastman  <lreastma@crdec-vax3>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  Mars mission

Quoted without permission from the January 19, 1987 issue of Chemical &
Engineering News, page 30:

Panel proposes manned missions to Mars

Both the U.S.  and the U.S.S.R.  are planning to send unmanned probes to
Mars within the next few years.  Now, a panel of experts from NASA and
Los Alamos National Laboratory has recommended a series of manned
missions to the red planet leading to the establishment of a permanent
base there.  The panel's report proposes several 30- to 60-day visits to
different parts of the planet to help select a location for the
permanent base.  A later mission with a crew of eight would put human
explorers on the Martian surface for about 440 days.  According to Los
Alamos, an initial Mars mission in the year 2000 would cost $30 billion
to $40 billion in 1986 dollars - about half the cost of the Apollo moon
program.  The cost could be met, it says, if NASA's budget grows at 3% a
year, the historic growth rate of the U.S.  gross national product.  The
benefits of a manned Mars mission cited in the report include scientific
advances, development of technology, and improved international
cooperation.

Les Eastman <lreastma@crdec-vax3>

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

Date: 21 Jan 87 21:09:23 GMT
From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8701211503.AA04725@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes
about a scheme to use fission plants in space.  All well and good until...
> [The] disposal method could be made fail-safe by designing the reactor
> and ion engines such that the energy from the radioactive decay of
> fission products [...] would be sufficient in providing power to the
> ion engines for final disposal of the reactor. [...]  By placing the
> reactor into a stable orbit and using fail-safe, fault tolerant
> control systems, you would have a system that represented virtually no
> public health risk, and would be environmentally benign
>                                               Gary Allen

I love phrases like "fail-safe" and "fault-tolerant" especially when
they are juxtaposed like this.  Mr. Allen blithely dismissed the
possible disasters that a failure of such a system could cause.  What
happens when:

    - you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay?

    - your solid boosters fail on launch and start rocketing the payload
    toward (say) Miami?  What do you do about the contaminated areas of
    Florida when the RSO destroys the launch vehicle?

    - some part in the ion engines or the guidance system fails and
    starts the reactor heading toward impact in New York or Moscow?

Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous.  Moving it into space isn't
a cure-all.

Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!ut-sally!im4u!milano!wex

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

Date: 21 Jan 87 16:40:54 GMT
From: hplabsc!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


Leik Myrabo and Dean Ing's book "The Future of Flight" is a good
reference for more information on laser propulsion. I just got it,
unfortunately, it is in a "popular science" style which seems targeted
for an 8th grade audience, but the bibliography in the back is quite
extensive and refers to a number of more technical sources (include a
few which are classified).  Heppenheimer's figure of 40% on the FEL is
somewhat above what Myrabo and Ing claim (20-30%), but they claim that
an infrared chemical laser getting 10% should be adequate. Some of their
designs for rockets use hydrogen (*not* solid fuel as the original
posting stated) and have a theoretical specific impulse of 1,000. The
SSME gets somewhere around 400. Other designs work on air alone,
depending on laser induced detonation of the atmosphere near the focal
point to start a localized shock wave which then lifts the spaceship.
Obviously, near the top of the atmosphere you'd need to inject some kind
of gas to keep the shock wave going.

Considering the obvious potential here, I wonder why yet another federal
study is needed for this thing. If there is as much money to be made in
space as people like Heppenheimer claim, then why isn't some venture
capitalist sinking some bucks into the thing?  NASA obviously isn't
interested, since the technology is too far away from the conventional.

		Jim Kempf	hplabs!kempf

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #122
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08568; Mon, 2 Feb 87 03:03:02 PST
	id AA08568; Mon, 2 Feb 87 03:03:02 PST
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 87 03:03:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702021103.AA08568@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #123

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 87 03:03:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #123

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 123

Today's Topics:
				Yeager
	       Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
		      Re: Laser Launched Rockets
		  Re: fission turbojets and rockets
		    Re: Around the world non-stop
	      Mining in space compared to mines on Earth
		   Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI
    Continuing debate on whether government should invest in space
	   Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?
		   Re: Space and Government support
		       Re: Libertarian Lecture
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Jan 87 12:49:19 GMT
From: ray@ROCHESTER.ARPA  (Ray Frank)
Subject: Yeager
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1580004@hpfcmp.HP.COM> rjn@hpfcmp.HP.COM (Bob Niland) writes:
       Does anyone have any idea as to why the other Yeager (the
       General), whose book about himself, "Yeager" I read recently, and
       who from all I know about him (or think I know) is a genuine hero
       himself, denigrated this accomplishment with some disparaging
       remarks such as something like (not an exact quote): "What's so
       great about it? It's like adding extra fuel tanks to a plane."
 
Yes, Yeager (the General) was reported to have said the above.  But
after reading his book, nothing he could do or say would suprise me.  He
is certainly a brave man, but brains, well........

ray

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

Date: 20 Jan 87 19:18:07 GMT
From: hpcea!hpsrla!hpsadla!jimh@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Horn)
Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

   The `Free Enterprise', originally known as the `Big Bird', was designed,
built, and flown by Tom Jewett, who, with Gene Sheehan, formed Quickie
Aircraft Corporation down at Hanger 68 at Mojave.  The two of them are
better known for their Quickie, Q-2, and Q-200 aircraft plans and kits.

   Actually, the first was the `Love One' by Jim Bede.  That was a highly
modified stretched-span single engine Schweitzer (sp?) sailplane which he
used to capture the non-refulled closed course distance record in the '60s.
It has since been rebuilt and has broken its own records as the `Phoenix'.
It never had the range for a true circumglobal flight though - it would
have had to use the jet streams, resulting in an 18000 mile (or so) flight.

   The Free Enterprise addressed the Love One's limitations and had a
considerably greater capability.  It was also a single place single engined
conventional configuration monoplane, with the landing gear in a seperate
carriage which remained on the runway as the aircraft lifted off.  It also
used highly modified sailplane wings.  During a test flight in July 1982,
he was returning to land after a flight with a higher fuel load than he had
flown with before.  At about 200' AGL in the renowned Mojave thermals, the
turbulence caused the wings to go divergent and they failed.  He died on
impact.

   The plan had been to cruise at 24000' MSL at 200 MPH for a full 23000
miles.  Due to an earlier dispute, Dick and Jeanna were racing somewhat to
try to get done before Tom and Gene would.  While the two groups were
anything but friendly at the time, the tragedy did inject a further dose of
caution into the Voyager's plans.

   As a long time Voyager volunteer - and a Q2 builder who knew Tom well -
I'm happy to see some interest in the earlier efforts.  Each year's CAFE
400 air race still has a Tom Jewett Memorial Award in his honor.

Jim Horn, Secretary
The CAFE Foundation, Inc.

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

Date: 22 Jan 87 17:12:28 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The discussion on laser launching of rockets seems to have side-stepped
what I consider to be an important problem:

What's gonna happen to the trajectory if a nice fat cloud drifts into
the beam ?

I can imagine the beam punching its way through a light overcast - but
certainly not a towering cumulus drifting along at low altitude.  The
chances of hitting a cloud would no doubt increase as the rocket
approaches orbit and the slant range of the beam increases.

The many weather holds for the shuttle have been bad enought - but
waiting for a cloudless day (particularly in equatorial regions) would
be intolerable!

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

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

Date: 22 Jan 87 22:34:42 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!ism780c!marv@hplabs.hp.com  (Marv Rubinstein)
Subject: Re: fission turbojets and rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I guess I should say something about nuclear powered arcraft.  In the early
50's I was employed as an aerodynamic test engineer at the University of
Southern California's Aerodynamic Test Laboratory.

One of the projects that I worked on was a stability and control evaluation
of a proposed nuclear powered sea plane.  The plane was interesting to say
the least.  At its designed take off weight, it had a density greater than
sea water.  So, in order to take off, the plane was to be equipped with
floatation gear.  When the craft reached hydrodynamic planing speed it was to
dispose of the floats.  But the nuclear engines did not provide enough thrust
for take off so the plane was also to be equipped with JATO (jet assisted
take off) bottles.  Once air borne, the JATO was also disposed of.  If there
was an engine failure after the the floats were disposed of, the plane would
sink!  So scuba gear was to be provided for the crew.

The flight time of the plane was limited  by the allowable radiation dose for
the crew.  Needless to say, the plane was never built.

BTW, if memory serves, I believe the first mission of JPL was the development
of the afore mentioned JATO bottles.

       Marv Rubinstein -- Interactive Systems

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

Date: 21 Jan 87 15:11:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!daa@seismo.css.gov  (David Allsopp)
Subject: Re: Around the world non-stop
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2010002@hpsadla.HP> jimh@hpsadla.HP (Jim Horn) writes:
>   The sticking point is "milestone".  Everyone remembers Lindbergh, who was
>the first to fly the Atlantic NON-STOP (May, 1927), even though it was flown
>by a brace of seaplanes in 1919 (with many stops).
>...
>Jim Horn, Secretary
>The Comparitive Aircraft Flight Efficiency (CAFE) Foundation, Inc.

	Please, credit where credit's due - the first non-stop flight of
the Atlantic was by a couple of men from this side of the pond, i.e.
Alcock and Brown. I can't remember the date, but I recall that they flew in
a converted Vickers Vimy bomber and landed in a bog in Ireland. As
mentioned elsewhere, Lindbergh was the first *solo* crossing, and went to
Paris rather than the nearest land.

Or don't you Americans remember British firsts?? :-) :-) :-)

David Allsopp

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

Date: 20 Jan 87 03:44:56 GMT
From: hpda!hppcgo!hpsal2!hpisof0!campbelr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Campbell)
Subject: Mining in space compared to mines on Earth
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I always thought that one of the more attractive aspects of mining other
worlds was not to bring it back but rather to build it there.  It does
not sound unlikely to me that the cost off getting materials off-planet
in large quantities would cost more (and be an environmental hazard) than
getting enough materials there to build from raw materials.  

Bob Campbell  Hewlett Packard
hplabs!hpdsd!hpisof0!campbelr

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

Date: Sat, 24 Jan 87 13:24:42 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Voyager vs Vostok & the FAI
To: hpcea!hpfcdc!hpfcms!hpfcmp!rjn@hplabs.hp.com
Cc: KFL%MX.LCS.MIT.EDU@mc.lcs.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

  Orbital flights do not qualify for the record Voyager broke, becuase
that record applies to vehicles that are heavier than air.  Space
capsules are not heavier than air while in flight, they are weightless.
							...Keith

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

Date: 1987 January 26 02:34:55 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Continuing debate on whether government should invest in space

KFL and I are deeply involved in a long debate on merits of government
vs. private investment in space during the next several years. (In the
long term we both agree government should get out of space transport
business.)

I am saving my side of the debate (pro gov't investment in short term)
here on disk rather than posting them to space. Anyone wishing to see
the full debate (my side only), please contact me. Otherwise you'll see
only major milestones or final concensus or whatever I think worthy of
posting to all of SPACE digest.

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

From: warlord@athena.mit.edu
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 87 13:40:45 EST
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?


	Correct me if I'm wrong, but here is what the discussion
boils down to [and yes, I'm FOR space exploration]:

[Robert Elton Maas]
    ...I.e. optimally there should be a world government to tax each world
    citizen to pay for projects of a world-wide nature that wouldn't be
    of advantage to a specific nation, just like there are national
    governments to tax their citizens for projects of a national nature
    that wouldn't benefit just particular provinces or counties, etc.

[Keith F. Lynch]
    I consider this a good reductio ad absurdum of the necessity of
    ANY government with authority to tax. [Then a host of major legitimate
    problems with world governments pointed out]

[REM]
    There are various kinds of tasks that are best handled at various
    sizes of government. Space benefits the whole world so should be
    handled by world government, ...
    Note, no one individual would benefit from building a coast to coast
    freeway, only state governments by piecemeal or cooperation, or a
    national government, can perform such a task.

[KFL]
    Not at all.  It is only because individuals benefit from such a
    freeway that it is built.  I don't agree that it has to be done by
    governments.  Coast to coast railways were built by private companies.

and so on...

REM advocates space exploration by world government mainly because he
claims that everyone benefits, so everyone should pay.  Keith says that
individuals should pay for what they think are good investments, or not
pay for bad ones.  Which one seems more realistic?  Stolfi has already
shown that not every reasonable human being agrees with the claim that
space is a good investment for the near future.  It would seem that REM
believes that we should all engage in this mass and unanimous
speculation involuntarily.  No matter how the world government decides
to explore space, we will have disagreements on what projects are most
beneficial.  But only a subset will be explored due to the scarcity of
resources.  As Keith pointed out, it is not unusual for people to
benefit from investments made by others.  And why should people in the
third world be forced to pay for space when they can't grow their own
food?  It would seem that an expensive project can harm a few poor
countries, while it benefits the majority -- but is that what we want?
By establishing space exploration as a major priority for all nations
and making all pay, it is not even clear that all would benefit.  I
don't think many Ethiopians would care how much more food they could
grow in space if they can't feed their children now...  Granted, they'll
starve in the long run if they can't grow more food, but who's going to
tell them that they should invest for the future (because space is the
future) rather than the present?  I would think they'd invest once they
see proof from other countries and after they take care of more
important (to them) investments...

REM is actually voicing the following claim we all learned in elementary
school: somethings are simply too big for individuals to handle, but
because we ALL need them, we should have a government organize and pay
for it.  As we grew up, we all learned that only individuals can pay
because any organization is made of individuals (or did we?); a
corporate tax is distributed among the corporation members, for example.
We also learned that people can organize and get things done together,
voluntarily.  But most of us kept on believing that only government can
handle the really BIG jobs.  The organization of many corporations
rivals those of small governments with only one resultant difference:
these corporations make money; governments take -- and some can't even
stay solvent...  What happens with bankrupt corporations?  They
disappear unless they get back on their feet.  Bankrupt governments can
continue to increase their debt.  Now, would you really want a world
government to explore space for profit?...

Edison Wong
<warlord@athena.mit.edu>

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

Date: 26 Jan 1987 13:33-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Space and Government support
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Mon, 26 Jan 87 03:14:39 PST

Keith:

I agree with you 100%. Where I differ is that "C'est ne-pas le mieux
des mondes possible". However, there are those of us who are not so
sanguine about the next fifty years. I am perfectly willing to use the
existing structure to accomplish my goals because the existing
structure makes it impossible to accomplish them through the preferable
means, ie the ones you suggest.

I'm a libertarian too, but I'm a pragmatist, not an ideologist. Please
do keep telling people what should be, because you are right. But count
on me to try to deal with deck AS DEALT.

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

To: space-incoming
From: bouldin@ceee-sed
Sender: ota
Date: 26 Jan 87 17:52:00 EST
Subject: Re: Libertarian Lecture
Reply-To: <bouldin@ceee-sed>

About the post from Keith F. Lycnch: It is a lot more credible to
complain about the perils of government seizure of private assets
through taxation if you don't do it over a computer net that was created
and supported by the taxation that you criticize.

Without getting into specifics, I think almost _everyone_ agrees that
there are certain endeavors that must be undertaken collectively, by a
government of some sort. The disagreement is about what endeavors and
how to support them.  To get back to SPACE, rather than politics, who
really cares how we get out into space, so long as we do? I think that
it is fine to pursue all approaches in parallel. Private corporations or
individuals are welcome, as are gov.  subsidized corps. or government
agencies or consortiums of several governments or the UN or other
"world" organization. It is just to important to turn down any approach
that may work.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #123
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11644; Tue, 3 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST
	id AA11644; Tue, 3 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702031102.AA11644@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #124

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #124

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 124

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Laser Launched Rockets
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
	       Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
		       Re: sexism on space net
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
		     Re: nuclear fission in space
		     Re: nuclear fission in space
		      Re: Laser Launched Rockets
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
		  Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 87 09:33:47 GMT
From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7552@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>You betcha.  Look at it this way -- assuming the accelerations are not too
>grossly prohibitive, $100/kg means it costs about $10,000 to put *me* into
>orbit with a bit of support gear.  Load up my Visa, Mastercard, and personal
>line of credit and clean out my chequing account, and I have enough. Tomorrow.

   The problem is that you need (I presume?) a reentry vehicle, which means
that you multiply that mass figure by a factor of 100 or more.  $10K one way,
but $1M if you want the round trip.

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 26 Jan 87 09:27:48 GMT
From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7548@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>[Recommended reading of the month:  Harry Stine's article in the Feb. issue
>of Analog, in which he takes issue with NASA's wonderful new safety committee,
>(on the grounds that the only well-proven rocket-safety system -- the Range
>Safety organization used on all US rocket ranges, including KSC -- has very
>good reasons for assigning final responsibility to *one* specific person)
>and talks about how to *really* get the space program going again.]

   A nitpick:  I think it is incorrect to describe the Range Safety system
as well-proven.  It failed badly in the Challenger accident.  The boosters
were destroyed despite the fact that they were no threat to any land area.
This is an understandable failure, and should cause no great consternation,
but it is nevertheless a failure of the system.

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 25 Jan 87 04:02:31 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> I'd really like to see the *classified* performance stats on this plane.
> They are probably truly impressive. 120,000 feet and Mach 5.0 anyone?

120,000 feet, maybe.  Mach 5.0 seems to be stretching it a bit.  Nobody
(who will talk) is sure what the Blackbird's top speed is, but one theory
that has been advanced is that part of the reason for the long, long
fuselage is to keep the nose shock wave off the wing.  If this is so, some
simple calculations put the shock at the wingtips at about Mach 3.3.  The
remarks about how the plane wants to go faster are not out of line with
this -- that sort of thing is not uncommon.  A number of circa-1960 fighters
had maximum speeds set by heating or other problems rather than by thrust-vs-
drag.  (For another example, a "clean" Foxbat will do Mach 3.2 if you don't
mind landing with the engines ruined, according to Belenko.)
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Jan 87 05:12:35 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: sexism on space net
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Many people have expressed the wish that this subject would move
> to net.anythingelse, that it is not a fit subject for sci.space.
> Well, frankly, the offenses are occurring here on sci.space and
> as a community of sentient beings we have a obligation to make
> this environment comfortable for all who either wish to learn or
> to share.

And there is no place for innocent bystanders when the Holy Crusade is
on the march, right?

Comfort is in the eye of the comfortee.  I am not unsympathetic to the
point, but it's the fanatics who shout about our "obligation" to give
everybody exactly what they want -- especially when "everybody" means
the ones doing the shouting.  How about if we all:

(a) Try to be a bit more considerate of our downtrodden sisters;

(b) Try to be a bit more considerate of people who use poetic language
	that is legitimate English and was never intended to offend; and

(c) Try to be a bit more considerate of the many, many people -- including
	me! -- who are sick of seeing this argued out in sci.space!

[This will be my LAST posting on the subject -- can you say the same?]
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 24 Jan 87 06:29:01 GMT
From: pyramid!prls!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse@decwrl.dec.com  (der Mouse)
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8701211503.AA04725@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> [about a reactor in Earth orbit]
> When the reactor became old or began to malfunction it could be
> commanded to fly away from Earth orbit to a stable position in
> heliocentric space.

Assuming the malfunction didn't keep it from obeying such commands.

> The reactor could even be commanded to plung itself into the
> atmosphere of Venus or onto the ice caps of Mars.

Don't clutter up Venus or Mars with hot reactors!  First of all, there
may be someone on those planets (though it doesn't look much like it
now); even if not, *we* may want to use them!  Shoot it into the sun.
Anything that can live in the sun is hardly likely to mind, and if
there isn't anything living there I see no reason not to.  (Please, no
comments about "but there couldn't be anything living in the sun" (or
on Venus or Mars); I'm trying to keep an open mind, or if you prefer,
trying to cover even the near-impossible cases.)

					der Mouse

USA: {ihnp4,decvax,akgua,utzoo,etc}!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
     think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse
Europe: mcvax!decvax!utcsri!mcgill-vision!mouse
ARPAnet: think!mosart!mcgill-vision!mouse@harvard.harvard.edu

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

Date: 26 Jan 87 03:07:12 GMT
From: andrew.cmu.edu!postman#@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Walter Henry Roscello)
Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


	In Gary Allen's post on this subject, he mentioned that the space
fission plants could be aimed at Mars or Venus when they are useless.  Does
anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun?  Surely it can take care
of vaporizing anything we send there, and compared to it's mass, I can't see
how we could do it any harm.  Certainly it is better than littering the
landscape of other planets.

Walter Roscello
Carnegie Mellon University
wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 26 Jan 87 03:07:12 GMT
From: andrew.cmu.edu!postman#@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Walter Henry Roscello)
Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


	In Gary Allen's post on this subject, he mentioned that the space
fission plants could be aimed at Mars or Venus when they are useless.  Does
anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun?  Surely it can take care
of vaporizing anything we send there, and compared to it's mass, I can't see
how we could do it any harm.  Certainly it is better than littering the
landscape of other planets.

Walter Roscello
Carnegie Mellon University
wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu

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

Date: 25 Jan 87 04:38:33 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>  o  How do you persuade the existing space establishment to spend time and
>     energy, let alone money, on something radically different from the
>     standard technology?  ...

To put it bluntly, you don't, unless you have great patience and resources
and are willing to spend many years campaigning.  The only thing to do is
to try to build a new and (temporarily) more open-minded space program.
The key is not to fight for NASA to adopt it, but to fight to loosen the
rules and sweeten the market for private investment.  Multibillion-dollar
investments are not beyond private industry -- Boeing spent two billion
on the 757/767 development without even needing to take out a loan!

>  o  What are the factors which affect launch site selection?  Is this a
>     plus, like siting a factory or a government installlation, where local
>     governments fight over who gets it, or a minus, like a dump or a nuclear
>     waste site?  Cnsider the reaction of people who are going to have tons
>     of stuff flying over them on a regular basis.  Can they be convinced that
>     none of it will land on their heads?

Generally it's a plus, because range-safety requirements are normally taken
to preclude flying tons of stuff over populated areas on a regular basis.
This is why the rocket ranges are all in places where the normal launch paths
take the long-range stuff out over lots of empty ocean.  (The inland ranges
like White Sands are restricted to short-range rocketry and will hit the
"destruct" button if predicted impact point is outside the range boundary.)
Given that, the local governments can and do fight over launch sites (and
their support facilities -- surely you don't think it was an accident that
the Manned Spaceflight Center was in the home area of Lyndon Johnson, one
of NASA's strongest supporters?).

> o  What are the effects on the private enterprise aspects of space with a
>    launch technique this cheap available before the end of the century?
>    Will the people who want access to space even be able to use that much?

You betcha.  Look at it this way -- assuming the accelerations are not too
grossly prohibitive, $100/kg means it costs about $10,000 to put *me* into
orbit with a bit of support gear.  Load up my Visa, Mastercard, and personal
line of credit and clean out my chequing account, and I have enough. Tomorrow.
Well, tomorrow's Sunday.  Day after tomorrow, then.  Save worrying about
details like paying it back and eating for the rest of the month until I'm
back down.

No, I'm not kidding.  And that is a *big* market at those prices.  Is there
anyone reading this newsgroup who wouldn't mortgage their grandmother to go?
Most *cars* cost more than that now -- certainly the good ones do.

Tourism aside, a facility like that means that somebody who wants to try out
a new process in orbit doesn't need to sign joint agreements with NASA or
get in line for a shuttle flight in the year 1997 (maybe) -- he just goes up
and tries it out.  That's the difference between Columbus and ocean liners.

> ...  The whole subject is exciting because it looks
> like the first real alternative to chemical rockets which is technically
> feasible in the near future, and not banned by international treaty (nuclear
> rockets and Orion-type propulsion systems).

I agree that laser launchers are exciting, but I would note that nuclear
rockets are not banned by international treaty, although Orion-type ones
are.  There is nothing much wrong with ordinary nuclear rockets except that
off-the-shelf designs are not that much better than the really top chemical
rockets.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Jan 87 04:49:23 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ... Attach to the reactor core a long boom upon which you have
> radiator panels to dump waste heat.  On the end of this long boom, place
> a bit of shielding, a power coupling, and a whole bunch of ion engines...
> ...Since the reactor is self propelled, it
> could fly from one user to another and would almost always be in use.
> The reactor could also be used as a space tug for hauling freight
> between earth orbit and the moon or planets...

Alas, nuclear ion propulsion is not quite as attractive as you seem to
think.  Reactor weight really is a problem, and ion-engine technology is
not particularly good right now.  High exhaust velocity, the speciality
of ion engines, does not solve all problems -- the very low accelerations
introduce their own set of problems.  Note also that reactors tend to need
refuelling and other maintenance work with some frequency.

> ...In addition, no other power source has the
> power-to-weight ratio of nuclear fission...

Well, depends on what you mean by power source.  The attractive thing
about chemical rockets is that they pack ENORMOUS power outputs into very
small packages.  A Saturn V first stage weighed a few million pounds fully
fuelled, and its power output was something like 35 *gigawatts*.  A
nuclear power plant putting out *two* gigawatts is very big and awfully
heavy.

> A nuclear reactor would be more-or-less immune to sun induced radiation
> problems, most micro-meteorite impacts and large structure oscillations.
> The usual problems of radiation shielding and plant safety would be
> irrelevant with a space based reactor...

Mmm, don't forget that the control equipment, probably the ion engines,
and various other things will have to be shielded or they will have various
problems.  As for plant safety, consider that the SNAP-10A reactor -- the
only US nuclear reactor in orbit, about 20 years old -- has shed several
pieces of debris since it was shut down, and nobody has the faintest idea
what the debris is or why it is being shed.  It's not that simple.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 25 Jan 87 04:06:10 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> > ...Most chemical propellants
> >are chosen because of the volume of gases they produce when reacted.
> >This aluminothermic engine would trap most of the gas (oxygen) in the
> >oxide. 
> 
> Nearly all of the chemical fuels do trap most of there oxygen in
> the oxide during the burn.  

Yes, but their oxides are gaseous.  As soon as aluminum oxide condenses
from the gas, which it does pretty willingly even at very high temperatures,
it is no longer contributing pressure and expansion to accelerate the
exhaust jet.  Not that the idea isn't worth looking at, but I'm told it's
not nearly as attractive as it first seems.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #124
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13762; Wed, 4 Feb 87 03:02:49 PST
	id AA13762; Wed, 4 Feb 87 03:02:49 PST
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 03:02:49 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702041102.AA13762@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #125

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 4 Feb 87 03:02:49 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #125

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 125

Today's Topics:
		      space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? (LONG - ca 170 lines)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 87 03:31:36 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

[Well, better late than never... we'll see if I can catch up.]

[Recommended reading of the month:  Harry Stine's article in the Feb. issue
of Analog, in which he takes issue with NASA's wonderful new safety committee,
(on the grounds that the only well-proven rocket-safety system -- the Range
Safety organization used on all US rocket ranges, including KSC -- has very
good reasons for assigning final responsibility to *one* specific person)
and talks about how to *really* get the space program going again.]

House Appropriations Committee refuses approval of NASA-GeneralDynamics
commercialization agreement for Atlas-Centaur, citing concerns about inade-
quate reimbursement of the government for launch-site use.

Administration notifies Congress of intent to permit export of two Ford
Aerospace comsats to Japan, for eventual launch by Ariane.

China's Great Wall Industry Corp. (proprietors of the Long March boosters)
signs letter of intent to launch Iranian comsat on Long March 3.  GWIC again
assures overseas customers that China will admit spacecraft hardware without
customs inspection and will permit hardware owners to convey satellites to
the launch site themselves.

NASA enters FY1987 with record budget, $10.4G, up over 40% from FY1986.
NASA's near-insurmountable budget difficulties were resolved by the
diversion of $2.4G from DoD to finance the new orbiter.  Fletcher will
push to hold NASA's budget at $10G in subsequent years, which would help
a whole lot in recovering from the current sorry situation.

One selling point used to get Fletcher's approval of the new shuttle manifest
apparently was the historical inaccuracy of payload manifesting.  For over
20 years, NASA's launches in any given year have consistently flown about
70% of the payloads listed in the schedule as of the start of the year.  The
new manifest is probably not a very accurate reflection of what will really
happen.

Reagan and Gorbachev agreed in Iceland to resume full-scale cooperation in
civil space projects; detailed talks to start shortly.  First priority will
be renegotiating a broad cooperation agreement, replacing the one that the
US let lapse in 1982 over the Poland situation.  DoD, as usual, continues
to oppose broadly interpreted cooperative agreements on the ground that the
Soviets might ferret out crucial US technological data like the value of pi.

France, Germany, and ESA approve preliminary plans for Hermes project.  The
ESA members have until Nov 30 to pledge money for mission studies.  Decision
on full-scale Hermes development will be next year.

Soviet SL-6 booster, launching a Soviet missile-warning satellite on Oct 3,
has major failure, putting satellite in wrong orbit.  First failure in the
Soviet space program this year, 71 launches carrying 87 satellites so far.
Problem was a premature upper-stage shutdown during boost out of parking
orbit.  Twelve whole days later, on Oct 15, another SL-6 successfully
launches a replacement.  Next SL-6 launch on Oct 24, a Molniya comsat, also
successful.

What was to be the 5th US space launch of 1986 is scrubbed on Oct 10 when
the gyros of the Scout booster foul up about 5 hours before launch, putting
the launch of the Polar Beacon / Auroral Research satellite (USAF, Defense
Nuclear Agency, Johns Hopkins Applied Physics lab, USAF Geophysics lab) back
to early November at the soonest.

[If the comparison between the previous two paragraphs makes you feel sick,
join the club...   -- HS]

McDonnell Douglas plans new facility in Pueblo, Colo. for Delta assembly.
Engineering and project management will stay in California.

NASA task force on microgravity science, chaired by astronaut Bonnie Dunbar,
will evaluate state of US space materials-processing program and recommend
how to gear it up for Space Station operations.

ESA nears end of ground tests to sort out the Ariane third-stage-ignition
problems.  Decision on design changes in November.  More powerful multi-jet
igniter is likely.  Hope is to resume Ariane launches in the first 4-5 mos.
of 1987, aiming for seven launches in 1987, eight in 1988, nine in 1989.
Orders continue to come in, seven since the launch failure in May.  Inmarsat
signs for the launch of Inmarsat 2 F2, mid-1989 using Ariane 4.  Earlier
in October, Intelsat signed for Intelsat 6 F3 on Ariane 4 in late 1989.
RCA booked Satcom K-3 for Ariane 4 in 1989, and took out an option for the
1990 launch of Satcom K-4.  Satcom K-3 was one of the 44 payloads holding
firm contracts for Shuttle launches.

Soviet/French mid-1990s Vesta mission will provide info on at least five
different asteroids/comets during a five-year flight.  Two launches in
1994.  Main payloads will be Soviet Mars missions, but French-designed
asteroid/comet flyby probes will go along and will be released before
Mars-capture maneuvers.  The probes will each carry a Soviet penetrator
probe to return data from an asteroid landing.

Pan Am Pacific Satellite Corp. joins competition for linking South Pacific
island nations with satellite communications.  One of PanAmPacSat's owners
owns the retrieved Westar 6 satellite, which holds a special agreement
guaranteeing a Shuttle re-launch (although it wasn't in the new manifest).
However, PAPS is also talking to China about a Long March launch; there are
no openings in the Ariane manifest soon enough.

Hughes has a new comsat design, the HS 399, a relatively small and light
one for regional networks and developing nations.  It uses liquid-fuel
engines for both perigee and apogee propulsion, permitting test firing
of engines in orbit before perigee boost starts; the hope is that this
will cut insurance costs.

Letter from Capt. Robert G. Oler of Saudi Arabian airlines:  "You must have
a program [or] be a second-class power in space.  The US has had a faltering
one for several years and now has none at all.  There is none because, like
the Three Stooges, every 'player' in the US program is going his own way...
[all] clamoring for a new expendable launch vehicle.  Most seem to be based
on Titan technology, but like the shuttle, Titan is not flying.  Who wants
to put [their payload] on the first Titan 4...?"  "The subsidy issue is a
phony one... Without USAF funding it, there will be no new ELV.  Secretary
of the Air Force Edward C. Aldridge's claim that this is USAF paying its
'fair share' of shuttle recovery cost is blue smoke.  It's all taxpayers'
money he spends.  Why the shuttle had to pay its way, while others get
subsidized painlessly, is bizarre logic, particularly in light of USAF's
poor management of its manned-space assets.  Nothing illustrates this more
than the on-again/off-again saga of Space Launch Complex 6 at Vandenberg..."
"If the Russian tortoise is catching the US hare, as several space scientists
have clamored, they should examine how it is being done...  The Russians
have two manned space stations, a shuttle, a heavy-lift [launcher]...  That
they have a vigorous unmanned space program is a tribute to the funds they
spend.  Many in the US will be debating manned spaceflight for the rest of
the century, with the Russians advocating it from orbit...  The 'everyone-
make-your-own-booster-or-program' approach guarantees there will be none.
Ariane and other foreign launchers will fly US birds into space.  The US
station will stay on [paper], and freedom-loving people will stay on Earth
or ride with the Soviets.  Hard to believe the US put the first men on
the moon -- but back then we had a plan; we don't now."
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 24 Jan 87 17:39:29 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!csrdi@seismo.css.gov  (ECTU68 R Innis CS)
Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind? (LONG - ca 170 lines)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

This article is not entirely about issues of space travel. However, the
articles to which it is a followup appear in sci.space, and since it is
in keeping at least with the spirit of the originals, I've sent it in.

Flames by e-mail only, please....

In article <965670.870116.KFL@MX.LCS.MIT.EDU> ("Keith F. Lynch") writes, in
reply to Robert Maas' reply to his reply to Robert's original article:
>
#Robert:
>            Why shouldn't we make investments that will benefit all of
>            mankind?
>
#Keith
>        Because such investments don't benefit us.  If they do, then perhaps
>        they should be made.  But for that reason only.  Not because of any
>        benefit which accrues to anyone else.
>
#Robert:
>    WRONG. We are part of mankind.
>
#Keith:
>  So?  We are also part of a family, a county, a state, a country, a
>continent, a hemisphere, animal life, all life, all matter, and all
>mass-energy.  Do we have some responsibilty based on each of these
>inclusions?
>

YES. Keith, you make an awful lot out of the issue of the individual's freedom.
I submit that freedom is a privilege, not a right, and it is a privilege earned
only by accepting the responsibilities we face as part of an organised society.

>
#Robert:
>    If an investment benefits both the world at large and the investors,
>    then it is worthwhile (providing of course the payback is greater
>    than the investment).
>
#Keith:
>  If it benefits the investors, it is worthwhile.  They need take no
>account of the world.

fer shure....if it benefits me to invest my time and money in hijacking a
lorry carrying nuclear warheads from a naval base to an armoury, so I can
make myself a nuclear weapon of my very own, which I can then use to extort
a few million out of some organisation, then it's worthwhile.

(Don't laugh - it could happen too easily).

I defy you to refute that argument. Under your sort of world view, terrorism
seems to be a worthwhile investment.

#Keith:
>  Are you proposing some authority which would check all proposed
>investments and forbid those which did not benefit the world?  Or
>are you saying that everyone should voluntarily behave like that?
>What is to be done with those who don't?

Those who are able to recognise their social responsibilities will be able to
behave in such a way, voluntarily. We'll just have to tolerate those who don't,
and hope they manage to breed themselves out of existence without taking the 
rest of us with them.

#Robert:
>    It is our national taxbase that pays for our national welfare system,
>    so it is our national citizenry that should maximize its benefits,
>    ignoring whether others benefit or not.
>
#Keith:
>  Right.  Of course one could reason similarly on the state level,
>the county level, on down to the individual.  From which one could
>conclude that there shouldn't be a welfare system at all. 

Local taxbase pays for local welfare benefits? Why not? But if there is a 
distinction between what constitutes 'local benefits' and what constitutes
'national benefits', then it makes sense. Less money spent at high levels,
more at low levels.

#Keith:
> If one decides there should be, the question remains, why shouldn't everyone
>in the world be eligible?  If you say because they don't pay the
>taxes that support it, I would point out that neither do the welfare
>recipients in our own country.

But they almost certainly have, in their previous existance as tax-payers.

#Keith:
>  To sum up, there is no investment which government can make which
>individuals cannot voluntarily make, government investments tend to
>be buy less at a higher price than private investments, since taxation
>is theft government cannot morally get any money to make any
>investments in any case, free individuals differ on which investments
>are urgently needed, and nobody has the right to compell others to
>invest according to his own ideas of what is urgently needed.
>								...Keith
Wrong on almost every point:

INDIVIDUALS (except extremely rich ones) cannot match the sort of investment
which a goverment can bring to bear. 

Government investments *can* be as efficient as private investments (British 
Telecom, which was making money hand over fist even under Labour governments).

Taxation is not theft: a government provides certain facilities for its
citizens which would not otherwise be provided, or would not be provided at
such a cost that all could enjoy the benefits, or indeed *should* not be 
provided by other means. (National defence, f'rinstance). It is only fair that
the cost of providing such services be borne collectively.

Free individuals do differ in their opinions. That's one of their privileges in
being free. They should also be able to accept that their opinions may not be 
shared by the majority of their co-members of society, and that the consensus
reached by society regarding what investments are and aren't urgently needed 
may result in priorities very different from theirs. 

Granted, "nobody has the right to compell others to invest according to his own 
ideas of what is urgently needed." Likewise, however, nobody has the right "to 
invest according to his own ideas of what is urgently needed", if in so doing 
he will adversely affect his fellow members of society. To do so suggests an 
extremely self-centred view of reality, and in doing so the individual 
demonstrates his lack of respect for the society of which he is part, and
abdicates all responsibilty for the effect of his actions upon it. This is
*not* a way in which I imagine rational creatures to behave.

Excuse the length of this contribution, and its near-total irrelevancy to space
issues. I'll now add a few comments pertaining to the original subject of these
articles.

It is only sensible that we (the human race) should invest in developing
space travel.  This planet *is* finite, it's resources *are* running low, and
it is only able to support a limited number of people. We may not be anywhere
near the limit which it can support; ideally, we shouldn't have to get near it
before thinking about moving on somewhere else.

However, such development can only take place with massive expenditure. Since
some of us have more appropriate resources to devote to such development, it
makes sense that we should do so - preferably in co-operation rather than
competition. 

When developments are taking place at this level, it becomes increasingly
difficult to distinguish the investors from "the rest of the world". The
dedication of sizable quantities of some nations resources to, say, a space
programme, means that other areas in which they might otherwise have been able
to satisfy their own needs are instead satisfied by the activities of others.
For indirectly supporting our programme, we owe these others some of the fruits
of our success.

In short: as rational beings, we have certain rights. We must not forget that
in possessing these rights, we incur responsibilities to that which enables us
to possess such rights in the first place. This link between rights and 
responsibilities occurs at all levels - individual, collective, global and
all points between and beyond.

	--Rick Innis

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #125
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16473; Thu, 5 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST
	id AA16473; Thu, 5 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 87 03:02:55 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702051102.AA16473@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #126

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 126

Today's Topics:
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
	 Re: How many shuttles can orbit at once? (and more)
		      Re: Laser Launched Rockets
	       Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
		     Re: nuclear fission in space
			     mars mission
			   Re: mars mission
		      Re: Laser Launched Rockets
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jan 87 05:04:59 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>  - you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay?

So avoid orbits subject to serious decay.  Skylab was not a case of an
orbit suddenly "starting to decay", it was a case of miscalculating the
rate of decay by a relatively modest amount.  (Nobody thought Skylab
would stay up to the year 2000 unaided -- a reboost by the Shuttle was
in the plans from the very beginning, and would have happened had the
Shuttle been funded well enough to stay on schedule.)  Besides, as many
people have pointed out, satellites falling out of orbit are not a
symptom of an active space program, they are a symptom of a
half-paralyzed space program.  If the thing's orbit starts to decay, you
don't sit around wringing your hands in anguish, you go up and reboost
it.

>	- your solid boosters fail on launch and start rocketing the
>	payload toward (say) Miami?  What do you do about the
>	contaminated areas of Florida when the RSO destroys the launch
>	vehicle?

Let us not let our paranoia run away with us.  As the man pointed out, a
nuclear reactor is not particularly hazardous before it starts
operation.  The Soviets have lost *at least* one nuclear reactor into
the ocean due to launch failures in their radar-satellite program; no
serious damage done.  If you're feeling fussy, insist that the reactor
use uranium rather than plutonium, although it probably would anyway.  A
manageable problem.

>	- some part in the ion engines or the guidance system fails and
>	starts the reactor heading toward impact in New York or Moscow?

Since it will take several months to get there in the sort of orbits an
ion-propelled spacecraft can fly, you go up and fix it long before it
gets far off course.

> Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous.  Moving it into space
> isn't a cure-all.

Let's face it, everything is dangerous, and just how much depends on
what assumptions you make.  If you make silly assumptions, you get silly
answers.  The idea does not strike me as particular wonderful, but it's
not obviously ridiculous either.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 24 Jan 87 20:03:54 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: Re: How many shuttles can orbit at once? (and more)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>From: cdaf@iuvax.UUCP (Charles Daffinger)
>Date: 18 Jan 87 22:28:20 GMT
>
>Should the need arise, either for rescue or for convenience of a
>hypothetical mission, is NASA capable of tracking and maintaining two
>or more shuttles in orbit at the same time?

>-charles

I checked all (over 50) articles for a followup (none)-- geez folks...

At this time no.

1st, the major constraint is that LH2 stores at Kennedy are only enough
for a single launch.  This assumes you do not do something radical like
use VAFB on a rescue mission.  It takes about a week to replenish them.

We did have two Gemini missions up in the 60s when there were more
tracking stations (something like 22), but now there are less.  This
placed a big strain on facilities designed for one mission.  This needs
to change for the future.

Anything can go (given time).

On a different note.  We held the first NASA Unix Users Group (I thought
of a name: NUDGE) meeting at Usenix over two evening, talk about
bureaucratic... Anyway, you will be able to seen other NASA people
answer questions like this [refreshing] in the future.  It's been about
8 years of pushing to get it out of the dark ages of computing.  I've
received two complaints (quite a contrast) in recent days about
postings.  Just to keep you informed.  Again, please people, reply using
mail rather than follow ups.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

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

Date: 25 Jan 87 04:54:03 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Considering the obvious potential here, I wonder why yet another
> federal study is needed for this thing. If there is as much money
> to be made in space as people like Heppenheimer claim, then why
> isn't some venture capitalist sinking some bucks into the thing?
> NASA obviously isn't interested, since the technology is too far
> away from the conventional.

Can you say "risk and uncertainty"?  Sure you can.  Especially when the
time comes to ask for independent expert advice about the feasibility of
the idea.  Who does a venture capitalist ask about the feasibility of
space-launch ideas?  You guessed it:  NASA.

That nasty little problem is one that a lot of commercial-space-launch
types are facing nowadays.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 23 Jan 87 16:56:05 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!mirror!cca!lmi-angel!wsr@husc6.harvard.edu  (Wolfgang Rupprecht)
Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <> andrew@cadomin.UUCP (Andrew Folkins) writes:
>There's one interesting quote in the article, made by the pilot of the
>flight that set the World Absolute Closed Circuit Speed Record over a
>1000 km course (2092 mph) : "The airplane flies best at maximum speed,
>and doesn't seem to be really happy at any speed under Mach 3.0.
>Because of the way the inlet system is designed, after accelerating
>past Mach 3.0, it just wants to keep on accelerating, so the pilot has
>to continually reduce power and climb to maintain his programmed
>speed."

>I'd really like to see the *classified* performance stats on this
>plane.  They are probably truly impressive. 120,000 feet and Mach 5.0
>anyone?

I've always wondered if you could get get a rough idea of its top
speed by measuring the angle on the intake cones on the engines. One
would assume that they would be designed for best efficiency at max
speed. Now, I'm not sure about the angle that would really be picked
for best efficiency, but I assume that you would want the shock wave to 
propagate outward at the same rate that the cone gets larger at. Ie.

	Vsound / Vplane = tangent (cone_half_angle) 

Does anyone with real aero knowledge know if this analysis works? 

Wolfgang Rupprecht	{harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr

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

Date: 26 Jan 87 16:27:43 GMT
From: columbia!lexington.columbia.edu!polish@seismo.css.gov  (Nathaniel Polish)
Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu (Walter Henry Roscello) writes:

>	In Gary Allen's post on this subject, he mentioned that the
>space fission plants could be aimed at Mars or Venus when they are
>useless.  Does anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun?
>Surely it can take care of vaporizing anything we send there, and
>compared to it's mass, I can't see how we could do it any harm.
>Certainly it is better than littering the landscape of other planets.

>Walter Roscello
>Carnegie Mellon University
>wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu

Sending things to the Sun is in fact much harder than you might think.
A ballistic trajectory from the Earth to the Sun requires an enormous
amount of energy.  Remember that you have to counter the orbital
momentum of the Earth before the garbage will fall to the Sun.  Since
there is almost no friction the orbit will not decay.  If you just
reduce the orbital momentum a little, the garbage will settle into a
lower orbit.  Mars and Earth have similar orbital momenta so it is a bit
easier to get there.  Actually deep space disposal of garbage strikes me
as a very bad idea.  Infinite garbage cans are as much a myth in space
as on Earth.

Nat Polish@columbia.edu

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

Date: 26 Jan 87 21:16:53 GMT
From: dayton!umn-cs!stolaf!swansonc@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Christopher D. Swanson)
Subject: mars mission
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

	Just to bring it to everybody's attention, NASA is trying to
cancel the 1990 mars observer mission.  This mission was was approved by
Congress more than two years ago.  This is the second time that NASA has
tried to cancel this mission.
	The observer mission is America's only planned mission to Mars.
It is also the only real mission we have commited to the joint
Soviet-American space information sharing agreement.
	If NASA postpones this operation it will cost an additional $100
million.
	This mission can be launched either from an orbiter or from a
Titan 3, so the problems with the shuttle could not be the reason.
	The Planetary Society sugests that letters should be sent to
Congress as well as NASA.

Chris Swanson
Academic Computer Center,		inhp4!stolaf!swansonc
St. Olaf College, 
Northfield MN, 55057

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 08:51:21 GMT
From: news@csvax.caltech.edu  (Usenet netnews)
Subject: Re: mars mission
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <22@stolaf.UUCP> swansonc@stolaf.UUCP (Christopher D. Swanson) writes:
>
>	Just to bring it to everybody's attention, NASA is trying to
>cancel the 1990 mars observer mission.  This mission was was approved
>by Congress more than two years ago.  This is the second time that NASA
>has tried to cancel this mission.  ...
>	This mission can be launched either from an orbiter or from a
>Titan 3, so the problems with the shuttle could not be the reason.
>	The Planetary Society sugests that letters should be sent to
>Congress as well as NASA.

	In fact, problems with the shuttle CAN be the reason. Where is
the Titan/(Centaur, IUS) we're supposed to launch MO with? Equally,
where's the money to pay for it? Certainly not in the planetary budget.
 
There are a limited number of planetary & scientific launch slots in the
89-90 time frame. This is a combination of infrequent launch windows and
the few shuttle flights being dominated by catching up on the military
manifest. So what do we slip instead?

	Galileo - by 1989, 7 years past the original launch date, with
		RTG decay becoming a serious concern. Especially when
		added to the 6 year (aack, how disgusting) VEEGA 
		trajectory now planned.

	Ulysses - also way overdue, and slipping it further is a fine 
		way to antagonize ESA. Especially after we backed out 
		of our half of the mission.

	ST - perhaps a case could be made for trading an ST launch with
		MO. But the scientific return from ST seems to be far
		greater to me, and starts soon after launch.
		And it should have been up by now also.

	Magellan - this project started before MO and so should get 
		priority. Unless you're a Mars fanatic like Sagan.

	Fairness seems to dictate MO slips. Sadness. Perhaps
a Proton launch could be arranged, however. The Soviets seem eager to
sell us launch services, and it would certainly add a new aspect to the
agreement (we build 'em - you launch 'em). Not that I think this is a 
good idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Planetary Society comes
out in favor of it. 

	Sure, it would be nice to bump a military payload. But it is NOT
going to happen. Now, a type of lobbying that might really pay off is to
convince Reagan and/or Congress to go along with Fletcher's request to
keep NASA funding at the current level (inflated for shuttle recovery).
Another productive avenue is to push for adoption of the Commercial
Space Incentives Act (see Stine's column in the current Analog), so the
NEXT time shuttle is down, we aren't confronted with a lack of launch
vehicles.

	Just my opinions.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 03:15:56 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Cohen)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <823@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU
(David desJardins) writes:
>
>The problem is that you need (I presume?) a reentry vehicle, which
>means that you multiply that mass figure by a factor of 100 or more.
>$10K one way, but $1M if you want the round trip.

I don't see why the rentry vehicle needs to be so expensive.  First,
reuse the capsule you went up in.  It needs to carry a heat shield for
rentry and a parachute, and perhaps spring-loaded legs for landing on
hard ground.  Remember that Russian spacecraft have been landing on
solid ground for decades.

Get the rentry burn and the guidance the same way you went up also:
refuel the capsule (you won't need as much fuel going down, the Earth
loves you and wants to bring you closer), and aim the laser on the
ground at the spacecraft.  This obviously works in LEO, since your
perigee isn't much higher than the altitude you had at thrust cutoff,
and you can be in sight of the laser at perigee if you time things
right.  If you want to come down from a higher orbit, you may have to
have someone give you a push to enter a low-perigee transfer ellipse
which brings you within range of the laser.

Come to think of it, you might be able to land under thrust at the laser
site, rather than by parachute.

It looks to me like the round trip might cost four or five times the
one-way, but hardly 100 times.  The biggest expense is probably the
heat-shield, if it is a one-time-use item.  By the way, the problem of
being within line-of-sight of the laser for rentry and return guidance
is a good argument for having more than one laser installation at widely
separated locations.

Bruce Cohen
tektronix!orca!brucec
M/S 61-028, Tektronix, Inc.,  Wilsonville, OR 97070
(503) 685-2439

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #126
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21156; Fri, 6 Feb 87 03:02:51 PST
	id AA21156; Fri, 6 Feb 87 03:02:51 PST
Date: Fri, 6 Feb 87 03:02:51 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702061102.AA21156@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #127

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 127

Today's Topics:
			 Fast shuttle launch
		  Keith Lynch'es economic arguments
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
		     Re: nuclear fission in space
		     government coverups of UFOs
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
		      Re: Laser Launched Rockets
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
		   Re: government coverups of UFOs
			   Re: mars mission
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Jan 87 19:43:45 GMT
From: cas@cvl.umd.edu  (Dr. Cliff Shaffer)
Subject: Fast shuttle launch
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

OK, while we are speculating about NASA's capabilities in an
emergency, try this one.

Suppose the Russians stranded a crew in space, or all our spy
satellites went blinko, or perhaps The Comet is coming our way (or
whatever emergency scenario you like).  How long would it take
to get a shuttle into space, starting today, if no expense or risk
were spared?
	Cliff Shaffer
	...!cvl!cas
	cas@cvl.umd.edu

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

Date: Tue, 27 Jan 87 13:03:46 pst
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Keith Lynch'es economic arguments

I have just finished reading Keith's response to Robert Mass, and would
like to add one economic point, and a comment:

First, regarding pollution and its control, and the related issue of
conservation of resources - it is relatively easy to show that the
assignment of property rights and a cost to pollution will result in the
"best" control of pollution. (Best meaning the most efficient attainment
of a given total pollution level...)  The place of the committee
mentioned would be to assign the cost or price of pollution output (eg,
5$ per 3ppm of NOx...), and allow simple supply and demand theory to
work (this leaves people with the decision to trade off the cost of
producing pollution against their other desires - the more they pollute,
the less they can afford of their other desires...)  It has been tried
in practice, and works very well - better in fact than most of the
systems that we have in general use today... (If you are interested,
send me mail direct with LOTS of return address information, and I will
send you some references.)

Next: Keith's arguments are made from a free market economic viewpoint.
Is there anyone on the net who could make the same arguments from a
Marxist economic system's viewpoint.  (This is not a challenge - what I
would like to know is is there a reason for a purely Marxist economy to
invest in space {ie, what would the USSR - if purely Marxist and not in
competition with the USA - do on its own?})

					Eric Hildum

		Preferred:	dehildum@ucdavis	(BITNET)
		Otherwise:	hildum%ucd@relay.cs.net

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 20:25:43 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

in article <822@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) says:
% ...
%    A nitpick:  I think it is incorrect to describe the Range Safety system
% as well-proven.  It failed badly in the Challenger accident.  The boosters
% were destroyed despite the fact that they were no threat to any land area.
% This is an understandable failure, and should cause no great consternation,
% but it is nevertheless a failure of the system.
% 
%    -- David desJardins

If I remember the testimony in the Challenger accident report, the range
safety officer let the solids fly until one of them started to turn
back towards land.  At that point he hit the big red button.  There
was some difficulty interpreting the radar information in real time.
I'll have to go look it up again, and make sure I remember it
correctly.

			-Ed Post
-- 
Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp
American Information Technology    (408)252-8713

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 20:40:26 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

in article <MS.V3.18.wr0m.80020d05.allisonpark.ibm032.1632.1@andrew.cmu.edu>, wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu (Walter Henry Roscello) says:
> 
> In Gary Allen's post on this subject, he mentioned that the space
> fission plants could be aimed at Mars or Venus when they are useless.
> Does anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun?

In order to send something directly into the sun, its orbital velocity
has to be killed relative to the sun.  If I remember correctly, earth's
orbital velocity is on the order of 17 miles/sec.  The satellite is
presumably in a low earth orbit, at about 5 miles/sec relative to the
earth.  You would have to supply on the order of twice that delta-vee to
stop the reactor in space and let it fall into the sun.

On the other hand, a gravity-whip orbit past Venus or the moon might
do the trick at considerably less energy.  The rock bottom case is
that you must supply enough energy to move from LEO out of the Earth's
gravity well.  This takes about 2 miles/sec delta-vee.  That's an
awful lot of propellant to sit around doing nothing while your reactor
is working.

-- 
Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp
American Information Technology    (408)252-8713

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 18:19:59 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!rjp1@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Pietkivitch)
Subject: government coverups of UFOs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate
of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon?  I
remember hearing on the radio (several years back) that someone had
discovered a crashed UFO (in the USA) and that alien bodies were
recovered from it.  This was on the national news and was not some
trick or prank by the local DJ.  Then just the other night, I heard
someone from the Aetherius Society (sp?) (of Calif) in an interview on
WLS radio, AM-89, talking about this same event and about UFOs in
general.  I didn't hear the entire discussion (sleep overtook me).
Thus, the posting.  You may E-mail your response, or post to sci.space.

Thanks in advance.

Bob Pietkivitch   (..!ihnp4!ihlpa!rjp1)

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

Date: 28 Jan 87 08:42:10 GMT
From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <437@lewey.AIT.COM> evp@lewey.AIT.COM (Ed Post) writes:
>If I remember the testimony in the Challenger accident report, the
>range safety officer let the solids fly until one of them started to
>turn back towards land.  At that point he hit the big red button.
>There was some difficulty interpreting the radar information in real
>time.

   This last sentence is the key.  Certainly no one could blame the RSO
for his decision.  He was placed in a situation where it was essentially
impossible to analyze all of the incoming data in real time and, quite
naturally, made the decision with small cost rather than the one with
extremely large potential cost.  Any of us would do the same.
   But the point, nevertheless, is that the system did *not* function
optimally.  Later analysis makes it seem almost certain that the SRBs
were no threat to land, and certain that they could safely have been
detonated at a substantially later time if they did indeed begin to
pose a threat.  Detonation was not the correct decision.
   The original posting claimed that systems which give one individual
ultimate responsibility work best, and gave the RSS as an example.  It
should be obvious that the RSS is an example of acceptable performance,
but certainly not one of optimal performance.
   Could the system work better?  Obviously an expenditure on better
real-time information gathering, analysis, and prediction would have
*some* benefit.  But it certainly is not clear that such an expenditure
is justified.  I doubt that it is unless such a system would be useful
in other ways (which seems possible).

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 19:54:55 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> >You betcha.  Look at it this way -- assuming the accelerations are
> >not too grossly prohibitive, $100/kg means it costs about $10,000 to
> >put *me* into orbit with a bit of support gear.  Load up my Visa,
> >Mastercard, and personal line of credit and clean out my chequing
> >account, and I have enough. Tomorrow.
> 
> The problem is that you need (I presume?) a reentry vehicle, which
> means that you multiply that mass figure by a factor of 100 or more.
> $10K one way, but $1M if you want the round trip.

I do need a reentry vehicle, but that does not mean multiplying the mass
figure by a factor of 100 or more.  Why should a reentry vehicle weigh
ten tons?  Look at some of the proposals for one-man space-rescue
systems -- they weigh less than the occupant.  All you really need is a
few centimeters of heat-shield, retrorockets, and some bits of guidance,
life support, and parachutes.  I was assuming a multi-person vehicle in
which some of the weight could be amortized over several passengers, too.
I should probably have assumed, say, 100% overhead rather than the much
smaller percentage I used; that means circa $20K and I have to save up a
bit rather than being able to go yesterday.  Grr.  But I could manage it.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 19:40:02 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> A nitpick: I think it is incorrect to describe the Range Safety system
> as well-proven.  It failed badly in the Challenger accident.  The
> boosters were destroyed despite the fact that they were no threat to
> any land area.  This is an understandable failure, and should cause no
> great consternation, but it is nevertheless a failure of the system.

I fear I must disagree.  The purpose of the Range Safety system is
safety, not preservation of hardware.  This DEMANDS that doubtful
situations be resolved in favor of destruction, and that in turn implies
that once in a while there will be an unnecessary destruct command.
This is an inherent consequence of the system, not a failure in it.  It
is regrettable that it happened in a case where it would have been
useful to have the boosters intact, but the system functioned properly
(although over-conservatively, in hindsight) and did not fail.

One thing Stine cited as a key feature of the RS system is that the
Safety Officer's decision is FINAL and he cannot be disciplined for
pushing the button under circumstances where later analysis shows it was
unnecessary.  (Or under circumstances where it offends people.  Stine
cites a case where, as Range Safety Officer at White Sands, he told an
important and powerful scientist that high-altitude winds made a
sounding-rocket launch unsafe.  The scientist said he was running out of
time and budget, and the launch would proceed.  Stine said he would push
the button the instant the rocket cleared the tower.  The scientist
launched anyway.  Bang.)  (The point to the story is that this did NOT
require great courage on his part, since as the Safety Officer, he was
immune to repercussions.)
			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 28 Jan 87 06:34:46 GMT
From: jade!ruby.berkeley.edu!jelkind@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (The Vermicious Knidd)
Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2799@ihlpa.UUCP> rjp1@ihlpa.UUCP (Pietkivitch) writes:
>Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate
>of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon? 

>Bob Pietkivitch   (..!ihnp4!ihlpa!rjp1)

It's mind control, mostly.  Although one of the tabloids (I think the
"Weekly World News") has managed to break the story that the aliens have
in fact already invaded, none of the invading aliens mind too much since
no one REALLY believes what they read in the Weekly World News anyway.
But the aliens have been keeping most of the world's major leaders under
tight mind control so that they quash, deny, or cover up any of the
evidence that the aliens are here.  Actually, many of the world's
leaders ARE aliens from outer space and just use their mind-control
powers to make their populaces believe that there are no aliens.

You may be wondering why I'm telling you this and how I know it.  Well,
since we'll be taking over next week anyway, I figured the readers of
the net might as well be the first to know.

				"The Vermicious Knidd"
				(Actually D'thomas from the planet
						absorbitron)

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

Date: 28 Jan 87 08:51:01 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: Re: mars mission
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>swansonc@stolaf.UUCP (Christopher D. Swanson)
>
>Just to bring it to everybody's attention, NASA is trying to cancel the
>1990 mars observer mission.  This mission was was approved by Congress
>more than two years ago.  This is the second time that NASA has tried
>to cancel this mission.  Chris Swanson

No, NASA as a whole is not trying to cancel this mission.  Maybe certain
elements in NASA are trying to get it deferred.  On a more philosophical
level, I side with unmanned planetary missions {I realize the role of
man in space: because we need the bucks}, but we get more real science
from unmanned missions <certainly open to debate, actually I should ask
Von Eshelman at SU for his SJ Merc editorial for posting since he's on
the ARPAnet>.  THE POINT is there are many supporters of a Mars Orbiter
mission in NASA.  DO WRITE LETTERS, but not just to NASA: this will
mostly fall onto the ears of the converted.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #127
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22873; Sat, 7 Feb 87 03:02:18 PST
	id AA22873; Sat, 7 Feb 87 03:02:18 PST
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 87 03:02:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702071102.AA22873@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #128

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 7 Feb 87 03:02:18 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #128

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 128

Today's Topics:
		 Apollo only left a few rocks behind!
			   Re: mars mission
			Laser Launched Rockets
				 TAU
		      In defense of Chuck Yeager
			 Re: Nuclear engines
			   Re: mars mission
	       Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
			      SR71 info
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 28 Jan 87 12:17:04 PST
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
To: ucbvax!s1-b.arpa!SPACE
Subject: Apollo only left a few rocks behind!

> So far, government has given us the Apollo program, which has left us
> no worthwhile technology, no space infrastructure, no launch system,
> and has served mainly to "prove" to people that space exploration
> costs billions of dollars and produces nothing but a few common rocks
> similar to those found on Earth and some pretty pictures that
> Hollywood could have done better.

The experience gained in the Apollo project has had many direct and
indirect benefits.  The hydrogen/oxygen engine technology from Apollo
has led us to the current Space Shuttle Main Engine, a high-effeciency
reusable engine.  Some of the subsystems on Apollo (life support, fuel
cells, etc) have also carried over in an improved form in the Shuttle.
Apollo technology made Skylab possible, gaining us valuable experience
in space station design and operations.  It also allowed us to
participate in the Apollo-Soyuz flight.  The infrastucture left behind
by Apollo was on the ground: the many facilities of the contractors and
NASA centers, and the two main space centers, Johnson and Kennedy.  In
particular, the VAB and the Pad 39 complex are still very much in use.
The knowledge gained by Apollo about the moon has taken many years to
analyze, and has only recently began to affect current theory.  The
direct benefits of this knowledge may not be seen for many more years.

The indirect benefits from the space program during the Apollo years can
be found in the many issues of NASA Spinoffs, which detail the
industrial, medical and scientific uses of Apollo technology.

I agree in part with the above opinion of the Apollo project as a whole,
which seemed to be a dead end in space development.  The last three
Apollo moon flights were cancelled, and many of the more ambitious plans
after Apollo were ignored.  If we still had the industrial base to
produce Saturn-class boosters, I'm sure they would come in handy right
now.

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

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

Date: 28 Jan 87 18:25:07 GMT
From: pyramid!amdahl!drivax!holloway@decwrl.dec.com  (Bruce Holloway)
Subject: Re: mars mission
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1614@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.UUCP (Jon Leech) writes:
#	Fairness seems to dictate MO slips. Sadness. Perhaps
#a Proton launch could be arranged, however. The Soviets seem eager to
#sell us launch services, and it would certainly add a new aspect to the
#agreement (we build 'em - you launch 'em). Not that I think this is a 
#good idea, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Planetary Society comes
#out in favor of it. 

I'd go for it. Not much chance of military missions being sent up via
other space agencies, so our scientific packages would get up on some
reasonable schedule.

Just because we don't have a working space program doesn't mean
everything has to just up and stop, right?

....!ucbvax!hplabs!amdahl!drivax!holloway

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 06:19:26 GMT
From: decvax!linus!axiom!adelie!necntc!cullvax!drw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dale Worley)
Subject: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> >  o  How do you persuade the existing space establishment to spend time and
> >     energy, let alone money, on something radically different from the
> >     standard technology?  ...
> 
> Multibillion-dollar
> investments are not beyond private industry -- Boeing spent two billion
> on the 757/767 development without even needing to take out a loan!

General Dynamics (I believe) was going to build a fleet of
nuclear-powered submarine LNG carriers to take LNG from the Alaska North
Slope to Northern Europe (over the pole).  The price tag was supposed to
be around $30G, which they seemed to have no doubt that they could
raise.  The whole thing was canned when the price of oil went way down.
Figure out how to turn a profit in space and things should really start
to move!

Dale
-- 
Dale Worley		Cullinet Software
UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!cullvax!drw
ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu

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

Date: 28 Jan 87 01:52:38 GMT
From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: TAU
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I saw something in the paper today about a probe planned to be launched
around 2005, intended to cruise out to about 1000 AU to get a good
baseline for parallax measurement.  The article made it sound as if the
expected cruise time would be in the scores of years range.

This is a nifty idea, but there are aspects about it that bother me.
The main problem is that it is likely that, while the probe is still
heading out to its operational distance, a more effective drive will be
developed--say something along the lines of a portable fusion plant.
The probe could be obsolete before it ever gets used (well, maybe not
obsolete, but fusion ought to give us exhaust velocities on the order of
10%c--it shouldn't be too difficult to make a probe that would hit 1%c.
That would cut the transit time down to two years or so.  So you get the
situation that if you wait for a few more years to build the probe, you
get your data back sooner).

On the other hand, postponing something like this isn't really a good
idea--if we decide to wait a few more years until interplanetary drive
systems become a bit more mature, we might end up waiting indefinately
to launch the device (especially if congress gets the idea that
postponing the implementation of an expensive project is good--that it
will get better data back sooner.  That sounds to me like a good recipe
for getting the space research budget axed altogether).


david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 23:04:52 GMT
From: pesnta!valid!jao@hplabs.hp.com  (John Oswalt)
Subject: In defense of Chuck Yeager
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

re: 
> (not an exact quote): "What's so great about it? It's like adding extra
> fuel tanks to a plane."

Chuck Yeager is not the type to say "Gosh gee golly-willickers! Wow,
that was really something!".  He as always been one to belittle
accomplishments.  Break the sound barrier? "Ah, shucks," says Chuck,
"'twernt nothin'".  The point is that just because he said "What's so
great about it?" doesn't mean that he didn't think it was great, it's
just that saying so isn't his style.

Now, the reason he has received so much flack from his comments is that,
since the movie "The Right Stuff", he has become too famous for his own
good.  Maybe it's gone to his head and he's less self- depredating than
he used to be.  Its certainly gone to his agent's head.  Famous people
are envied, and envied people cannot get away with belittling others.

But honestly, I think that General Yeager's comments were just the old
country boy showing through.  He knows the technical problems overcome
by Voyager better than most people, and can appreciate what a feat it was.
His sin is just a lack of PR-savvy.  Fortunately for him, he never cared
much about what the public thought about him, and I doubt he's missing
any sleep because of this incident.

-- 
John Oswalt (..!amdcad!amd!pesnta!valid!jao)

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

Date: 29 Jan 1987 13:18-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Nuclear engines
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Thu, 29 Jan 87 03:16:44 PST

For those interested in nuclear powered anything, please read the
article about Dr. Moglich in this month's OMNI. Fascinating. And
absolutely clean.

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 22:27:17 GMT
From: elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!chas2!carlos@csvax.caltech.edu  (Carlos Carrion)
Subject: Re: mars mission
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <22@stolaf.UUCP> swansonc@stolaf.UUCP (Christopher D. Swanson) writes:
>	Just to bring it to everybody's attention,  NASA is trying to cancel 
>the 1990 mars observer mission...

Almost right.  NASA is proposing to POSTPONE the launch date from 1990
to 1992.  The Mars Observer Project Science Group (those responsible for
assuring the greatest science return from the mission) is very much
opposed to it.  They will make their opinions known, no doubt.  But
unfortunately, it looks gloomy for a 1990 launch.  I suppose letters to
NASA and Congress couldn't hurt.  Public opinion can be very powerful.

---> ...cit-vax!elroy!smeagol!jplgodo!chas2!carlos
Carlos Carrion
Mars Observer Project
Jet Propulsion Laboratory MS 233/208, 4800 Oak Grove Drive, Pasadena, CA 91109

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

Date: 29 Jan 87 23:35:19 GMT
From: hpda!hpihoah!hpisof0!campbelr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Campbell)
Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record (SR71 info)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

You could not tell the top speed from the cones angle.  The spikes move
in and out to adjust the shock at different speeds.  If you knew the
cones maximum displacement it would make for an interesting calculation.

Also the top speed may not have much meaning.  The SR-71 was built to
cruise at about mach 3.  While I am sure it can go faster, it would be
less efficient and not be able go as far or long.

In my aero/astro classes at Purdue there was a visitor from the
Skunkworks (Lockheed) who was asked how fast it *really* was . . .

Q:  Will it go mach 4?
A:  I'm sorry, that information is classified.
Q:  Mach 5?
A:  I can't say.
Q:  Mach 6?
A:  I cannot discuss classified information.
Q:  Mach 8?
A:  I'm sorry . . .
Q:  Mach ten???
A:  Son, nothing goes mach ten . . .

I think for it to go much past 5 it would have to be very high and
probably glide back.  But then I majored in propulsion and only got a B
in aerodynamics.

As for the story, my brother was the original teller.  I have had
similar 20 question conversations with several of my friends now in the
land of government contractors.  I tried to get it out of one of my
professors but the guy kept drinking me under the table :-)

Bob Campbell    Hewlett (real world) Packard

hplabs!hpdsd!campbelr

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

Date: 29 Jan 87 17:04:40 GMT
From: decvax!wanginst!vilot@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Vilot)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

(see also Henry Spencer's reply)

In article <838@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes:
>In article <437@lewey.AIT.COM> evp@lewey.AIT.COM (Ed Post) writes:
>>If I remember the testimony in the Challenger accident report, the range
>>safety officer let the solids fly until one of them started to turn
>>back towards land.  At that point he hit the big red button.  There
>>was some difficulty interpreting the radar information in real time.
>
>   This last sentence is the key.  Certainly no one could blame the RSO
>for his decision.  He was placed in a situation where it was essentially
>impossible to analyze all of the incoming data in real time and, quite
>naturally, made the decision with small cost rather than the one with
>extremely large potential cost.  Any of us would do the same.

	Alas, "any of us" do not have the training and experience of the
Range Safety people.  If we did, we'd realize that we'd make the same
decision, but for a reason different than the one you imply.

>   But the point, nevertheless, is that the system did *not* function
>optimally.  Later analysis makes it seem almost certain that the SRBs
>were no threat to land, and certain that they could safely have been
>detonated at a substantially later time if they did indeed begin to
>pose a threat.  Detonation was not the correct decision.

	Actually, you've missed the point.  Range Safety decisons are
highly constrained.  As part of the mission planning process, the
agencies involved in the launch specfy the tolerances for deviations
from the flight path quite unambiguously.  If, for any reason, the
vehicle departs from that envelope, the RSO must destroy the vehicle.
Obviously, manned vehicles are given extensive consideration in their
planning.

	The Range Safety people I had occasion to work with at ESMC were
all experienced, mature individuals.  They do not make their decisons
hastily, nor (as Mr. Des Jardins implies) from a lack of information.
Yes, they are conservative.  They need to be.

Michael J. Vilot			 ...!decvax!wanginst!vilot (UUCP)
Wang Institute of Graduate Studies	vilot%wanginst@CSNet-Relay (CSNet)
Tyng Road, Tyngsboro, MA 01879		MVilot@ADA20            (ARPA)

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 21:06:02 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtune!mtunf!mtx5c!mtx5d!mtx5a!wb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: SR71 info
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> the Mach 5.0.  It is known, however, that at least 150 attempts to
> shoot it down have been unsuccessful.  I am led to believe that part of the
> trick is simply out-running the SAM.
> 
> 		--Craig

	Another big part of the "trick" is just that, a trick. I
remember reading of a incident in Asia (Korea?) where an SR71 was shot
at. Several news reports indicated that the SR71 defence was to use
electronic- counter-measures (ECM). Signals were returned to the missile
to lead it several miles away from the real target. In effect the
missile flew into an electronic image.

					Werner B. @ AT&T

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #128
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25193; Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST
	id AA25193; Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702081102.AA25193@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #129

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #129

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 129

Today's Topics:
			     Re: ufo show
      References on laser-launched rockets - summary of replies
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
		   Book: IN ADVANCE OF THE LANDING
Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
		   Re: government coverups of UFOs
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
			   Shuttle question
			     Info request
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
	       Re: Apollo only left a few rocks behind!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jan 87 18:25:48 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Subject: Re: ufo show
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


  In the past few weeks on The Discovery Channel I saw a program called
'The Cosmic Conspiracy'. It was about UFO sitings in general and had a
section on the reported UFO crash in the Southwestern US. (I can't
remember the exact location, wish I had recorded it.) They had
interviews with people who were at the crash site. They said that the
wreckage was spread over miles.  The gave descriptions of the wreckage
and the bodies of aliens that were recovered. They also had info on
other encounters and presented a good case for a government coverup.
They also indicated that the coverup was international in scope.
The most convincing evidence is the 'Freedom of information act'
papers that can be obtained on project Blue Book. It is convincing in its
sparsity. They claim that all the information that exists is about
8 pages per year for the project. It is, of course, ridiculous that
a 20 year government project could only generate 8 pages of paper
per year. The are definitely hiding something.
   As for the reason for a coverup, they didn't give any. I suspect
that the main reason is that this revelation would destroy the religious
beliefs of many people, resulting in worldwide chaos.

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

Date: 29 Jan 87 23:09:58 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!brucec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Cohen)
Subject: References on laser-launched rockets - summary of replies
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I promised in my initial article on this subject that I would summarize
replies to my query about literature on the subject, so herewith I
redeem my promise:

...

Leik Myrabo and Dean Ing's book "The Future of Flight" is a good
reference for more information on laser propulsion. I just got it,
unfortunately, it is in a "popular science" style which seems targeted
for an 8th grade audience, but the bibliography in the back is quite
extensive and refers to a number of more technical sources (include a
few which are classified).

...

1. Astronautics and Aeronautics May 1972
2. Progress in Astro. and Aero. v 61. Article by D.H. Douglas Hamilton et al.

There was a workshop last summer on L.P. at Livermore. Proceedings will
be published shortly .Contact Dr. Jordin Kare at LLNL, Box 808 Livermore
CA 94550.

...

Bruce Cohen
tektronix!orca!brucec
M/S 61-028, Tektronix, Inc.,  Wilsonville, OR 97070
(503) 685-2439

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

Date: 28 Jan 87 05:59:57 GMT
From: faline!ka9q!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ...  Who wants
> to put [their payload] on the first Titan 4...?" 

AMSAT (the amateur radio satellite folks) would be MORE than happy to
accept payload space on the first Titan 4, as we probably would on any
vehicle with more than a single-digit probability of reaching orbit.

People simply have no idea how valuable payload space is on a launcher,
even a test flight with a higher-than-average probability of failure.
Launch agencies NEVER have problems finding takers for free slots on
test launches, as there are plenty of organizations (like us) who simply
cannot afford to pay for the true cost of a launch.  Yes, you dump a few
in the drink (like Ariane L-02) but in the long run the gamble is more
than worth it. There is simply no choice.  The Japanese launched their
first amateur satellite on the first flight of the new H-1 launcher.  It
worked perfectly.

We're flying for a third time on Ariane, this time on the very first
test flight of the Ariane 4. I don't worry about this one that much;
I've learned to worry much more about the SECOND flight of a new
launcher.  But at least it's just money and hardware at risk, not human
lives.

Phil

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

Date:     Fri, 30 Jan 87 10:39:54 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <control@almsa-1.arpa>
To: sf-lovers@RUTGERS.RUTGERS.EDU, space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  Book: IN ADVANCE OF THE LANDING

I thought this book, which I just got from the St. Louis Public Library,
might be of interest to both the SF-L and SPACE readership.

IN ADVANCE OF THE LANDING: Folk Concepts of Outer Space, by Douglas
Curran (Abbeville Press, New York, 1985, ISBN 0-89659-523-4, paperback,
[price obscured by library sticker], large format [9" X 10"])

This is a pictorial and verbal look through the UFOlogists, saucerians,
New Age and suchlike underground of North America. It includes a large
number of interesting pictures of architectural spacecraft (houses and
stores built to resemble flying saucers, rocket ships mounted on gas
stations, etc.) and some interviews with and descriptions of people who
claim to have been contacted by, travelled with, or be psychically
attuned with aliens from outer space. My personal favorite is John
Shepherd of Bellaire, Mich., who has turned his grandparents' small
cottage into a lab filled with racks of electronic equipment designed to
detect and contact UFOs: "Grandpa Lamb used to grumble at the growing
incursion of paraphernalia into the living room. Eventually, he and Mrs.
Lamb were left with only a small settee scrunched into a corner between
whole walls taken up with John's consoles and oscilloscopes. Grandpa
Lamb died two years ago. Now John and his grandmother make a good team.
Together they built an addition on the house to allow space for John's
burgeoning equipment and put a rocking chair in the living room for Mrs.
Lamb."  There's a nice picture of John amongst his gear; now THAT's my
idea of high-class interior decoration! :-)

Anyway, if you've ever wondered about the people who build flying
saucers in their basements under the direction of mysterious voices, or
those who claim to be the reincarnation of galactic emperors from the
Orion Nebula, or who just think it is a neat thing to have a forty-foot
sheet-metal rocket as a front-lawn decoration, this is a good
introduction to the field. Did you know, for example, that the official
community Bicentennial project of Lake City, Pennsylvania, was to build
a UFO Landing Port, equipped with radio homing beacons and a fibreglass
decoy saucer? Or that St. Paul, Alberta, built the world's first UFO
landing pad, the territory underneath it being declared to be
"international" and open to all visitors "from Earth or otherwise"?

Regards,
Will Martin

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

Date: Fri, 30 Jan 87 12:04:55 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET
Subject: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
 
I would like to raise a point that has been causing me some concern.  It
is possible that the Space Program may soon be the focus of opposition
by anti-technology activists.  A friend of mine (Bruce Hitson) recently
informed me that during a visit he made to Cape Canaveral, he observed
very tight security due to a political demonstration.  The political
demonstration was against a Titan-2 launch.  Bruce was uncertain of his
facts but believed that the demonstrators were primarily "Green Peace"
people protesting an SDI related mission.  Though I am very sympathetic
to the cause of environmentalism, I've always thought that the Green
Peace people were a pack of idiots.  Also, while I'm **not** a supporter
of SDI, I am strongly against political demonstrations or any other sort
of political activity occuring at KSC during a launch.  However what has
got me spooked is since the anti-technology groups have more-or-less
successfully driven a stake through the heart of the nuclear industry,
they may be looking for a new high technology target to protest against.
I know that the left-wing, "environmentalist" people in West Germany are
violently opposed to the American Space Program, partialy because of the
SDI connection, but mainly due to simple blind hatred against high
technology. There must be active environmentalists subscribing to Space
Digest.  Question for one of these people: Has the Space Program been
targeted by environmentalist radicals for political opposition?  If so,
what organizations are they employing to promote this opposition to the
Space Program.
                            Gary Allen

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

Date: 29 Jan 87 03:53:53 GMT
From: faline!ka9q!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate
> of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon?

Basically, the reason why you think you see a "tight lid" on the "UFO
phenomenon" is because there isn't any information to suppress in the
first place.  After the leaks of such things as the Iranian arms deal,
do you REALLY think that something as spectacular as the military
keeping an alien on ice could be kept this quiet this long?  Use Occam's
razor and a healthy dose of common sense, and get a subscription to the
Skeptical Inquirer.

Phil

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

Date: 29 Jan 87 17:07:52 GMT
From: faline!ka9q!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

It's not clear that the firing of the range safety system after the
Challenger explosion was the wrong thing to do even from the standpoint
of preserving evidence for the investigation.

Remember that the SRBs still had almost a minute of propellant left
after the explosion, and this propellant was continuing to burn through
the case of the right hand SRB.  Firing the range safety system
terminated the motor's burn without blowing the booster into tiny bits.
The other night PBS Frontline showed some footage I don't remember
seeing before that included what must have been the firing of the range
safety system.  As the boosters flew on there was a small puff of smoke
around each one and their plumes stopped. There was no big fireball or
debris cloud, so the boosters probably stayed more or less intact until
they hit the water.  I suspect fewer of the "smoking gun" pieces of the
SRB would have been recovered if the boosters had been allowed to burn
themselves out. Remember they were also heading for deep water at the
time.

Evidence preservation wasn't the range safety officer's primary concern.
He was trained to push the button under certain circumstances. He did
exactly what he was supposed to do given incomplete information and very
little time.

Phil

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

Date: Fri 30 Jan 87 12:55:47-PST
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sushi.stanford.edu>
Subject: Shuttle question
To: space@angband.s1.gov

How many shuttles can orbit at once?

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 17:17:14 GMT
From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu
Subject: Info request
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8701282017.AA24637@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU>, dcn@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU@ihlpm.UUCP writes:
> The indirect benefits from the space program during the Apollo years
> can be found in the many issues of NASA Spinoffs, which detail the
> industrial, medical and scientific uses of Apollo technology.

Pardon my ignorance.  Could someone tell me where one would write to
request this publication?  How about an index of past issues?  Cost?  Is
it available electronically?


Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 18:56:46 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> > ...  Who wants
> > to put [their payload] on the first Titan 4...?" 
> 
> AMSAT (the amateur radio satellite folks) would be MORE than happy to accept
> payload space on the first Titan 4...

Okay, revise the statement to "Which paying customer wants to put their
payload on the first Titan 4...?".  Agreed that payload space on semi-
experimental launches is very attractive to groups like AMSAT, who can't
afford to pay for it and value the launch opportunity more highly than a
modest chance of losing their payload.  But you won't find commercial
customers who'd be happy about the first Titan 4, I'd bet, and I doubt
very much that it'll be carrying Galileo or the Hubble telescope.

Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 18:50:57 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Apollo only left a few rocks behind!
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> I agree in part with the above opinion of the Apollo project as a whole,
> which seemed to be a dead end in space development.  The last three Apollo
> moon flights were cancelled, and many of the more ambitious plans after
> Apollo were ignored.  If we still had the industrial base to produce
> Saturn-class boosters, I'm sure they would come in handy right now.

Precisely: Apollo was a dead end because it was not allowed/funded to be
anything more.  The launch systems and some of the infrastructure were
lost not because they were incapable of anything but brief lunar
expeditions, but because nobody felt like paying for anything else.  The
long hiatus in US manned spaceflight after Skylab and Apollo-Soyuz was
most assuredly not the idea of Apollo's planners.

Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #129
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27299; Mon, 9 Feb 87 03:03:10 PST
	id AA27299; Mon, 9 Feb 87 03:03:10 PST
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 87 03:03:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702091103.AA27299@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #130

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 9 Feb 87 03:03:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #130

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 130

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Shuttle/Station dependency
		    Goals for the space program...
		     Earth's Mass and Grav Const
			     Re: ufo show
		   Re: government coverups of UFOs
			     Re: ufo show
		       Re: 'Men' vs. 'Mankind'
		      Re: Laser Launched Rockets
		   Re: government coverups of UFOs
		  Re: Goals for the space program...
			       Re: TAU
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Jan 87 18:46:29 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Shuttle/Station dependency
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> 	Does anyone know if NASA has contingency plans for a shuttle
> loss during Space Station assembly or operations? ...

There is serious talk about an escape craft for the Station.  One problem
is that it won't be cheap and the budget is already tight.

> It would be a true disaster to get people up there and
> have no way to get them BACK if shuttle was grounded again. I suppose
> the Soviets could supply a ride home, however. 

If the grounding were a repeat of the current one, there would be no real
problem flying an emergency mission to bring the Station crew down.  The
Shuttle is not incapable of flying right now, it is merely perceived as
being excessively risky for routine missions until changes are made.  (Not
everyone thinks the lengthy grounding is fully justified, in fact.  Chuck
Yeager is reported to have resigned from the Rogers Commission with the
comment "hell, just don't launch when it's cold".)

> 	I've seen no sign whatsoever that NASA is considering exactly
> what they'll do in the next (unavoidable) shuttle loss. Is this fear
> of acknowledging the facts, even to themselves? Perhaps an assumption
> that the implications are so bad they cannot plan for it happening?

Probably an assumption that they can't get money to do anything about it.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 15:11:28 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!ecsvax!duktip@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Guerry Anderson Semones)
Subject: Goals for the space program...
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

As we all know, it has been a year since the shuttle disaster that
grounded our space program.  Perhaps one of the most prevalent questions
being asked is: Where to now?  Obviously the U.S. must get space-born
once more, but what then?  The space station plans move onward and there
is the push for (sigh...) SDI.  These are here and now items being de-
veloped (along with several exciting unmanned programs, etc.), but what
should follow the space station?  Moon-base?  Mars-mission?  Other?  I
would be interested in seeing what all of you out there feel about the
future of the space program, its objectives and goals.  If the space
program is to survive and get on its feet once more, it must have an
objective to capture the imagination of the nation.  So, how about it?
Your feelings?.....
                                          -G. Semones
                                           Duke University

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 14:09:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Earth's Mass and Grav Const
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I'm in the process of debugging a n-body simulation program and I've
noticed that in both LEO satellites and in the orbital motion of the
moon I end up with an error in orbital period of 1.4%. Specifically, as
I decrease the integration time step the error term decreases to 1.4%
and I can't seem to get it any better. (There seems to be a good solid
convergence to this value and I don't think I'm getting round off errors
at this point.)

I'd like this simulation to be as good as I can make it, and I believe
that potential sources for these errors are in the values I'm using for
the mass of the Earth or for the universal gravitational constant. The
present values were found in the 1968 CRC.  What are the current best
values for these terms?  I need as many digits of accuracy as I can get.

				Thanks
				Fred Mendenhall

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 23:10:51 GMT
From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: ufo show
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>    As for the reason for a coverup, they didn't give any. I suspect
> that the main reason is that this revelation would destroy the religious
> beliefs of many people, resulting in worldwide chaos.

Ridiculous!  The real reason is that we've paid them off.  Every
government official who convincingly lies on our behalf gets a 3 week,
all expenses paid, vacation to the slime pits of Aldebaran.
   Besides, the Church of the Sacred Bleeding Heart of Ubizmo need fear
no rivals.

         Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
         {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
         ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
         University of Texas

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 16:16:28 GMT
From: jade!ruby.berkeley.edu!jelkind@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (The Absorbitron)
Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8085@tekecs.TEK.COM> kendalla@blast.UUCP (Kendall Auel) writes:

>Well, when I was captured and held by the aliens for a while, I found out
>all about this supposed "cover-up" and "mind-control".  The aliens are
>actually very sensitive and very intelligent beings.  

Thank you.

>When that ship crashed in the desert, they were embarrassed because they're 
>not supposed to have accidents like that.  But they don't care much about 
>what humans know or don't know.  Just like we don't spend time worrying about 
>what a hamster knows or doesn't know.

	>Kendall Auel			

The explanation for the 'ufo crash' I gave in an earlier posting.  There's one
thing that you all should realize:  ever since we 'abducted' Kendall, he's been
under our mind control too.  Therefore, anything he says is suspect, since it
is probably us sending out disinformation.

					The Absorbitron

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 16:09:47 GMT
From: jade!ruby.berkeley.edu!jelkind@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (The Absorbitron)
Subject: Re: ufo show
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <959@tekred.TEK.COM> joels@tekred.TEK.COM (Joel Swank) writes:
>
>  In the past few weeks on The Discovery Channel I saw a program called
>'The Cosmic Conspiracy'. It was about UFO sitings in general and had a
>section on the reported UFO crash in the Southwestern US. . . .
>They also had info on other encounters and presented a good case for a 
>government coverup.  They also indicated that the coverup was international 
>in scope. . . .  As for the reason for a coverup, they didn't give any. 
>I suspect that the main reason is that this revelation would destroy the 
>religious beliefs of many people, resulting in worldwide chaos.

I've already told the members of the net who we are and how we caused the 
'international ufo coverup' through our advanced mind control ability.  
That ufo crash, by the way, was due to a drunk driver.  Too many beers, and
not even Buck Rogers could pilot a go140.  Hope you earthlings enjoy
your last week of freedom!

Oh, by the way.  If I were any of you, I'd be REAL careful about which 
walnuts I eat in the near future.

					"The Absorbitron"

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

Date: 31 Jan 87 09:11:36 GMT
From: jade!topaz.berkeley.edu!newton2@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: 'Men' vs. 'Mankind'
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov



Further to the "irksome and tiresome" discussion about "what free men [like jeanna yeager] can do":

I presume many people (er, I mean "men", in the well-known all-inclusive sense),
saw the PBS Frontline program "The Real Stuff", in which the 51F abort-to-orbit
joyride was described, and the almost insignificant role of one Ginny(?) Howard
in saving the mission, vehicle and crew was mentioned. Way to go, free men!!
Hubba hubba!!!

Doug (are we not men?) Maisel

P.S. Sorry if this is too noiselike for the free men at Nasa Ames. Keep those
free noses to the grindstone, guys...

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

Date: 31 Jan 87 01:21:35 GMT
From: tektronix!sequent!mntgfx!gssc!jdm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John D. Miller)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

okay, so i'm a little naive in this area.  tell me why a re-entry vehicle 
cannot slow down sufficiently while re-entering the earth's atmosphere so
as to not generate such immense heat from friction.  how slow would this
be?  it seems like i used to know the answer to this, but i've been out
of school for a while and my brain's since been cluttered with other things...

-- jdm

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 22:40:01 GMT
From: pyramid!prls!philabs!sbcs!sbstaff2!pmt@decwrl.dec.com  (Tromovitch Philip)
Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I don't remember the source (it wan't the National Inquirer) but the story
went something like this:

Farmer sees UFO land, goes over, meets two(?) aliens, who, in an apparent
gesture of friendship give him some waffers and then eat one themselves
(to show it is food), then ... left. 

He sent a waffer to some laboratory and they said it was made up of
blah blah blah (all healthy, better than 100% RDA :)).

The Air Force investigated the sighting (I think it was spotted on radar
as well) and they took a waffer to analyse.

All this could be bunk (although the farmer seemed to be avoiding the
press, not in it for that) but the good part is that when he called
back the Air Force investegators, they said that yes they had analysed
the waffer but no, they couldn't tell him the results.  Why?  Because it was
clasified.  Now if this was a normal (Nabisco) waffer would they clasify it?

-- 
                             Philip Tromovitch
CSNET:pmt@sbcs.csnet                                Dept. Computer Science
ARPA: pmt%suny-sb.csnet@csnet-relay.arpa            SUNY at Stony Brook
UUCP: {allegra, hocsd, philabs, ogcvax}!sbcs!pmt    Stony Brook, NY 11794-4400

Tussman's Law  :  Nothing is as inevitable as a mistake whose time has come.

Disclaimer     :  My opinions belong to others as well as myself.
                  (If only I could find where these people are!)

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

Date: 31 Jan 87 16:06:35 GMT
From: puff!schumann@rsch.wisc.edu  (Christopher Schumann)
Subject: Re: Goals for the space program...
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2614@ecsvax.UUCP>, duktip@ecsvax.UUCP (Guerry Anderson Semones) writes:
> I would be interested in seeing what all of you out there feel about
> the future of the space program, its objectives and goals.  If the 
> space program is to survive and get on its feet once more, it must have
> an objective to capture the imagination of the nation.  So, how about
> it?  Your feelings?.....
>                                           -G. Semones
>                                            Duke University

What else?  A man on Mars. (Sorry, Person on Mars) Ok, how about manned flights
around Mars.

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

Date: 1 Feb 87 04:35:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!andrew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Folkins)
Subject: Re: TAU
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <987@sci.UUCP> daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes:
>I saw something in the paper today about a probe planned to be launched
>around 2005, intended to cruise out to about 1000 AU to get a good
>baseline for parallax measurement.  The article made it sound as if
>the expected cruise time would be in the scores of years range.
>
>david rickel
>cae780!weitek!sci!daver


Check out February's "Sky & Telescope", there's a short note on TAU.
Basically, "the mission would last 50 years and venture beyond Pluto to
the fringes of the Oort cloud".  
 
"The probe design calls for a low-thrust, ion propulsion system to reach the
great distance in an acceptable amount of time.  Some 25,000 pounds of frozen
xenon fuel would be slowly ionized and expelled, gently nudging the craft to
a top speed of 225,000 miles per hour after 10 years.  Once the fuel was
exhausted, some 6 billion miles from Earth [...], the propulsion system
would be jettisoned, leaving the 11,000 pound probe to continue."

The probe will have various magnetic field and plasma experiments to study
the interstellar medium, as well as a 1.5 m telescope for astrometric studies.
The 1000 AU baseline should give accurate distances to objects 1.5 million
light years away.

One question I have about this : "by sending TAU opposite to the direction
of the solar system's direction of motion, the craft will escape the Sun's
influence in the shortest possible time."  Doesn't the Sun have the solar
equivalent of a magnetic tail, and wouldn't the probe then be travelling
straight down it?  It makes more sense to send the probe at right angles
to the direction of the Sun's motion.  You don't get any extra delta v
from the motion of the solar system, but the heliopause is closer.

--
Andrew Folkins    ...ihnp4!alberta!andrew    53 24' N, 113 30' W
The University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada      

Arthur C. Clarke's Law : 
   It has yet to be proven that intelligence has any survival value.

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #130
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00562; Tue, 10 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
	id AA00562; Tue, 10 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702101102.AA00562@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #131

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #131

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 131

Today's Topics:
	 6th Space Development Conference program information
Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
		   Re: government coverups of UFOs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 Feb 1987 16:58-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "/usr/amon/Email/Email.space" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: 6th Space Development Conference program information

The following information is now available to the public, based on
confirmations from track chairman and bios and letters recieved from
speakers. If you are reading this on a bulliten board, you may request
a registration form by

	1) calling 412-351-4973 (conference committee)
	2) calling Forbes Travel Service; Nationally at 800-345-2984;
	   locally at 412-521-7300.
	3) US mailing to the 6th Space Development Conference, PO
	   Box 8391, Pgh PA 15218-0391.
	4) If you wish to risk the vagaries of return mail and the
	   busy schedule of a conference chair, you may request a
	   form by Email from amon@h.cs.cmu.edu

Please note that the biggest name speakers have not (as is usual)
confirmed yet, so I cannot publicly release those names.

=====================================================================

Seminars and Main Events
FRIDAY
9:00 am - 5:00 pm   Education Tracks
		    Basic Spaceflight Seminar
		    The Making of Space Policy
		    Funding and Governing
		     Space Settlements
		    Invitational Artists
		     Workshop
2:00 pm - 5:00 pm   Space Defense Seminar
6:30 pm - 7:30 pm   Reception
7:30 pm - 8:30 pm   Opening
9:00 pm - 11:00 pm  Performance Showcase

SATURDAY
7:00 am - 9:00 am   Breakfast Board Meeting
9:00 am - 10:00 am  Keynote address: "The Vision"
10:00 am - 12:00 pm Return to The Vision: Lunar
		     Ores for Solar Power
12:00 pm - 1:30 pm  NCOS Luncheon
1:30 pm - 3:30 pm   Pioneering: Orbital Shacks
		     to Space Colonies
3:00 pm - 5:00 pm   Breakouts
		     Science, Technology, Arts,
		     Commerce, Nanotechnology,
		     Politics
5:30pm - 9:00 pm    Reception and Banquet

SUNDAY
8:00 am - 9:00 am   Nondenominational
		     Memorial Service
9:00 am  - 11:00 am Technology Breakout
10:00 am - 12:00 pm Breakouts
		     Science, Arts, Commerce,
		     Nanotechnology, Women,
		     Chapters, Computers
12:00 pm - 1:30 pm  Space Activists Luncheon
1:30 pm - 3:30 pm   Our Mission: The
		     Breakout Into Space
		     Begins Today
3:30 pm - 4:00 pm   Closing: Return to the
		     Vision

TOURS AND SPECIAL ACTIVITIES
FRIDAY
		    Greeting of "Shuttle" from
		     Philadelphia
12:00 pm - 1:15 pm  Educators' Luncheon
12:00 am - 7:00 pm  Art Show
1:00 pm  - 7:00 pm  Exhibits
		    Films
9:00 pm - 12:00 am  TOUR: Allegheny
		     Observatory
11:00 pm - ?	    Filk Singing

SATURDAY
10:00 am - 5:00 pm  Exhibits
9:00 am - 12:00 am  Art Show
1:00 pm - 12:00 am  films	
3:00 pm - 6:00 pm   TOUR: CMU Robotics
		     and Computer Science
9:00 pm - 10:00 pm  Global Village
10:00 pm - ?	    Filk Singing

SUNDAY
10:00 am - 3:00 pm  Exhibits
		    Art Show
		    films
4:00 pm - 7:00 pm   L5 Fund Raiser
8:00 pm - 12:00 am  Fund Raiser Training




EDUCATION TRACKS is a set of three programs in which attendees - from
kindergarten students to educators - participate based on their interests
and expertise. At noon, educators may gather for an Educators' Luncheon.
Topics cover Young Astronauts, Teaching Resources, and Space Education as
Daily Instruction. Moderators and speakers include:

 - Pat Palazollo and Walter Tremer, Pennsylvania Teachers in Space
 - Dick Methia, Teacher in Space Top 10 Finalist
 - Tom Becker, Center for Aerospace Education Founder
 - Charles Walker, McDonnell Douglas astronaut
 - Amy Grubb, Young Astronaut representative to USSR

BASIC SPACEFLIGHT PROFESSIONAL SEMINAR is offered for the first time ever to
conference attendees. Upon completing the four-session course, participants
should be able to read, understand and complete NASA rendezvous and prox ops
workbooks used to train astronauts. Workbooks and other materials supplied.
Instructors are Greg Maryniak, Executive Vice President of SSI, and Captain
Edward Daley, pilot for United Airlines. The special fee of $185 covers
training in:

 - orbital mechanics			- rendezvous and docking maneuvers
 - orbital transfer techniques		- proximity operations

THE MAKING OF SPACE POLICY asks what the critical US space policy issues
are for 1987. Who are the players and where do they stand on the issue? This
tutorial offers both historical background and coverage of today's events.

 - Dr. David Webb, Chairman, U of ND Center for Aerospace Studies, NCOS member
 - Dr. Richard Parker, U of ND Center for Aerospace Studies

FUNDING AND GOVERNING SPACE SETTLEMENTS examines free market methods to
finance and manage space settlements by contractual rather than legislative
means. The discussion and panels are moderated by Paul McAvinney of CMU Ctr
for Art and Technology.  Topics include:

 - space colony cost and management		- financial issues
 - independent colonies				- contracts

SPACE DEFENSE SEMINAR examines the technical pro's and con's of a
space-based defense system. Participants include:

 - General Daniel Graham (ret)
 - Art Bozlee, expert on Soviet space doctrine

PERFORMANCE SHOWCASE, the first of its type at a conference, offers the
exploration and experience of space-related themes through dance and music.
Participants include:

 - Julia Ecklar, filk singer		
 - Don Slepian, electronic music composer
 - Sharon Took, dancer/choreographer,   - Jenny Lindsey, Pittsburgh 
    Rutgers University			   choreographer

INVITATIONAL ARTISTS WORKSHOPS offer opportunities for artists to discuss
and share techniques. Participants are selected based on samples of their
work. Conducted by Chuck Divine, Kim Poor and Don Slepian, these workshops
include:

 - Performance Art		- Writing
 - Photography			- Painting

KEYNOTE ADDRESS: "THE VISION" will start off the Saturday main track. Dr.
Gerard O'Neill is expected.

RETURN TO THE MOON: LUNAR ORES FOR SOLAR POWER explores the use of lunar
resources as a means to acquire energy. Expected participants include:

 - Dr. Peter Glaser, Powersat inventor, Arthur D Little Co Vice President
 - Bill Agosto, Lunar Industries Inc President

NCOS LUNCHEON will explore the political ramifications of the National
Commission on Space report. The current status will be examined by several
commissioners and invited guests.

PIONEERING: ORBITAL SHACKS TO SPACE COLONIES examines the technical aspects
of evolving from small stations to large settlements. Expected participants
include:

 - Tom Rogers, External Tanks Corporation Board Chairman
 - Alex Gimarc, Author of SSI External Tanks Study

BREAKOUTS are one to two day sessions covering technical, artistic, social,
and political subjects related to space development. Session members
include:

 - George Koopman, AMROC President & CEO   - Don Miller, WESPACE Mgr of Spacecraft
 - E. Doug Ward, fmr Astrotech President   - Len Cormier, MMI President
 - K. Eric Drexler, Stanford AI		   - Dr. Hans Moravec, CMU Robotics
 - Dr. Marvin Minsky, MIT		   - Ben Bova, author and NSS President
 - James Bennet, AMROC VP		   - Kelly Freas, artist
 - James Muncy, fmr White House Consultant - Spacehab representative

SATURDAY BANQUET, hosted by Ben Bova, will include the unveiling of the
Mikkelson Award, created by the L5 Society for the first woman to set foot
on the moon. Major speakers to be announced.

NONDENOMINATIONAL MEMORIAL SERVICE honors those who have given their lives
in pursuit of the high frontier. Rabbi Abraham Feffer of Akron, Ohio and
representatives of other faiths will participate.

COMPUTERS, COMMUNICATIONS AND NETWORKING explores avenues to establish and
nurture contact among space activists. Subjects covered include amateur
packet radio, amateur satellites, database resources and 'worldnet'.

CHAPTERS WORKSHOP details methods and resources useful in the establishment
and operations of an effective chapter. Discussion are led by Elisa Wynn, L5
Chapters Coordinator.

WOMEN IN SPACE explores roles and contributions women can make to space
development. Discussions are led by Cindy Reidhead.

OUR MISSION: THE BREAKOUT INTO SPACE BEGINS TODAY examines the activities
which must be undertaken today to ensure development tomorrow. The topic is
examined by James Muncy, Dr. David Webb and Rick Tumlinson.

CLOSING: RETURN TO THE VISION highlights the message of the previous three
days. Speakers include:

 - Dale Amon, L5 Board member and 1987 Conference Co-chair
 - Morris Hornik, Main Track Program Chair for 1985, 86 and 87.
 - Jill Steele, L5 Board member and 1988 Conference Chair

EXTERNAL EVENTS include a Friday Luncheon for Pittsburgh businessmen
sponsored by the Greater Pittsburgh Chamber of Commerce and featuring an
important NASA spokesman. Conference registrants are welcome and will be
contacted by the Chamber.

ART SHOW will include works of many well known artists of the space age:

 - Alan Bean		- Kim Poor		- Robert Rauschenberg
 - Chris Robinson	- Kelly Freas		- Karl Kofoed	
 - Vincent Difate	- Barbara Alpert	- Carl Lundgren	
 - Jack Olson		- Don Maitz		- Janny Wurtz	
 - Chuck Divine

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

Date: 31 Jan 87 05:27:17 GMT
From: faline!ka9q!karn@bellcore.com  (Phil Karn)
Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I believe the event in question was a test flight of a Minuteman missile,
not a space launch of a Titan II. I'm sure that we would have heard about
any orbital attempt from KSC.

Because what people generally think of as "Cape Canaveral" is mostly an Air
Force station, lots of military work goes on there.  I see no conflict in
supporting the peaceful use of space while also protesting the testing of
weapons that perpetuate the arms race.

Unfortunately, many people blur the distinction between a technology and the
morality of a particular application when the technology is not something
they use personally. For example, some people oppose civilian nuclear power
production because of their justifiable fears of the military uses of
nuclear energy.  However, few of these people oppose the internal combustion
engine just because gasoline is also used to make napalm. Similarly, because
space technology is not personally familiar to most people, the increasing
military infatuation with space-based weapons is likely to cause a large
backlash against space applications of all kinds, including peaceful ones.

Phil

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

Date: 1 Feb 87 01:08:33 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ... the good part is that when he called
> back the Air Force investegators, they said that yes they had analysed
> the waffer but no, they couldn't tell him the results.  Why?  Because it was
> clasified.  Now if this was a normal (Nabisco) waffer would they clasify it?

Sure they would -- this is the Air Force we are talking about!  Those clowns
would classify the color of the sky if they thought they could get away
with it.  Inferring sinister motives from the case you describe requires
assuming that the USAF always has a rational reason for classifying something.
This is verifiably false.

Assuming that this incident really did occur as reported -- not a safe
assumption, there is a lot of outright lying in UFO reporting -- the most
probable reason for the results being classified is that somebody higher
up noticed what was going on, screamed "why are you idiots wasting time
and money on THAT!?!", and classified the whole thing to try to hide it
from the press and Congress.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #131
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03643; Wed, 11 Feb 87 03:02:52 PST
	id AA03643; Wed, 11 Feb 87 03:02:52 PST
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 87 03:02:52 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702111102.AA03643@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #132

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 132

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #122
		  Re: Goals for the space program...
			    Women in Space
		   Re: government coverups of UFOs
		 NASA Summer positions (a thank you)
		       Taking off from the moon
		   Aluminum-powered rocket engines
	   Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
		  Re: Goals for the space program...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  1 Feb 1987 14:14-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #122
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 1 Feb 87 03:15:08 PST

Gary Allen: I'd prefer if you didn't drop it on the martian ice caps. We
	    might need them. I mostly agree with you.

Jim Kempf: Heppenhiemers 40% is correct with the caveat that the
	   experiment used a poorly collimated beam (for this purpose
	   at least) so they used only the dense center portion. The
	   overall efficiency was much lower in the test, but with a
	   better beam they expect the total efficiency to be about the
	   same as the beam core efficiency. See Science magazine
	   article sometime in last couple months.

Alan Wexelblat: Some people seem to have an anti-nuke religion...

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

Date: 2 Feb 87 02:28:12 GMT
From: princeton!puvax2!6080626%PUCC.BITNET@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Adam Barr)
Subject: Re: Goals for the space program...
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2614@ecsvax.UUCP>, duktip@ecsvax.UUCP (Guerry Anderson Semones) writes:
 
>As we all know, it has been a year since the shuttle disaster that
>grounded our space program.  Perhaps one of the most prevalent questions
>being asked is: Where to now?  Obviously the U.S. must get space-born
>once more, but what then?                                        ----
 
Well, I think you've answered it yourself....the US must start a program
of having babies born in space...since babies born underwater can survive
there, maybe babies born in space will not need oxygen!! Staggering.
 
It's funny reading books published in about 1972 talking about the
future of the space program. Fresh from the success of Apollo, I can
remember one book which says "In the 1980s the US will certainly land
on Mars...using an ion drive". Hmmmm. Actually I think that the next
goal should be permanent stations on the moon. This may not be very
useful itself, but the most important thing in the space program is
something which captures the public's imagination. A manned moon
base would involve as intermediate accomplishments many of the things
which people are talking about now, such as a space station, and
would certainly get people interested in space again.
 
Actually I think NASA's goal should be to launch the national debt into
orbit around the sun. Freed of this constraint, lawmakers would be
happy to allocate money to funky things like space exploration.
 
                                                - Adam Barr, 6080626@PUCC

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

Date: 2 Feb 87 02:33:57 GMT
From: princeton!puvax2!6080626%PUCC.BITNET@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Adam Barr)
Subject: Women in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I was watching some TV show on the space program (I think it
might have been the episode of "Frontline" recently mentioned)
and they were interviewing astronauts from previous Shuttle
flights. One of them was named Rhea Sheddon (I think) who among
other things happened to be a woman (in fact she was married to
another astronaut, that must be a first). This just got me
wondering how many women had been in space. I can think of
Sally Ride and Judy Resnik, and of course who can forget (much
less spell) Valentina Tereshkova or Svetlana Savitskaya (or maybe
she's the opera singer). Anyhow, just wondering if there were
any more of these kind of men who had gone up.
 
                                                - Adam Barr, 6080626@PUCC

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

Date: 1 Feb 87 01:22:08 GMT
From: decvax!cca!lmi-angel!wsr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wolfgang Rupprecht)
Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I am cross posting this to sci.physics. Hopefully this will improve
the fact to fancy ratio. 

In article <> rjp1@ihlpa.UUCP (Pietkivitch from AT&T) writes:
>Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate
>of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon?
>I remember hearing on the radio (several years back) that someone 
>had discovered a crashed UFO (in the USA) and that alien bodies 
>were recovered from it.

This must have occured during a summit conference or something,
because the NY Times and the Boston Globe both missed the story.
Perhaps the National Enquirer carried it.

In a more serious vein, I recall reading a very interesting book on
the subject back in high school (sorry it was too long ago to recall
the author/title). Essentially the book tried to inject a bit of
science in this field.

To summarize, the largest class of confirmed sightings (after the
obvious crackpots have been eliminated (*)), was the nebulous 'metallic
object' (daylight), and the glowing pulsating object (nightime). These
'objects' tended to accelerate at bone-smashing rates, drown out AM
radios with static, and even stall cars. The observers often noted a
bright metallic look (even on the side away from the sun). A larger
number of sighting were near high voltage power line. Some sightings 
were accompanied by radar 'bogies' in the area. 

The book proposed that these sightings were actually ball lightning,
or something closely related. The apparent acceleration (from hovering
here, to over the horizon in no-time flat), being caused by the
phenomenon "petering out" and shrinking. The rapid directed motion was
just an illusion. This also explained why there was never a sonic boom
reported. The AM radio static, affinity for power lines etc, was due
to its charged nature. The glowing or translucent nature of the
sightings fits this model well also. 

Unfortunately, I believe that free floating ball lightning is still a
contested phenomenon. Does anyone know of any studies on this beastie?
Can it be generated under lab conditions? 

(*) I thought the funniest fraud case was a couple that claimed to be
kidnapped by aliens. They sold a book, and went on a lecture circuit
talking about their experience. The frosting on the cake was a claim
that a shiny spot on the sheet-metal of their car had become
temorarily radioactive from the exhaust of the UFO. They knew this
because a compass held near the spot spun rapidly!!!
-- 
Alison Chaiken	{harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr

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

Date: Mon, 2 Feb 87 11:43:01 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: NASA Summer positions (a thank you)

I would like to thank those people who have sent requests for summer
positions with NASA to me.  I would also like to apologize for the
coming paperwork you will receive or have received.  Some of you
have some impressive qualifications.  I will do with I can with the
Summer employment people to see that some of you get hired (the number of
slots is small, obviously).  At Ames, our period of openings has
been extended to March 1, since we are using SJ State U as a middleman
and not the Civil Service route.  Best wishes.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

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

Date:  2 Feb 87 16:52 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Taking off from the moon
To: space@angband.s1.gov


Date:  2-FEB-1987 15:31
From: Dennis O'Connor
Sender: OCONNORDM
Subject: Taking off from the moon
To: space@angband.s1.gov@smtp
--------

	If you want to get off the moon, and are willing to
    build a large industrial base to do it ( such as a high-
    volume rock cracker ) why not just throw dirt at yourself ?

	Have a large, slightly-steerable up-pointing mass
    driver that throws dirt, small rocks, large rocks, whatever.
    Throw the mass up towards the spaceship. On the bottom
    of the spaceship is a big ( optionally shock-absorbing )
    plate. The rocks hit the plate, transfer momentum, and fall
    back down for re-use ( which is why small rocks or sand
    might be best : less dangerous ). With no atmosphere to
    slow the rocks down, and an aiming system that compensates
    for lunar rotation, this will work great.

				Dennis O'Connor

--------

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

Date:  2 Feb 87 17:06 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Aluminum-powered rocket engines
To: space@angband.s1.gov


Date:  2-FEB-1987 15:06
From: Dennis O'Connor
Sender: OCONNORDM
Subject: Aluminum-powered rocket engines
To: space@angband.s1.gov@smtp
--------

	From a quick persual of the CRC Handbook, it appears
    that aluminum-oxygen burning would produce about 10% more
    specific impulse ( thrust per pound of fuel+oxidizer ) than
    hydrogen-oxygen burning. Adding inert fillers ( like
    extra oxygen ) would lower the specific impulse.

	Specific impulse ( correct me if I'm wrong ) is
    proportional to  Sqrt( E/M ), where E is the energy
    input and M is the mass of the propelents.

	The problem with an Al-O rocket would be the combustion
    chamber. Either it would have to have a lining temperature in
    in excess of 2100 degrees Centigrade, or it would build up a ( thick )
    crust of alumina within it. That's pretty hot! 

				Dennis O'Connor
    
--------

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

Date:     Mon, 2 Feb 87 17:53:59 EST
From: Brent W Baccala <baccala@usna.arpa>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space

Brent Callaghan mentions that clouds could interfere with the laser
beam.  What if we combine two discussions on this group into one
idea - laser launched rockets and nuclear reactors in space.
I don't know that much about nuclear reactors, so will avoid
safety considerations for now.  Stick an unmanned (to avoid heavy
shielding material) nuclear reactor in space and hook it up to a
laser.  Beam the laser down, and have the rocket ride the beam up.
Since clouds are primarily a low-atmosphere phenomenon (and the
ones higher up are thin), the rocket could be equipped with standard
jets to get above the atmospheric junk.  Then fire up the laser,
and sail off on a light beam...

			- BRENT W. BACCALA -
			Aerospace Engineering Department
			U.S. Naval Academy
			Annapolis, MD

			<decvax!brl-smoke!usna!baccala>
			<seismo!usna!baccala>
			<baccala@usna.arpa>

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

Date: 2 Feb 87 17:20:01 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

There are several groups that I am aware, but most of the opposition (as
pointed out) are more SDI related.  We came very close to be
demonstrated by a group named Not Business as Usual.  They were
protesting a treaty about use of Easter Island as an abort landing site
for a Shuttle payload which was to be launched from VAFB for SDI
purposes.  This amused our Navy neighbors since they were NOT being
protested.  As it turned out, most of the demonstrators were arrested at
their first site: the Sunnyvale (now, the Onizuka) Air Force Station
(our USAF neighbors).

I believe Bill Pogue (astronaut) wrote a little book entitled something
like: How Do You Go to Bathroom in Space?  It covers a bit of the
environmental consequences of launches.  I think Phil Karn also did a
service to point out the layout of the Cape.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

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

Date: 2 Feb 87 18:42:31 GMT
From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (George Erhart)
Subject: Re: Goals for the space program...
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2614@ecsvax.UUCP> duktip@ecsvax.UUCP (Guerry Anderson Semones) writes:
>                   Where to now?  Obviously the U.S. must get space-born 
>once more, but what then?  The space station plans move onward and there
>is the push for (sigh...) SDI.  These are here and now items being de-
>veloped (along with several exciting unmanned programs, etc.), but what
>should follow the space station?  Moon-base?  Mars-mission?  Other?
>                                          -G. Semones

Anything to steer the talk away from "sexist" language and slime 
creatures from outer space. (Hint: "idiot" is a non-sexist term... :-(   )

As an amateur space nut, I would like to see the following (in about this
order)

1) Earth-orbit space station
2) Personned (!) mission to Mars
3) Lunar base for manufacturing and interplanetary launch
4) Earth-orbit colony/manufacturing center
5) Asteroid mining

I would also like (desperately) to see lots of cooperation between the
US and the Soviet Union. 

Hopefully, by the time this is done, new technology will make further choices
more obvious.

I'm 25. I want to see Earth from space, with my own two eyes, before I die.


------------------------------clip and save----------------------------------

	Bill Thacker    	cbatt!cbosgd!cbdkc1!serial!wbt
DISCLAIMER: Farg 'em if they can't take a joke !

If you love something, set it free. If it doesn't come back to you,
	track it down and kill it.

-----------------------------valuable coupon---------------------------------

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #132
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AB07356; Thu, 12 Feb 87 03:02:57 PST
	id AB07356; Thu, 12 Feb 87 03:02:57 PST
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 87 03:02:57 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702121102.AB07356@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #133

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 133

Today's Topics:
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
			   SRB Range safety
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 87 08:15:54 GMT
From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <257@ka9q.nnj.ampr.us> karn@ka9q.nnj.ampr.us (Phil Karn) writes:
>It's not clear that the firing of the range safety system after the
>Challenger explosion was the wrong thing to do even from the standpoint
>of preserving evidence for the investigation.

>Remember that the SRBs still had almost a minute of propellant left
>after the explosion, and this propellant was continuing to burn through
>the case of the right hand SRB.  Firing the range safety system
>terminated the motor's burn without blowing the booster into tiny bits.

   This doesn't seem right.  I was under the impression that once the
SRB fuel is ignited there is basically nothing you can do to extinguish
it.  I suspect that the firing of the RSS caused the exhaust to escape
in all directions, and thus provide no thrust and no smoke tail, but I
don't believe that it would extinguish the fuel.
   NASA spokesmen certainly have said on several occasions that the
destruction of the SRBs was unfortunate (without, of course, implying
any blame -- just as I have done).

>Remember they [the SRBs] were also heading for deep water at the time.

   I thought that they had turned back toward land at the moment that
they were destroyed.  This is the rationale that others have given for
the destruction...

>Evidence preservation wasn't the range safety officer's primary
>concern.  He was trained to push the button under certain
>circumstances. He did exactly what he was supposed to do given
>incomplete information and very little time.

   Agreed.  No one questions this.  The RSO performed his function
properly within the system.  Thus, it is the system which produced the
suboptimal result.  Thus, the system itself is suboptimal.

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 2 Feb 87 08:09:11 GMT
From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <786@wanginst.EDU> vilot@wanginst.UUCP (Michael Vilot) writes:
>	Actually, you've missed the point.  Range  Safety decisons are
>highly  constrained.  As part of   the mission planning process,   the
>agencies involved in the launch  specfy the tolerances  for deviations
>from the   flight path quite unambiguously.  If,   for any reason, the
>vehicle departs from that envelope, the RSO  must destroy the vehicle.
>Obviously, manned vehicles are given extensive consideration  in their
>planning.

   Actually, this *is* *exactly* *MY* *point*.  "Range Safety decisions
are highly contrained."  This is a *weakness* of the *system*.  It may
be a necessary weakness, due to the imperfection of the real-time
information, but it is nevertheless a weakness.  It means that *even*
in a situation where the RSO *could* perhaps determine that the vehicle
poses no threat, he may *nevertheless* be constrained to destroy it.
   All I have ever said is that the RSS has certain weaknesses.  It
does not produce optimal results.  The Challenger accident is one
example of a situation in which the RSS had no failure or malfunction
but nevertheless produced a suboptimal result.  *Therefore*, we conclude
that the RSS is not optimal.  Perhaps it is the best we can do.  Perhaps
it is the best that we can afford.  Perhaps it is good enough.  But
none of these possibilities affect my central point.

>	The  Range Safety people I had  occasion to work  with at ESMC
>were  all  experienced, mature individuals.   They  do not make  their
>decisons hastily, nor  (as Mr. Des Jardins  implies)  from a  lack  of
>information.

   This is simply ludicrous.  Either they lack some information, or they
are omniscient.  Since I don't think NASA can afford to hire God, the
former seems a good bet.  The value of the information that they lack,
and the cost of providing it, may dictate that they are getting an
appropriate amount of information.  But it is clearly ridiculous to
claim that they have perfect information.  If they did, couldn't they
have made the correct decision not to destroy the Challenger SRBs?

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 19:02:53 GMT
From: ulysses!gamma!zeta!sabre!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>    This doesn't seem right.  I was under the impression that once the
> SRB fuel is ignited there is basically nothing you can do to extinguish
> it....

Solid rocket fuel isn't as unstable as you think.  It burns rapidly only
under pressure. Unconfine it and it's likely that it will "flame out" or at
least stop burning so vigorously.  This happened to the two PAMs that blew
their nozzles off after being launched from the shuttle a few years ago.

Solid motors with "thrust termination" features use this property.
AMSAT-OSCAR Phase 3-A (the one lost in the Ariane L-02 launch failure)
carried a Thiokol solid fuel kick motor. This unit was surplus from the
Titan missile program, which used it for vernier thrusting.  There was a
fitting for an explosive bolt cutter to blow the nozzle off so that the
total impulse could be controlled.  (We didn't need that feature, so we
didn't put a cutter on the bolt).

The Rogers Commission report talks about SRB "thrust termination systems".
They work, but the problem is the very sudden deceleration it would impart
to the orbiter, most likely breaking it up.

>    I thought that they had turned back toward land at the moment that
> they were destroyed.  This is the rationale that others have given for
> the destruction...

From the film shown on Frontline they had swung around quite a bit, but at
the moment the destruct command was sent they appeared to be headed away
from the camera.  The Range Safety Officer's decision was based on the SRBs
being in "powered, stable flight" (but without guidance) which made the
prediction of impact points impossible.  He was also concerned about
protecting ships outside the cleared area as well as people and property on
land.

Phil

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

Date: 6 Feb 87 02:28:28 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!mirror!cca!lmi-angel!wsr@husc6.harvard.edu  (Wolfgang Rupprecht)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes:
> ... It means that *even*
>in a situation where the RSO *could* perhaps determine that the vehicle
>poses no threat, he may *nevertheless* be constrained to destroy it.

It looks like the real problem in the Challenger case was that the RSO
had a *binary* choice that he had to make: blow the boosters or leave
them alone.  Letting the boosters go could have easily lost them to
deep water (as well as the danger of hitting a population center).
Blowing them would pevent the recovery 'chutes from working.  Even in
20:20 hindsight the correct action isn't clear.

It appears that the real problem is that the RSO had too few options.
He could only do all or nothing. Why not have the destruct charges
separately detonatable? He could then terminated thrust (most of the
way) by just blowing the charges at the nozzle end. This would have
left the recovery chutes intact.

It's clearly harder to make complex decisions under fire (then just
yes/no ones). But then, that's what simulators are for...

Wolfgang Rupprecht	{harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr

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

Date: 9 Feb 87 17:05:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: SRB Range safety
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Uh, I don't like that idea.  The ``smarts'' of the SRB's (electronics
and the like) is at the nose (of necessity; the rest of the booster is
effectively a *very* sophisticated piece of pipe).  If you blow the
nose, you lose the electronics.  If you then have to blow the boosters,
you're out of luck.

Moreover, the recovery 'chutes deploy from the nose also, for the same
reason as the electronics are up there.  And the rest of the booster
practically *has* to be a pipe, to keep the aerodynamic loads balanced.

Kevin Kenny			     UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign	       CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET
		                   ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA)

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 04:21:39 GMT
From: decvax!wanginst!vilot@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Vilot)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

[ The original debate started over whether the Range Safety system
was a "well-proven" one. ]

In article <876@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes:
>   All I have ever said is that the RSS has certain weaknesses.  It
>does not produce optimal results.  The Challenger accident is one
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^     
>example of a situation in which the RSS had no failure or malfunction
>but nevertheless produced a suboptimal result.  *Therefore*, we conclude
                           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^    
>that the RSS is not optimal.  Perhaps it is the best we can do.  Perhaps
      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>it is the best that we can afford.  Perhaps it is good enough.  But
>none of these possibilities affect my central point.
>...
>claim that they have perfect information.  If they did, couldn't they
>have made the correct decision not to destroy the Challenger SRBs?
           ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I guess the "correct" and "optimal" outcome depends on your point of
view.  I agree with Phil Karn:

> Evidence preservation wasn't the range safety officer's primary
> concern.  He was trained to push the button under certain
> circumstances. He did exactly what he was supposed to do given
> incomplete information and very little time.

The purpose of the  Range Safety organization  is to help  achieve the
optimal  result (putting   payloads  into  orbit) in  the  complex and
dangerous process of preparing and launching  chemical rockets.  Their
primary concern is to achieve this result with a minimum risk to human
life.   If  you stop to  examine their track record, I  think you will
find   that they have  indeed   established a  well-proven system  for
achieving this end.

The  purpose of  the   (already  extensive) design  review  and ground
testing process  is  to anticipate and  prevent  failure modes in  the
flight systems.   That portion of "the system"  is responsible for the
data collection   and analysis  necessary  to answer  questions  about
unexpected events.  We certainly do NOT have an  impressive record for
designing and building  large, complex,  technology-intensive  systems
which are free from errors.

The purpose of the pre-mission decision-making process is to commit to
launch only when all of the factors we've been  able to anticipate are
within the tolerances set for  them.  It's  clear  from  some  of  the
testimony that the results in the Challenger case were "suboptimal."

You can't blame Range Safety for not preserving  all  the pieces which
might have given clues to the cause  of the accident.  It's  not their
job to do that.  It can't be -- not when things have progressed to the
point of having a vehicle fully fueled and in the air.  When something
goes catastrophically  wrong, it's because   of some error  introduced
much earlier.  The only thing the Safety people  can  do is to contain
it,  and avoid  letting things  go  from bad  to worse.   That's   the
"optimal" result under those circumstances, and I think  they've got a
well-proven system for achieving it.

Michael J. Vilot			 ...!decvax!wanginst!vilot (UUCP)
Wang Institute of Graduate Studies	vilot%wanginst@CSNet-Relay (CSNet)
Tyng Road, Tyngsboro, MA 01879		MVilot@ADA20            (ARPA)

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #133
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10933; Fri, 13 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST
	id AA10933; Fri, 13 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702131102.AA10933@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #134

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 134

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

Date:         Mon, 02 Feb 87 17:21:21 EST
From: ST401385@brownvm
To: space digest <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:      starships
 

I'm getting bored with discussions about politics, Voyager etc.
In a shameless effort to change the subject, I enclose here part 1 of
a review I recently wrote about starship technology. (Readers of Space
last year may find parts of it slightly familiar, and might want
to skip parts of it.)
     Comments are welcome.
 
 
--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                      EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu
    PS: Brown was disconnected from SPACE from about the end of
November through late January.  Anything interesting posted in that
time?
 
 
   Introduction to Starships for Amateurs.
   (or, There Must Be Fifty Ways to Leave Your Solar System)
 
   Introduction
 
     Einstein tells us that travellers who reach substantial fractions
     of the speed of light experience their motion differently, yet the
     equations of flight for relativistic starships are obscure and hard
     to apply.  The purpose of this article is to present a basic
     introduction to some of the ways that a real starship might be
     built.
 
     Types of starships
 
     The stars are awfully far away.  By discussing distances in terms
     of light years, we often tend to ignore or downplay this fact.  A
     light year is six trillion miles.  The nearest star (other than the
     sun, of course) Alpha Centauri, is one {million times further away
     than the distance to Mars.  Achieving interstellar flight is a
     major undertaking.

     However, even without FTL travel (a longshot at best, at least in
     this universe) it is still possible to have starflight.  In fact,
     there are so many possible ways of solving the problem of
     starflight that one can get lost in confusion just listing them!
     Starships can be basically divided into three groups: slow, fast,
     and FTL ("faster than light").  "Slow" ships travel between stars
     in times much longer than a single lifetime.  The crew may be
     hibernating, or the ship may be crewed by several generations of
     starfarers, or perhaps a long-lived cybernetic brain guides the
     ship.  All of these methods have their distinct problems and
     possibilities.

     FTL starships are a used transportation system in SF; the writer
     simply wishes away what we know of physics.  The great advantage
     here is that travel times between stars can be anything that suits
     the plot.  This allows the writers to explore questions of alien
     ecology, human sociology, etc.  in arenas as large or small as
     desired.

     "Fast" starships are, at least to me, the most fascinating, because
     they are both possible (at least theoretically) and they allow star
     travel in a single person's lifetime, by allowing relativity to do
     the work of compressing time.  They are the only ships for which
     relativity plays an important role, and thus the hardest ones to
     deal with.

     These are the starships that will be discussed at greatest length
     in this article.
 
     The One Gee Starship
 
     One gravity---"one gee", or 1 g---turns out to be a very convenient
     thrust for reference. By coincidence, an acceleration of one gee is
     quite close to one lightspeed per year (1.03, actually).  At this
     thrust, within a year relativity begins to shorten your shipboard
     years compared to stay-behind years, and one can make the journey
     in less time than you'd expect.

     That's handy, because humans aren't good for more than one or two
     gee's for very long (certainly not for years), and anything less
     than about half a gee or so makes it take an awful long time to get
     there.

     So what's the problem?  Just make a rocket thrust at one gee until
     we get halfway there, then rotate 180 degrees and thrust for the
     same amount of time to stop, and you're there.  Simple.  Actually,
     it's not so easy.  The problem is fuel.  Rockets are tremendous
     fuel hogs.  A thrust of one gee on a reasonably massive starship is
     a huge energy use.  A starship using hydrogen fusion, for example,
     even with perfect efficiency, eats its own weight of fuel in thirty
     days.  And it has to {use fuel to carry fuel.)
 
 
        Starship Propulsion
 
     There are two approaches to fuel: either carry a lot of fuel and/or
     use fuel very efficiently, or don't carry your fuel with you.
     There's two approaches to not carrying fuel.  Either use fuel
     available in interstellar space---not much!---or else send
     "fuel"---beamed power---from home.
 
     Starships that don't carry fuel: Bussard Ramrockets.
 
     Using interstellar gas as fuel leads to great possibliities: you
     can go anywhere!  It has some hard technological problems---mainly,
     the stuff is pretty damn thin.  As it turns out, the sun is
     situated on the edge of a cloud with a density of about 0.1
     hydrogen atoms per cm3, in a bubble (courtesy of an ancient
     supernova) of ionized hydrogen of density 0.001 to 0.01 per cm3.
     (Ref NASA CP).  That's not much.  Bussard, for example, in his
     famous paper which first proposed using interstellar hydrogen for
     fuel, calculated that one gee acceleration requited a "scoop"
     collecting the hydrogen with an area of 10,000 km2 per ton of ship
     mass divided by the density in hydrogens per cm3.  (The scoop would
     probably be a magnetic field, not a physical object).
 
     Other problems with such Bussard ramrockets include the fact that
     fusion must take place without accelerating the hydrogen up to ship
     speed, that neutral hydrogen must be ionized in order for an
     electromagnetic scoop to collect it, that pure hydrogen is an
     extrordinarily difficult fusion fuel to ignite (much harder than
     the DT reactions proposed for commercial fusion), and that there is
     a limit to how long such a ship can accelerate at one gee based on
     how much stress the materials that make the scoop fields can take
     (probably not important unless you are talking about intergalactic
     flights, though).  However, I will leave detailed discussion of
     these points to the technologists.

     One final thought: the solar wind contains a lot more hydrogen than
     the interstellar medium.  What if the ramrocket only accelerates at
     one gee across the solar system?  Let's say, a hundred billion
     miles, six light days or 0.17 LY... at one gee this will get you up
     to 3 percent of lightspeed---pretty damn fast, although still
     squarely in the "slow" starship category.  Hmmm.  You go faster by
     cutting past more stars.  A starship that only accelerates inside a
     solar system.
 
     Starships that don't carry fuel: Beamed power:
 
     In the case of a typical beamed power ship, a projector at the home
     star beams power to the ship.  As discussed in detail by Forward
     (see ref.)  this is a huge laser, which reflects off a very thin
     sail.  Light pressure pushes the ship forward.  The sail would be
     very thin (perhaps 100 atoms thick) aluminum.  The power could also
     be beamed by a large microwave antenna reflecting off a metal mesh.
 
     The key word is huge.  Forward, for example, envisions a a lense to
     focus the laser which is 1000 km in diameter, and a sail which is
     also 1000 km in diameter.  A microwave pushed sail would have to be
     even larger.  (The sails and lenses don't need to be nearly as big
     if they are for missions which don't need the laser power at the
     target star, such as flyby missions).

     Power required for this is tremendous---Forward's scheme uses
     50,000 times as much as the entire Earth's current generating
     capacity.  This is partly due to the fact that light pressure is a
     very inefficient way to use energy.

     Alternatively, the beam could be a neutral particle beam, such as
     is being considered for space defense.  This could possibly be
     focussed tighter than a laser, allowing a smaller "sail" (ionizer
     and magnetic mirror, in this case), and the energy might be able to
     be used more efficiently.

     Stopping a sail is a problem, if you don't have another laser at
     the other end.  It's not impossible---Forward discusses several
     methods.  If necessary, the sail could even carry a fusion rocket
     for stopping---the fuel mass problem is much more tractable if the
     rocket is only used to decelerate.

     One can also think of "hybrid" systems.  A fixed laser could be
     used to heat up a supply of hydrogen reaction mass carried on board
     the ship.  Interstellar hydrogen can be collected by a ram scoop
     and then heated by a laser.  Or, beamed power could be collected to
     run an ion engine.  All of these have has the advantage of more
     efficient energy use than a pure laser sail, and the ability to
     thrust both ways.

     One last idea is to set out a "runway" of fuel pellets for the
     starship to gulp down as it accelerates.  This is like a ramrocket,
     but the fuel is positioned beforehand, can be a fusion mixture
     instead of pure hydrogen, and can be denser than the interstellar
     gas, so a much smaller scoop is usable.  (I think of this as the
     "pac-man" system...)
 
     Starships that carry fuel: the Problem of Mass Ratio
 
     What about starships that carry their fuel on board?

     Chemical rockets are out.  Even nuclear fission reactors are too
     heavy and too inefficient to serve as engines for anything but very
     slow starships.  In order to make a "fast" starship, we need
     efficiency at least as high as fusion.  Preferably better.  The
     problem is, always, mass ratio.

     Since rockets carry their fuel on board, you have to accelerate the
     fuel as well as the payload (crew compartment, cargo, life support,
     structure---all that stuff).  The more efficient your engine, the
     less fuel you have to carry, and thus also the less fuel you waste
     carrying fuel.

     This is another way in which space ships are unlike cars or (ocean)
     ships.  In a car, the gas tank is a relatively small (albeit
     important) component.  In a spaceship, though, most of the mass of
     the ship is fuel.  Empty fuel tanks are usually discarded as the
     voyage progresses.

     A convenient thing to measure for a spaceship is the "mass ratio".
     This is the ratio of the fueled mass (ship including payload and
     fuel) to the "burnout" mass (ship without fuel).  The Apollo
     spaceship, for example, carried several thousand tons of fuel to
     propel a spacecraft of a few tens of tons, for an effective mass
     ratio of about 300.
 
     Fuel efficiency of a rocket engine is usually measured by the
     exhaust velocity, more conveniently expressed as Specific Impulse,
     or Isp.  Specific impulse is a measure of fuel consumption rate: it
     is the length of time the engine can produce an acceleration of one
     gee at a mass ratio of e (2.7).  The higher the specific impulse,
     the longer the engine can thrust and the more efficient the engine.
     (This is discussed further in an appendix)

     Fuel use depends exponentially on time.  Thus, total mass is 2.7
     times the empty mass if you thrust for t=1 times $I_{sp$, (2.7)
     squared for t=2 times $I_{sp$, (2.7) cubed for t=3 times $I_{sp$,
     etc.  The moral is that the specific impulse is a measure of how
     long you can thrust your engines before your fuel mass begins to
     far outweigh your payload mass.

     And mass ratio is a lot worse---squared---if you need to carry the
     fuel you need to get home.  The moral of that is that you'd better
     mine the fuel you need to get home at the target
 
     The Fusion Rocket
 
     Current fusion research is looking at two methods of confining and
     igniting the fuel mix.  In magnetic confinement fusion, the fuel
     plasma is held in by magnetic fields.  To make a rocket engine out
     of it, one simply needs to leak a little of the plasma out of a
     magnetic nozzle.  In inertial confinement fusion, beams---electron,
     ion, or laser beams---compress and heat a small pellet of fuel
     until it explodes.  To make a rocket engine one again confines the
     explosion to exit out the rear of the combustion chanber (in the
     extreme case of inertial confinement, the "Orion" engine, the "fuel
     pellets" are actually small hydrogen bombs that explode next to
     pusher plates behind the spacecraft.)

     In either case, the fusion reactor is likely to be rather heavy!
     It is not at all clear that such a reactor could ever be made light
     enough and powerful enough to accelerate itself, a payload, and a
     tremendous load of fuel at one gee....  but for the moment we'll
     wave those problems away and go on to looking at fuel problems.

     What kind of fusion?

     Current fusion research is almost entirely aimed at igniting the
     reaction of Deuterium (D, "heavy hydrogen") with Tritium (T,
     "super-heavy hydrogen").  This "DT" reaction has an efficiency of
     0.4 percent (meaning that 0.4 percent of the fuel mass is converted
     into energy) and a specific impulse, if perfect combusion, of about
     30 days.  There are problems with using this reaction for a
     starship, including the fact that tritium is radioactive, and
     decays with a half-life of only 12 years.  This means that you're
     either going to have to make it onboard (from lithium, probably),
     or use another reaction.  This may not present much difficulties;
     in fact, tritium is not a natural element, and *all* tritium for
     fusion use would have to be manufactured.  For comercial power
     production by fusion, this is often proposed to be done by
     capturing fusion neutrons in a lithium "wall" around the magnetic
     confinement system.)

     The deuterium-helium three (D-He3) fusion reaction is the one that
     the British Interplanetary Society proposed using in their study of
     a proposed fusion-powered interstellar probe called "Daedalus".
     This is almost as easy to ignite as DT fusion, and has the
     advantage that the energy mostly comes out in the form of energetic
     protons, which are easier to deal with than neutrons, since they
     can be magnetically confined.  The problem is that Helium three is
     scarce (although stable).  It is about 20,000 times rarer than
     ordinary helium four.  The BIS proposed that helium three could be
     "mined" from of the abundant helium in the atmosphere of Jupiter.
     Another proposal for "mining" helium is to extract the
     parts-per-billion level of He3 trapped in the crust of the moon
     from the solar wind.  It is also not impossible that He3 could be
     manufactured on Earth.  Other reactions that might be considered
     include D-D, B-H, and H-D; any of which has some advantages.  These
     are all slightly harder to ignite.

     The "big one" is the solar reaction, four H atoms fusing to one
     helium four (He4).  This is hard to ignite--- about 1E19 times
     harder than the DT reaction (even in the sun, any given hydrogen
     ion is expected to only undergo fusion once in ten billion years or
     so!).  But, we can postulate some sort of breakthrough.  Perhaps it
     can be catalyzed by muons.  And fuel is certainly plentiful---the
     most abundant stuff in the universe.  And it's efficient, with a
     mass conversion efficiency of 0.7 percent, for a specific impulse
     of 42 days.  Even if you could run the fusion chain right up to
     iron, you could only get an efficiency of 0.9 percent.

     In a real ship, we would not likely be able to get a fusion
     efficiency of the theoretical maximum.  After all, if a well
     developed technology like cars did that good, we'd be getting 500
     miles per gallon.  Many technologists expect about 10 percent of
     the fuel to fuse; let's be optimistic and calculate for 50 percent.
     Mass ratios for missions with up to about a year of thrust are
     high, but not impossibly high---remember, we went to the moon with
     a mass ratio of about 300.  Above a year or so of thrust, the mass
     ratios get to be literally astronomical.  Fusion is good, but it is
     by no means perfect.

     Total conversion

     Now we're talking starflight!  Take advantage of ol' Albert's
     equation, and convert matter directly into energy.  But how?  Total
     conversion achieved by using antimatter is the straightforward
     solution (and the only one that uses physics currently known).  Add
     antihydrogen to hydrogen, and you get energy.  With a 50-50 mix,
     much of the energy (2/3) comes out as charged pions, which can be
     channeled backwards with a magnetic field (before they disintegrate
     into gamma rays).  Mass ratios for such an antimatter powered
     starship are very low.

     Problems with antimatter:

     It's hard to handle.  It can't touch anything.  However, it is (at
     least in theory) possible to levitate it with electric and magnetic
     fields.  However, keep in mind that you'd better keep your
     antimatter in a very good vacuum, and it will still probably let
     off the occasional burst of gamma rays when stray matter atoms
     drift by.  You have to make it.  Antimatter does not exist
     naturally in the universe.  It can be, and is, made in particle
     accelerators; but this is not easy, not very eficient, and takes a
     lot of energy.  (The current world production of antiprotons comes
     up to about one one-trillionth of a gram.)  Even one or two
     starships would require antimatter factories on a planetary scale.

     It's dangerous.  An ounce of antimatter has about as much potential
     destructive power as a MX missle warhead.  A fueled starship might
     need several hundred tons.  Also, keep in mind that the
     matter-antimatter annihilation engine will emit hard gamma
     radiation---you'd better seperate the crew compartment from the
     engines, possibly with a kilometer-long tether; and shield it
     pretty well, too.

     Antimatter-powered starships are likely to be limited by the
     availability of antimatter rather than by the mass ratio limits.
     However, antimatter usage can be "stretched" by adding extra
     (normal matter) reaction mass to the exhaust.  The specific impulse
     only decreases as the square root of the amount of added mass.  For
     example, if we increase the matter to antimatter ratio from 1:1 up
     to 17:1 we increasing the total fuel mass by a factor of 9 (from 2
     to 18), but we also increase the thrust by a factor of three, for
     the same amount of antimatter.  For best antimatter utilization, we
     use a little bit of antimatter to hear a large amount of normal
     matter.

     Exotic TC

     Why can't you directly turn matter into energy?  The problem is
     something known as the law of conservation of baryon number.
     (Antimatter protons have negative baryon number; that's why they
     can annihilate ordinary protons to produce energy).  Since
     antimatter has such a high energy density, exotic means like these
     of performing total conversion have little advantage over
     antimatter in terms of mass ratios, but they may be easier and or
     safer to handle, or may provide a cheap way to manufacture
     antimatter.

     Many modern Grand Unified Field Theories ("GUTS", for short),
     however, suggest that this "law" is only an approximate law of
     nature, and can be broken in certain cases.  Magnetic monopoles,
     for example, might catalyze protons (and neutrons) to turn into
     positrons, neutrinos, and lots of energy (a minor problem being
     that magnetic monopoles don't seem to exist.)  Alternatively, it is
     conceivable that a topological "twist" in space could be able to
     convert ordinary matter into antimatter.

     A black hole also can convert matter into energy very efficiently
     (if we can get close enough to it*), small ones via Hawking
     radiation; large ones by simple mechanical processes**.  Note that
     we wouldn't necessarily have to actually carry the black hole
     aboard the starship---if necessary, we could use energy from the
     black hole to make antimatter, and carry that.

     (*not necessarily an easy thing to do!  A black hole of mass ten
     trillion tons is smaller than a proton!  **as an object approaches
     the event horizon of a black hole, its rest mass is converted into
     kinetic energy, which can---theoretically---be extracted).

          ---END OF PART 1----

          copyright 1987 by Geoffrey A. Landis

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #134
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13283; Sat, 14 Feb 87 03:02:21 PST
	id AA13283; Sat, 14 Feb 87 03:02:21 PST
Date: Sat, 14 Feb 87 03:02:21 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702141102.AA13283@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #135

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 135

Today's Topics:
			       Re: TAU
		   space news from 3 Nov 1986 AW&ST
Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
		       Space Program Priorities
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 87 22:49:31 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: TAU
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Check out February's "Sky & Telescope", there's a short note on TAU.

There is rather more detail in the January (?) issue of Spaceflight,
from the British Interplanetary Society -- several pages of it.

> ...  Doesn't the Sun have the solar
> equivalent of a magnetic tail, and wouldn't the probe then be travelling
> straight down it?  It makes more sense to send the probe at right angles
> to the direction of the Sun's motion.  ...

Somebody may have goofed there.  If one wants to get the probe out of
the Sun's influence as quickly as possible, one launches it directly
into the galactic wind (which may not be lined up with the Sun's
motion... I don't remember for sure), since that's the direction in
which the heliopause is closest.  On the other hand, the magnetic tail
may be a more interesting area to study...

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 00:10:28 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from 3 Nov 1986 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

About 1000 contractor employees at the Vandenberg shuttle facility laid
off.  Total contractor workforce thus declines to 1700; this will
probably be 1300 by January and 1000 by September.

Major NASA reorganization expected in December, in the wake of the
Phillips report.  Space science and applications may get separated.
Headquarters authority will increase, including probable move of the JSC
shuttle-program- manager position to Washington.  Fletcher has also
moved high management around a bit, including throwing out some
political appointees.

Australia's state of Queensland is studying establishing an
international spaceport on Cape York Peninsula.

USAF begins preparations for the possibility of an emergency Titan 34D
launch, in case a spysat or early warning satellite needs replacing.
The official schedule shows no launches until early 1987.  The ten best
Titan solid-rocket segments are being selected from inventory and will
be shipped to Vandenberg in case they are needed for an emergency launch
of an imaging spysat.  They could be shifted to the Cape if an
early-warning satellite needs replacing.

Cape Canaveral launch of GOES-H weather satellite aboard Atlas-Centaur
is postponed from December to February to permit engineering changes to
the encoder system in the satellite's imager.  The encoder system has
been a major factor in limiting the lifespan of GOES satellites.  The
encoder aboard GOES-H is dual-redundant; it will be converted to
triple-redundant to compensate for still more pessimistic estimates of
component life.

Cape Canaveral launch of FleetSatCom aboard Atlas Centaur postponed a
week to permit re-doing tests after suspect electrical components were
replaced.

Vandenberg launch of the Polar Beacon / Auroral Research Payload
satellite on a Scout is now set for Nov 13, postponed from Oct 10 due to
gyro trouble.

National Academy of Sciences Space Science Board concludes that manned
missions beyond low Earth orbit make little sense unless they are part
of routine manned operations in those regions.  The SSB does not support
manned bases on the Moon or Mars in the near future, although it agrees
that they would be useful if they existed.  The report will not
recommend specific missions, but will push detailed objectives.
Astronomy and astrophysics need larger telescopes, probably to be
assembled in space; the Space Station will help.  Microgravity work
needs to focus on basic science before leaping into applications.  Space
medicine, which badly needs a manned space station, needs to study
long-term effects of free-fall on humans in much more detail before a
manned Mars mission can be planned.  Earth scientists recommend a
multi-satellite program with several large instrument platforms for
continuous observations of the whole Earth.  Solar and space physics hot
spots are imaging of the Sun's magnetosphere, early exploration of the
interstellar medium, and high-resolution solar imaging.  Planetary
exploration priorities are completing preliminary exploration of the
solar system and beginning intensive study of Mars.

Solid booster segments, in ground test at Morton Thiokol, duplicate the
51L black-smoke joint failure for the first time.  This test used
chilled joints plus blowholes in the putty (such as were probably
induced by the pre-launch leak testing).  Meeting the Feb 1988 launch
target for the next Shuttle mission will require at least four
full-scale full-duration booster firings in the next 11 months, a
demanding schedule.  NASA wants six such tests, which might mean
postponing one until after the first real launch.

Roald Sagdeev, director of Soviet Institute of Space Research,
recommends renewed US/Soviet space cooperation despite squabbles over
SDI.  He also emphasized multinational, rather than binational,
cooperation.  This is a good sign, he's influential.

British National Space Center signs cooperation agreement with Soviet
Union, leading to British participation in Soviet planetary missions and
possible development of a joint X-ray astronomy spacecraft.

Scientists slam Reagan for leadership failure leading to the current sad
state of US space science.  "US space scientists... said that a strong
space policy must be formed and visibly supported by the White House to
regain the US capability that 20 years ago was preparing to put men on
the Moon, but today cannot obtain boosters for the smallest satellites."
Thomas Donahue, chairman of NAS's Space Science Board: "It's not enough
to be favorably disposed -- we need some leadership."  The scientists
say there has been no such leadership or policy support from the Reagan
White House, and that Fletcher is supportive but ineffectual.  The
scientific consensus is that NASA should regain control of its own
expendables, and should be prepared to use them intensively.  At
present, NASA is mumbling about expendables, but little has been done.

NASA accelerates efforts to identify early Space Station users and make
sure that they are in the budget soon.

Space station officials will soon report to Fletcher on use of
expendables in Space Station assembly.  Only existing expendables will
be considered.  [Boo hiss! -- HS] New vehicles will be considered for a
possible role in Station logistics later, though; use of expendables for
this is considered quite likely.

Pictures of the Titan failure last April.  Nothing very revealing; the
problem happened very suddenly.  First frame looks normal, next frame --
42 milliseconds later -- shows flame starting to envelop the lower half
of the left booster.

US government to restart discussions with Europe about subsidies to
commercial launch services.  The original investigations ended last year
when Arianespace was cleared of unfair pricing.

Astrotech drastically curtails operations of its space subsidiary,
General Space Corp, to stem continuing financial losses.  This kills
Astrotech's privately-funded orbiter project, likewise its development
of an orbiting power station and a reusable upper stage.

Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 2 Feb 87 16:58:08 GMT
From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8701301916.AA04966@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> ... I've always thought that the Green Peace people were a pack of idiots.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion(s).  May I suggest learning
a few facts before broadcasting those opinions to thousands of people
around the world?

> ... I am strongly against political demonstrations or any other sort
> of political activity occuring at KSC during a launch.

At UT-Austin, the administration has thoughtfully provided a "free
speech area" in which (during the designated "free speech hour")
students may openly express their opinions.  Perhaps you think the US
gov't should be so `thoughtful'?  Could you perhaps explain why you are
"strongly against" people exercising their First Amendment rights?
(Clearly they were not interfering with the actual launch.)

> However what has got me spooked is since the anti-technology groups
> have more-or-less successfully driven a stake through the heart of the
> nuclear industry ...

Another case of opinion with no facts.  I am more disposed to the view
that the nuclear industry committed a form of suicide by: (1) not
developing a disposal system for wastes it knew would be generated; (2)
grossly underestimating the costs and times of building nuclear power
plants; (3) depending on the continuation of the billions of dollars of
subsidies that the Feds provided in the 50s and 60s; (4) grossly
overestimating the demand for power in the US; (5) grossly
underestimating the amount of savings available from promoting
conservation.

> I know that the left-wing, "environmentalist" people in West Germany
> are violently opposed to the American Space Program, partialy because
> of the SDI connection, but mainly due to simple blind hatred against
> high technology.

Simply false.  To make it simple: cite your sources, please.  (I assume
that you are referring to the German Green party; if so, please remember
that the party speaks with (at least) two voices, the Moderate and the
Fundi.  If you don't understand the differences between the two, then I
suggest you are not competent to make the judgement you made above.)

> There must be active environmentalists subscribing to Space Digest.

I consider myself to be such.  I am (for example) a member of
Greenpeace, and I regularly contribute time and money to
conservation-oriented groups.

> Question for one of these people: Has the Space Program been targeted
> by environmentalist radicals for political opposition?  If so, what
> organizations are they employing to promote this opposition to the
> Space Program.

I'll ignore the insults and say this: As far as I know, the civilian
space program is, in general, not opposed by environmental groups.
Some, such as Greenpeace, have expressed concern that potential hazards
have not been adequately studied.  (Of particular concern is the use of
plutonium-isotope batteries; the scheduled payload after Challenger
included about 43 pounds of plutonium.  No one knows what would have
happened had that payload exploded.  Several people on this list have
already pointed out how plutonium is chemically toxic as well as
troublesome if absorbed into the body.)

The main opposition centers on the military side of the space program,
particularly the miltary takeover of the shuttle and (proposed)
incursions onto the space station.  Some international envorinmental
groups are concerned that the US space program is too isolationist; it
poses incredible roadblocks to foreigners wishing to participate.  Other
concerns: the classification of data from the space program; not sharing
that data with countries that could benefit from it (particularly
third-world countries in Africa and South America).

Please note that I am in no way officially representative of *any*
group, environmental or otherwise.  The above is my collected
impressions from reading the publications of many of these groups as
well as listening to some of their speeches.

Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 02:40:15 GMT
From: paulf@shasta.stanford.edu  (Paul Flaherty)
Subject: Space Program Priorities
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

    A suggested logical order of events:

    1) Personned Space Station.
    GOAL(s)
	a) To provide for the construction of a heavy earth - lunar
	transit system for use in (2) below.
	b) To provide a more stable lab platform for commercial firms
	developing space - based manufacturing techniques.
	Thus, when we reach step (3), we'll hopefully have paying
	customers.

    2) Lunar base.
    GOAL:
	To provide raw materials for step (3).

    3) REAL ESTATE SALE.
    GOAL: 
	To foster development of the LaGrange points as commercial
	properties.


Justification for the above three step plan:

	Historically, explorations of new territory have been for the
expansion (exploitation?) of business.  As business properties become
more expensive (land has always been one of the biggest captial outlays
for a new business), taxes increase, etc., businesses start looking to
new frontiers to make a buck.  Examples include the spice trade and the
semiconductor market.

	Enter the new frontier real estate agent.  Now, if the agent
only has promises from a few leading authorities that his clients might
break even by relocating...or even make a huge profit...most will
politely decline, because there are too many unknown risks.  Face it,
relocating to space -- just putting something up there -- is not cheap.
The perceived risk is much higer than the expected benefit.

	We need to give our agent a better offer.  To reduce the
perceived risk.  By allowing the company to move on a trial basis.  Get
them hooked.  And then offer them something concrete -- space is just
that, and trying to sell a chunk of Ether is akin to the Florida
swampland deal.  Sell them some relocated moon chunks.  Their own little
island.  No taxes.  No environmentalists.  No outside lawyers (for that
matter, no unwanted laws).

	My point is that, as long as we continue to treat space as a
neat scientific curiosity, it will remain just that -- curious.  But if
we really want to live in space, we have to have some reason for being
there.  Somebody has to pay the bills, and in case you havn't noticed,
our government is going broke.  I contend that the ONLY way into space
is on the shoulders of business.  We need a prospectus and a decent real
estate agent.

	Any volunteers?

-=paulf

Paul A. Flaherty, N9FZX
paulf@umunhum.Stanford.EDU ~

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #135
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14369; Sun, 15 Feb 87 03:02:26 PST
	id AA14369; Sun, 15 Feb 87 03:02:26 PST
Date: Sun, 15 Feb 87 03:02:26 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702151102.AA14369@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #136

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 136

Today's Topics:
		     Future of U.S. space program
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
	 Battleships (was: Re: Future of U.S. space program)
		     Re: The NEXT aviation record
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Feb 87 05:23:13 GMT
From: grahamb@athena.mit.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Subject: Future of U.S. space program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

There have been many articles in this group re. the space program and
where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire problem lies
with the politicians, and the higher you go, the worse it gets. Public
opinion is way ahead of the powers that be in this. There seems to be
quite a strong feeling of public support for invigorating space efforts,
yet the powers that be (i.e. Reagan & Co.) are null and void on the
subject.

The most you can hope for under the current administration (or one like
it) is that the need for launch capabilites to support militarization of
space will prevent the program from complete oblivion. However I think
you can forget grandiose missions of the Apollo type until the power
structure is replaced by one with a non-zero vision quotient.

Don't forget, in the age of jet airplanes and smart missiles, this
administration allowed the shuttle program to disintegrate for lack of
realistic funding while hundreds of millions were lavished on the
restoration of WWII battleships. A military dinosaur is apparently more
meaningful to the national interest than a vigorous space program. If
NASA is closed down to pay for a new brigade of cavalry one should not
be too suprised.

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 00:32:53 GMT
From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  ("It's kind of fun to do the impossible." -- Walt Disney)
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In all fairness it should be noted that the re-fitting and upgrading
(not "restoration") of those battleships resulted in better ships than
are being built new (inflammable Sheffield vs armor-plated New Jersey,
for instance), and for a lot less money.  It was a very efficient use of
the taxpayer's dollar.  The Pentagon should be so careful with *all* the
money they get.

I agree that NASA should get more money, but it's abundantly clear that
first they need to get their house in order.

		--Craig
		...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 19:58:34 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> There have been many articles in this group re. the space program and
> where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire problem
> lies with the politicians, and the higher you go, the worse it gets.
> Public opinion is way ahead of the powers that be in this. There seems
> to be quite a strong feeling of public support for invigorating space
> efforts, yet the powers that be (i.e. Reagan & Co.) are null and void
> on the subject.

Maybe it makes you feel better to think this is the case, but my
experience talking to people is that only a very few care strongly, one
way or the other on this subject.  In general, better educated people
feel more strongly in favor of the space program, and there is so little
strong opposition to it I can't think of any examples I've ever seen --
but most people in this country are AT BEST lukewarm about the space
program.

Perhaps they neglected the subject when you were in high school, but the
level of funding for any particular program is MOSTLY under the control
of Congress.  That Congress has chosen to spend little money on the
space program since Apollo ended can't be blamed on Reagan -- especially
since the reductions in funding you complain about go back into the
1970s.

> Don't forget, in the age of jet airplanes and smart missiles, this
> administration allowed the shuttle program to disintegrate for lack of
> realistic funding while hundreds of millions were lavished on the
> restoration of WWII battleships. A military dinosaur is apparently
> more meaningful to the national interest than a vigorous space
> program. If NASA is closed down to pay for a new brigade of cavalry
> one should not be too suprised.

Come on -- are you really this ignorant of history?  Most of the
decisions about the shuttle predate Reagan.

I'm getting really sick of this ignorant nonsense -- Reagan doesn't run
this country in a vacuum.  Congress doesn't just have the power to
override him -- Congress has to set the funding levels by appropriating
money.  If you don't like the results of democracy, be honest with your-
self and everyone else and admit it.

Clayton E. Cramer

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

Date: 6 Feb 87 18:24:26 GMT
From: kodak!sprankle@rochester.arpa  (dave sprankle)
Subject: Battleships (was: Re: Future of U.S. space program)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <523@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.UUCP writes:
>In article <975@athena.TEK.COM> grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley) writes:
>>Don't forget, in the age of jet airplanes and smart missiles,
>>this administration allowed the shuttle program to disintegrate 
>>for lack of realistic funding while hundreds of millions were 
>>lavished on the restoration of WWII battleships. A military 
>>dinosaur is apparently more meaningful to the national interest 
>>than a vigorous space program. If NASA is closed down to pay
>>for a new brigade of cavalry one should not be too suprised.
>
>In all fairness it should be noted that the re-fitting and upgrading
>(not "restoration") of those battleships resulted in better ships
>than are being built new (inflammable Sheffield vs armor-plated New Jersey,
>for instance), and for a lot less money.  It was a very efficient use of
>the taxpayer's dollar.  The Pentagon should be so careful with *all* the
>money they get.

I disagree.  While battleships are certainly majestic,
imposing, and beautiful ships, I see no position for them in the modern
navy.

Yes, Iowa-class ships are heavily armored.  Such protection did not save
the Bismarck, the Prince of Wales, or the Repulse in World War II--and they
were done in by WWII aircraft, which were much slower and less heavily
armed than strike aircraft are today.  (Surface ships played a major part
in the sinking of the Bismarck, but British carrier aircraft sealed her fate.)
Also, one should remember that tactical nuclear weapons did not exist
back then.

These ships are as large, as psychologically valuable and as vulnerable
as aircraft carriers.  They require the same escorts and air cover as do
carriers.  Yet they fill no special role--naval aircraft can launch cruise
missiles and perform ground-attack missions with much more versatility,
and their 16-inch guns are easily outranged by anti-ship missiles.

Dreadnought battleships have never played a decisive part in any major
naval war; they have been obsolete weapons since the end of WWI.
Their appeal lies in their propoganda value, not in their fighting strength.
They have never, and will never, rule the seas.  We need to spend our money
on better ships, yes--small, well armed, fast, survivable ships, not
crippled giants.  The Royal Navy nearly lost two world wars because it
prepared for them by building dreadnoughts when they needed escort craft.

We need to spend our money on important things--on the weapons we need to
guard ourselves from attack (but no more than that), and on things such
as a sane and long-ranged space program to prepare for our future--not
to waste it on the relics of the past.

--drl

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

Date: 26 Jan 87 19:05:00 GMT
From: sundc!nears!occrsh!occrsh.UUCP!QAOKIS.UUCP!authorplaceholder@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: The NEXT aviation record
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I believe the gentleman's name was Jim Bede of the Bede 5 fame.  He was
going to do the trip in a modified glider.

			George

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

Date: 27 Jan 87 05:37:54 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>> - you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay?

In article <7555@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP the normally level
headed (Henry Spencer) writes:

>So avoid orbits subject to serious decay.  Skylab was not a case of an
>orbit suddenly "starting to decay", it was a case of miscalculating the
>rate of decay by a relatively modest amount.  (Nobody thought Skylab
>would stay up to the year 2000 unaided -- a reboost by the Shuttle was
>in the plans from the very beginning, and would have happened had the
>Shuttle been funded well enough to stay on schedule.)  Besides, as many
>people have pointed out, satellites falling out of orbit are not a
>symptom of an active space program, they are a symptom of a
>half-paralyzed space program.  If the thing's orbit starts to decay,
>you don't sit around wringing your hands in anguish, you go up and
>reboost it.

We cannot afford "costly" technological fixes in the present economic
situation.  Let in fission reactors of uranium and SDIO will throw up
plutonium reactors.  Their efficiencies are horrible, and safety in that
environ ( minimized weight, cooling reservoir, etc.) would be so poor
that manned fixes would be sheer madness.  Avoiding "decaying orbits"
ain't that simple.  If one of these things "ranaway", there is no
borated sand to pile on it to shut it down, and to expect that it would
NOT generate orbit disturbing gas jets is naive.  Now you are seeing
"paranoia" and that is just the type of reaction that many even avid
supporters of the space program would have.  Besides, this approach is
just too damn expensive for the amount of reliable and safe power/mass
you get for the return.

>>.... What do you do about the contaminated areas of Florida when ..?

>Let us not let our paranoia run away with us.  As the man pointed out,
>a nuclear reactor is not particularly hazardous before it starts
>operation.  The Soviets have lost .. one nuclear reactor into the ocean
>..  If you're feeling fussy, insist that the reactor use uranium rather
>than plutonium, although it probably would anyway.  A manageable
>problem.

Nuts!  Buried under the salt ocean? Hmmmm! .. how convenient.  Try
scattering that crap over a large low orbital envelope where planes or
even satellites pick up the dusty fall-out for the next ... years.

>>	- some part in the ion engines or the guidance system fails and
>>	starts the reactor heading toward impact in New York or Moscow?

>Since it will take several months to get there in the sort of orbits an
>ion-propelled spacecraft can fly, you go up and fix it long before it
>gets far off course.

Not me, buddy; you can go, and don't bother coming back (the polluting
afterglow, you know).  Incidentally, due to the cost cutting necessary
because the Japanese are supporting our debt spending less and less with
each passing year, you will have to pay for this attempt yourself..

>> Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous.  Moving it into space
>> isn't a cure-all.

It makes it MORE dangerous to put it into space, not less.  We have made
a presentation along with other FUSION concepts (some of which are not
applicable to space) to the Air Force Studies Board Committee on
Aneutronic Fusion Power, Phase I.  If Phase II approves, modest funding
would begin in 88.  B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) exceeds other approaches
by 10^4, so the development time will be quite short, notwithstanding
the long term development and high capital cost difficulties with
current (tokamak) type approaches.

Such endeavors may prejudice my view of fission devices, and may have
colored my comments above.  .. . for sure!  Sorry Henry.

           Ride Amtrak: America's first Super Collider!

Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075
Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 21:05:00 GMT
From: euler.Berkeley.EDU!dma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Controls Wizard)
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <975@athena.TEK.COM> grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley) writes:
>
>There have been many articles in this group re. the space program and
>where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire problem
>lies with the politicians, and the higher you go, the worse it gets.
>Public opinion is way ahead of the powers that be in this. There seems
>to be quite a strong feeling of public support for invigorating space
>efforts, yet the powers that be (i.e. Reagan & Co.) are null and void
>on the subject.

>The most you can hope for under the current administration (or one like
>it) is that the need for launch capabilites to support militarization
>of space will prevent the program from complete oblivion. However I
>think you can forget grandiose missions of the Apollo type until the
>power structure is replaced by one with a non-zero vision quotient.

I think you misstate the problem.  I agree politics inhibits the space
program but it does so on both the civilian and military sides.  The
fundamental problem is the impossibility of long range planning in a
nation where the government changes every 2 - 8 years.  NASA had its
plans for Apollo but governments change and priorities change.  The
military has exactly the same thing happen, and it costs them even more.
Every few years the Air Force is told to scrap everything they've been
doing on some given project (having, thus, wasted a few billion dollars
and gotten nothing for it) and do something else.  Requirements for
military space programs often derive from some general's wish list and
mean redesigning the wheel so we can get a non-working, non-operational
system (that may take years to make operational and will probably never
meet spec) to replace one that did essentially the same thing but had
fewer whistles and bells.  The people who design spacecraft hardware
often redesign things for no reason (or without looking for other
solutions) and create problems which they look to spacecraft software
people to solve (The satellite designers I know believe that software
can compensate for any amount of bad design).  There is little
communication and no real "systems engineering."  So projects run behind
schedule, costs double or triple and 4 years later there's a new
administration which throws away what little has been accomplished.
What we need is a mechanism of long range planning that will be less
"policy sensitive."  (I have no idea of how that could be accomplished.)
We need to avoid relying on a single system (e.g. using only the shuttle
as a launch vehicle) while avoiding the proliferation of multiple
systems that don't really meet any new requirements (we could get by
with 3 or 4 types of launch vehicles, based on weight of payload.)  One
of the reasons military spacecraft are so expensive is that they are
essentially "hand- crafted" not mass-produced and much of that is
unneccessary.  We also need to increase cooperation between the branches
of the military and increase cooperation between NASA and the military.
(Right now joint NASA/DoD programs tend to be DoD coercing NASA into bad
decisions.)  A lot of unnecessary systems are built because of jealousy
between the services - if the Army gets 1, the Navy has to get 1 and the
Air Force needs a dozen.  If we want to make a real commitment to a
space program, let's try to run it efficiently.  Let's figure out what
our goals are and not get sidetracked by governmental whims (To some
extent, I would place SDI in the class of governmental whims although my
opposition to SDI is based only on my doubt that it will get us anywhere
useful.  At any rate, I don't mean to single out any one program.  Of
course the programs I work on are the most essential and cutting them
shouldn't even be thought of :-))

Miriam Nadel

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #136
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15990; Mon, 16 Feb 87 03:03:08 PST
	id AA15990; Mon, 16 Feb 87 03:03:08 PST
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 87 03:03:08 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702161103.AA15990@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #137

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 137

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Future of U.S. space program (Graham Bromley)
			  Re: Women in Space
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
				SR-71
Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
			antimatter propulsion
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
	   Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?
	   Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?
			    SRB parachutes
			    SRB parachutes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Date:  3 Feb 1987 1440-PST (Tuesday)
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program (Graham Bromley)

>From: grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley)
>Subject: Future of U.S. space program

>There have been many articles in this group re. the space program
>and where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire
                                                          ^^^^^^
>problem lies with the politicians, and the higher you go, the worse it
>gets. Public opinion is way ahead of the powers that be in this. There
>seems to be quite a strong feeling of public support for invigorating
>space efforts, yet the powers that be (i.e. Reagan & Co.) are null and
>void on the subject.

Let me give you and the Net a little inside perspective about the inner
goings on in the White House.  [Note: I do not necessarily argee with
all of the Reagan Administrations policies, nor NASA'a policies].

The problem does NOT lie entirely with politicians.  It turns out of the
entire (that word again) Staff, only the President himself is really
pro-space [his best comment being to Stockman about if he (David) were
back in the time of Columbus .....].  The President wants to leave a
real mark in history (like all do), and he realizes that it is not all
economic policy and politics, but also science and technology.

Many of the other staffers, Bush, Weinburger, Schultz are either cold or
at best luke-warm to space development.  A large part of the problem is
that the companies, institutions, etc. who would be the targets of
things like space manufacturing, mining, etc. are not interested.  They
have enough earth bound problems.  Perhaps it's an extension of the
Detroit syndrome [You can see the article in Science some months back
about manufacturing compounds in space].  The only people who are really
thrilled are the communications people.  The earth sensing people have
run into technical blocks not unlike the AI people of the 1960s.

>The most you can hope for under the current administration (or one like
>it) is that the need for launch capabilites to support militarization
>of space will prevent the program from complete oblivion. However I
>think you can forget grandiose missions of the Apollo type until the
>power structure is replaced by one with a non-zero vision quotient.

I would hope for more than the militarization of space, otherwise, I'll
think about joining ESSA or JSA.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 13:40:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Women in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1684@PUCC.BITNET>, 6080626@PUCC.BITNET (Adam Barr) writes:
> I was watching some TV show on the space program (I think it might
> have been the episode of "Frontline" recently mentioned) and they were
> interviewing astronauts from previous Shuttle flights. One of them was
> named Rhea Sheddon (I think) who among other things happened to be a
> woman (in fact she was married to another astronaut, that must be a
> first). This just got me wondering how many women had been in space. I
> can think of Sally Ride and Judy Resnik

In the U.S. space program there have been nine women on shuttle crews if
one includes Christa McAuliffe, only eight if she is excluded.  Three of
them are married to men who are also astronauts.  There are another five
women astronauts currently in NASA, I think, awaiting their first
flights.  Both Ride and Seddon were among the first group of women
selected by NASA back around 1978.  Ride is married to astronaut Steve
Hawley and Seddon to (oops, forgot his last name) Robert Gibson?  Anna
Fisher is married to Bill Fisher.  The other women who have been to
space on the shuttle are Shannon Lucid, Judy Resnik, Kathy Sullivan,
Mary Cleave, and Bonnie Dunbar.  Only the latter two were not in the
1978 group.  The women astronauts awaiting assignment to their first
flights were all selected with the 1984 and 1985 groups.  The ones I can
think of are Marsha Ivins, Ellen Shulman, Kathryn Thornton, Linda Godwin
and Tamara Jernigan.  Apologies if I've left anyone out.  Sally Ride is
the only woman to reach space twice; Judy Resnik would have shared that
distinction on mission 51L.
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe
	Uniq Digital Technologies	rjnoe@uniq.UUCP
	28 South Water Street		+1 312 879 1566
	Batavia, Illinois  60510	41:50:56 N.  88:18:35 W.

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 16:40:17 GMT
From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <480@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) writes:
> >> Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous.  Moving it into space isn't
> >> a cure-all.
>
> It makes it MORE dangerous to put it into space, not less.  We have
> made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts (some of which 
> are not applicable to space) to the Air Force Studies Board Committee 
> on Aneutronic Fusion Power, Phase I.  If Phase II approves, modest 
> funding would begin in 88.   B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) exceeds other 
> approaches by 10^4, so the development time will be quite short, 
> notwithstanding the long term development and high capital cost 
> difficulties with current (tokamak) type approaches.

I'm not sure if this belongs in this group, but I don't read *.physics,
so please bear with me.

I thought that fusion reactors also produced hazardous (radioactive?)
wastes.  Not in the same quantities as fission reactors, but still a
problem to dispose of.  Is this not true?

What happens if we create a fusion reactor in space?  Does the B/R value
(to a site on Earth surface) increase or decrease?  Are wastes a problem
for a PLASMAK reactor in space (say, LEO)?

Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex

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

Date:         Tue, 03 Feb 87 06:56:29 EST
From: Kenneth Ng <KEN@orion>
Subject:      SR-71
To: Space <space@angband.s1.gov>

In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right
after takeoff.  I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat up,
to seal the fuel tanks.  Note: I have no contacts other than published
material.
 
About the altitude record, is it measured by level flight at that
altitude, or just the top of a ballistic curve?  I ask this because the
F-15 Streak Eagle has a maximum altitude of 98,400 feet even though the
engines flame out at 80,000 feet.  (Source: McDonnel Douglas F-15 Eagle,
by James Perry Stevenson, ISBN 0-8168-0604-7).  If the record is for
level flight, does anyone want to take a guess at the maximum altitude
for a SR-71 on a ballistic curve?  Does anyone know at what altitude the
engines on the SR-71 flame out?  Have the SR-71 engines EVER flamed out
due to altitude?

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 21:30:58 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by radical environmentalists
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> classification of data from the space program; not sharing that data
> with countries that could benefit from it (particularly third-world
> countries in Africa and South America).

Interesting, considering that some of those countries don't have too
great a record themselves.  I dimly recall an episode where Argentina
refused to give Chile access to Landsat images (of Chile) from
Argentina's Landsat receiving station.  That one was resolved when NASA
threatened to turn the satellite off during its passes over Argentina if
a bit more cooperation wasn't forthcoming.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 23:56:36 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: antimatter propulsion
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Thought this might be of interest...  The latest issue of Space World
has an interview with Robert Forward, in which he mentions a proposal
that he and some folks from Rand, JPL, Los Alamos, and the USAF Rocket
Propulsion Lab made to SDIO to make antimatter-based space propulsion
real.  Given ample funding but not a crash program, it would take about
30 years.  The first ten years gets you all the basic technology.  The
next ten years builds a big, specialized accelerator, useful for physics
research but mainly aimed at making enough antimatter to test-fire a
full-scale rocket engine.  The last ten years builds an antimatter
factory on the same scale as the Hanford uranium-enrichment complex,
which makes enough antimatter to fuel a large, active space program.
This was not a high-risk proposal, just a big and rather long-term one.
SDIO decided it was too long-term for them, but the potential remains.
"If we don't do anything, then all the people who say that antimatter is
foolish and will never come to fruition are correct.  Because if we
don't do anything, of course nothing will happen and it will take 50
years or 100 years before we have it.  But if we *do* something, then we
can get it done in 30 years."

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: 4 Feb 87 02:47:43 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

$>Remember they [the SRBs] were also heading for deep water at the time.
$ 
$    I thought that they had turned back toward land at the moment that
$ they were destroyed.  This is the rationale that others have given for
$ the destruction...

I just watched the sequence on videotape again.  The solids were indeed
starting to point back to shore when they were destroyed (although the
velocity vector must still have been out to sea.)  You can clearly see
the motors shut down when the charge goes off.  According to some NASA
materials I saw a while ago, the fuel in the solids continues to burn
only in the presence of substantial pressure and heat.  If the pressure
is abruptly lowered, the fuel just stops burning.  The range safety
destruct mechanism is a linear shaped charge which opens the entire
length of the engine, providing the pressure change needed to stop the
burning.

In the Rogers report, there was testimony about the possibility of
shutting down the solids to allow abort during first stage firing.  The
problem was not turning them off (the range safety charge does it just
fine), but doing so in a controlled manner so that the abrupt change in
load on the stack would not rip it apart, or turn the orbiter into the
wind and rip the wings off.

			-Ed

Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp
American Information Technology    (408)252-8713

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

Date: 30 Jan 87 20:04:51 GMT
From: pyramid!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka@decwrl.dec.com  (Frank Adams)
Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>[KFL]
>    Not at all.  It is only because individuals benefit from such a
>    freeway that it is built.  I don't agree that it has to be done by
>    governments.  Coast to coast railways were built by private companies.

A point of historical fact: not a single transcontinental railway was
built without government money.  The Great Northern was the only North
American transcontinental railway built without federal assistance, but
it did get money from states and cities.

(Note that, for purposes of this discussion, whose money was used is the
relevant point, not whether the actions were taken directly by the
government or by private companies.)

Frank Adams                           ihnp4!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!franka
Ashton-Tate          52 Oakland Ave North         E. Hartford, CT 06108

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 20:04:40 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: Why should USA etc. invest for all mankind?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

This subsidy of transcontinental railroads played a major role in the
rapid expansion of the West, dramatically speeding up conflict between
whites and Indians.  Without these subsidies, I expect there might well
have been time for both the Indians to come to a better accommodation
with the whites, and much of the wasteful exploitation of resources on
the frontier that led to the National Forest system might well have been
avoided.

In space, there aren't any aboriginal peoples to worry about (yet), but
I have uncomfortable feeling that accelerating free market levels of
space development may come back to haunt us someday -- much as the 
subsidies to the railroads led to the accelerated problems with and for
the Indians.

Clayton E. Cramer

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

Date: 4 Feb 87 09:23:59 GMT
From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: SRB parachutes
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Another question.  If the SRBs had been allowed to burn themselves out,
would the parachutes have opened and allowed them to fall into the ocean
without sinking?  I think it likely that the impact with the ocean and
the period spent underwater did more damage to the evidence than either
the detonation charge or the burning fuel could.

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 17:11:13 GMT
From: amdcad!amd!pesnta!epimass!epiwrl!parker@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Alan Parker)
Subject: SRB parachutes
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I doubt it.  The top of the leaking SRB was damaged when it rotated
into the ET (the lower attach points gave way first). 

[Also-From: oliveb!felix!fritz!bytebug@AMES.ARPA  (Roger L. Long)
 -Ed]

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #137
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17633; Tue, 17 Feb 87 03:04:05 PST
	id AA17633; Tue, 17 Feb 87 03:04:05 PST
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 87 03:04:05 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702171104.AA17633@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #138

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 138

Today's Topics:
			  Re: SRB parachutes
			    SRB Parachutes
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
		    Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
      Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by 3rd world
		    Goals for the space program...
	   Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 87 01:39:53 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!lwall@hplabs.hp.com  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: SRB parachutes
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

You're forgetting that the booster in question had a big hole in its side.

Trivia question:  how high up does the hole have to be for the booster
to sink?  I suspect the answer is "not very".  Didn't they lose one or two
at the beginning due to smushing the nozzle on impact with the water?
Or were they just damaged?

In any event, they'd have had fun keeping it afloat while towing it.

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 07:10:38 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: SRB Parachutes
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <135@lmi-angel.UUCP>, wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht) writes:
> In article <> desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes:
> > ... It means that *even*
> >in a situation where the RSO *could* perhaps determine that the vehicle
> >poses no threat, he may *nevertheless* be constrained to destroy it.
> 
> ...  Letting the boosters go could have easily lost them to
> deep water (as well as the danger of hitting a population center).
> Blowing them would pevent the recovery 'chutes from working.  Even in
> 20:20 hindsight the correct action isn't clear.
> 
> ... He could then terminated thrust (most of the
> way) by just blowing the charges at the nozzle end. This would have
> left the recovery chutes intact.

On the right SRB (which was the culprit), the recovery chute did in fact
deploy -- when the nose of the SRB impacted the ET.  (I don't know whether
this was the one we saw floating down to the ocean;  it's hard to imagine
the chute surviving deployment at 2000 mph.)

		David Smith
		HP Labs

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

Date: 4 Feb 87 09:20:08 GMT
From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <443@lewey.AIT.COM> evp@lewey.AIT.COM (Ed Post) writes:
>I just watched the sequence on videotape again.  The solids were
>indeed starting to point back to shore when they were destroyed
>(although the velocity vector must still have been out to sea.)  You
>can clearly see the motors shut down when the charge goes off.

   Yes, it is true that suddenly there is no more smoke pouring out
of them.  On viewing it myself I am not so sure anymore.  Does anyone
have *definitive* information (as opposed to the speculations we all
have) on whether the detonation destroyed important evidence, and on
whether the continued burn would have been likely to do so?

   -- David desJardins

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

Date: 7 Feb 87 00:06:55 GMT
From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov  (Crah)
Subject: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <886@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes:

> have) on whether the detonation destroyed important evidence, and on
> whether the continued burn would have been likely to do so?

According to the Rogers report, there was no difficulty distinguishing
between the linear cuts produced by the linear shaped-charge destruct
charges, and the melted sections.  The questionable areas of the SRB
casing joint were not "near" the shaped charges.

	-Bill Yerazunis

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

From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Date:  4 Feb 1987 1009-PST (Wednesday)
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Political opposition to the Space Program by 3rd world

>> classification of data from the space program; not sharing that data with
>> countries that could benefit from it (particularly third-world countries in
>> Africa and South America).
>
>Interesting, considering that some of those countries don't have too great
>a record themselves.  I dimly recall an episode where Argentina refused to
>give Chile access to Landsat images (of Chile) from Argentina's Landsat
>receiving station.  That one was resolved when NASA threatened to turn the
>satellite off during its passes over Argentina if a bit more cooperation
>wasn't forthcoming.
>			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

I first encountered this problem in remote sensing classes years ago.
The problem was first the country of Indonesia, and it stems from the
concept of 3-D political boundaries and ownership.  2-D is okay, but how
high is a country sovereign?  The problem with the concept of "benefit"
is that it is (from the 3rd world) as a naive "Peace Corps/Volunteers"
perspective.

1) do I want my neighbors to peak over my fence?  2) What happens then
the "Ugly American" oil man comes to my country with images in hand and
my oil company can't afford such [also consider such images taken by a
smart netter as proposed for the oil man].  3) There is the problem of
if the oceans are for all nations, what gives with a land-locked nation
like Switzerland?  You say I (3rd world) will benefit, but you really
want those minerals for your high technology toys.  Benefit is a dirt
word in some cultures, especially when you give carrot/stick offers.
Also, from the scientist's point of view, how can I get money for new
projects if people take my data before I get a chance to analyze it.

Touchy issues all.  I hope you can appreciate these non-technical
problems, and that you can see why we have to resolve them BEFORE we go
into space.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 17:43:20 GMT
From: ihnp4!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Goals for the space program...
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Someone asked about space-related goals.  The following represent the
draft versions of the "executive summaries" of some position papers that
the North Jersey L5 chapter is working on.  Comments from readers of
sci.space are welcome.  If you are in New Jersey and want to come to the
next meeting (at which we will be discussing the full text of the
papers), please contact me for directions.  (The meeting will be on
February 11.)  Comments can also be sent to North Jersey L5, P. O. Box
674, Holmdel NJ 07733.  All papers and summaries are copyright 1987
North Jersey L5 and are not to be reproduced elsewhere, including other
electronic bulletin boards, without explicit permission.

	       ====================================

			 ACCESS TO SPACE
		 A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
		  Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5
			EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

	Proposed Fiscal '88 Actions:
     1.  Fund the Heavy-Lift Vehicle at $250 million as requested by DOD.
     2.  Fully fund the National Aerospace Plane effort at $335 million.
     3.  Fund preliminary Shuttle II design work.

	Proposed post-Fiscal '88 Actions:
     1.  Continue Shuttle II and NASP design work.
     2.  In 1991 make procurement decision for fifth shuttle orbiter.

	       ====================================

	       AFTER THE SPACE STATION - WHAT THEN?
		 A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
		  Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5
			EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

	We propose the following possible post-space station goals:
     1.  Establishment of a lunar oxygen mine.
     2.  Recovery of metals from a near-earth asteroid.
     3.  Recovery of resources from the Martian moons.
     4.  Orbital power station demonstrator.

	We urge there be NO Apollo style mission to Mars.

	       ====================================

			GOALS FOR THE `90S
		 A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
		  Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5
			EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

	Proposed Fiscal '88 Actions:
     1.  Fund the Space station at $715 million as requested.
     2.  Initiate funding for the Orbital Transfer Vehicle as a new start.
     3.  Begin definition work for Wrist Radio project that builds on the
	 space station and the OTV.

	       ====================================

		       PROSPECTING IN SPACE
       Robotic Exploration of Near-Earth Space in the 1990s
		 A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
		  Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5
			EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

	Our top priorities include:
     1.  Missions currently underway (Galileo,Venus Radar Mapper,
	 Mars Observer) should be completed as planned.
     2.  CRAF - Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby as the next new start.
     3.  LGO - Lunar Geoscience Orbiter follows CRAF in priority.
     4.  NEAR - Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous is of equal priority
	 with LGO.
     5.  MAMO - Mainbelt Asteroid Multiple Orbiter is lower priority
	 than NEAR or LGO.

	       ====================================

		   COMMERCIAL SPACE INCENTIVES
		 A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
		  Copyright 1987 North Jersey L5
			EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

	Our top priorities include:
     1.  Passage of a Commercial Space Incentive Act providing
	 guaranteed markets for private launch services at a fixed price.
     2.  Allocation of research funds into a range of technologies that
	 offer the promise of low-cost manned space transportation for
	 development of a tourist industry within 20 years.
     3.  Guaranteeing a significant percentage of space research funds
	 (at least 10%) be allocated to small research organizations
	 to promote innovation and creativity in the space industry.


 February 3, 1987			        Evelyn C. Leeper
    D R A F T					(201) 957-2070
				    UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				    ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

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

Date: 4 Feb 87 07:40:35 GMT
From: dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@sun.com  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702021753.aa03258@CAD.USNA.ARPA>, baccala@USNA.ARPA (Brent W Baccala) writes:
> ...  Beam the laser down, and have the rocket ride the beam up.  Since
> clouds are primarily a low-atmosphere phenomenon (and the ones higher
> up are thin), the rocket could be equipped with standard jets to get
> above the atmospheric junk.  Then fire up the laser, and sail off on a
> light beam...

Not a bad idea.  There was some talk awhile back about the relative
costs of getting into orbit.  Getting above the atmosphere was cheap
(relatively), getting the kinetic energy to get into orbit was a pain.
So, use conventional methods to get to, say, 120,000 feet and mach 3.5,
and then have an orbiting laser kick you in the ass.

Oh well.  Now for the hard part.  Building and launching the laser
booster and its power supply.  What kind of a power supply do you need?
I seem to remember reading that when the shuttle goes off (used to go
off--grr) the energy consumption of the US doubles, or something like
that.  The power supply for your launch laser is going to have to be
within a few orders of magnitude of the average power consumption of the
US.  nifty.  that is a large reactor.  And the laser--probably going to
have to be a free-electron laser.  At one time they were working on some
sort of chemical laser (i don't remember the term.  you generate the
population inversion by combustion--essentially a rocket engine turned
on its side with a funny shaped nozzle).  i thought that supposed to
show promise for high-powered lasers.  Unfortunately, that technique is
pretty clearly out for an orbiting laser.

Kind of goes against the grain, considering chemical power plants to be
high power-density devices, and nuclear reactors relatively feeble.

Aiming ought to be fairly easy--you'll be out of most of the atmosphere
by the time the laser is fired.

Now for the capsule--umm.  I guess this is no harder than for your
ground-based laser launcher, other than that it must either be equipped
with atmospheric engines or streamlined to the point where it can be
carried by some suitably supersonic aircraft.


Nova a while back was talking about using orbital lasers to improve the
fuel economy of commercial aircraft.  These aircraft would have some
target on the back that the lasers would focus on; presumably to heat
the air for the engines so the airliners wouldn't need to carry so much
fuel.  The orbital laser launcher might come about as an outgrowth of
this technology.  You could presumably use the same laser both as an
airplane driver and as a launcher, although the power involved would
vary by orders of magnitude.  You'd want to be sure not to blast an
airplane while in launch mode.



All in all, it seems like it might be easier to mumble something like
"*** the natives", and launch from Chile.  What's the climate like in
Somalia?  The Seychelles?  The Yucatan peninsula might be nice, but it
looks awful rainy.

Daedalus had a column about a laser rainmaker.  Have a laser upwind that
chops up the clouds?


david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #138
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02497; Wed, 18 Feb 87 03:02:47 PST
	id AA02497; Wed, 18 Feb 87 03:02:47 PST
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 03:02:47 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702181102.AA02497@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #139

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 03:02:47 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #139

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 139

Today's Topics:
			 UFOs, ball lightning
			  Re: Women in Space
			  Re: Women in Space
			  Re: Women in Space
			  Re: Women in Space
			  Re: Women in Space
			  Female Cosmonauts
			Re: Female Cosmonauts
		   Re: Female Cosmonauts/Astronauts
		  Re: Goals for the space program...
		    Re: Shuttle/Station dependency
			      Re: SR-71
		     Information about the SR-71
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Feb 87 00:51:35 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekred!joels@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Joel Swank)
Subject: UFOs, ball lightning
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> The book proposed that these sightings were actually ball lightning,

> Unfortunately, I believe that free floating ball lightning is still a
> contested phenomenon. Does anyone know of any studies on this beastie?
> Can it be generated under lab conditions? 

According to a show on TDC about Tesla, He was able to generate small
short lived ball lightning. The photography of that time did not allow
it to be photographed very well, but some photos were shown.

Another show that I saw a few years ago was about efforts to explain
some UFO sightings. The premise was that some rapidly moving lights were
caused by energy given off by rocks under great pressure. First to show
the validity of the theory they used a machine that squeezed a cylinder
of rock to the breaking point and used high speed photography to see
what happened. They captured small streaks of light that occurred just
before the rock reached the breaking point. Next they tried to
photograph an actual event occurring in highly stressed geologic zones.
With a long effort they succeeded in capturing 'UFOs' on film. They were
balls of light that appeared from nothing, moved erraticaly for a while
and dissappered.
    This is the best hypothesis I've heard for explaining many UFO
sightings.

Joel Swank
Tektronix, Redmond, Oregon

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

Date: 4 Feb 87 07:41:23 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!watnot!rcgood@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Rob Good)
Subject: Re: Women in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Don't forget about female cosmonauts.  There was at least one (whose name I 
forget at the moment.)

  rcgood@watnot.UUCP
  Rob Good                     
  University of Waterloo
  Waterloo, Ontario

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 21:49:11 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Re: Women in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Valentina Tereshkova.

Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp
American Information Technology    (408)252-8713

[Also-From: bhaskar@cvl.umd.edu  (S.K. Bhaskar)
 Also-From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
 -Ed]

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

Date: 6 Feb 87 18:03:41 GMT
From: hplabsb!bl@hplabs.hp.com  (Bruce T. Lowerre)
Subject: Re: Women in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Was that her maiden name at the time of her flight or her married name?  She
later married a male cosmonaut and had a child, daughter I believe.  Her
child was of great interest as to the effects of space flight on procreation.
Guess what?  Her child was normal!

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 10:59:28 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!gareth@seismo.css.gov  (Gareth Husk)
Subject: Re: Women in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <3973@hplabsb.UUCP> bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) writes:
>In article <1992@cvl.umd.edu>, bhaskar@cvl.umd.edu (S.K. Bhaskar) writes:
>> 
>> Her name was Valentina Tereshkova ( if my memory serves me right ).
>
>Was that her maiden name at the time of her flight or her married name?  She

From what I remember of my Russian, and that was a long time ago, the
Russians use a different naming convention to us.

Whereas we name patrilinearly regardless of gender and typically women
change their name upon marrying, although this is becoming less
automatic.  The Russians use two systems, all women are named
matrilinearly and the men patrilinearly.

What this means is that you don't change the name you were born with.

I think this is right, but as I say its been a long time, so if any of
you know better let me know.

Gareth.

UUCP:  ...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!gareth
DARPA: gareth%lancs.comp@ucl-cs	  JANET: gareth@uk.ac.lancs.comp

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 07:54:30 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: Women in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

She married Andrian Nikolayev, who flew 64 orbits in Vostok 3.
(She herself flew 48 orbits in Vostok 6.)

A book I have (Footprints on the Moon) says that "the pair produced
healthy children, disposing of any concern that there could be radiation
damage to genes in near-earth orbit."  Well, I suppose it is hard to
dispose of ALL concern; still, there were considerable (and in
retrospect, puzzling) medical concerns about the effects of
spaceflight/apparent weightlessness.  Doctors expressed concern about
astronauts' ability to eat in weightlessness, as perhaps the gravity is
necessary to get the food down the esophagus.  As a boy, I thought that
was a weird concern, considering that I had no problem eating cookies
while hanging upside down from a trapeze.  But there is such thing as
space sickness.

		David Smith

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

Date: 7 Feb 87 00:22:50 GMT
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Yaron P Sheffer)
Subject: Female Cosmonauts
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


Valentina Tereshkova was, of course, the first woman to orbit in space.
But just before the U.S. launched STS-7 (yep-- 'twas Challenger, sigh!)
in June '83 with its first woman Sally Ride, the S.U. launched Soyuz T-7
in August '82 with its second female cosmonaut to Earth orbit:
              Svetlana Savitskaya,
the 111th person to orbit Earth. She did it again, in Soyuz T-12 in July
'84, while performing also the first feminine EVA ever.

Yaron Sheffer
Astronomy At Austin

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

Date: 8 Feb 87 11:07:01 GMT
From: dayton!viper!dave@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Female Cosmonauts
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1582@utastro.UUCP> yaron@utastro.UUCP (Yaron P Sheffer) writes:
 >the 111th person to orbit Earth. She did it again, in Soyuz T-12 in July
 >'84, while performing also the first feminine EVA ever.

I seem to recall a female face, looking into the shuttle from
outside, in the movie "The Dream is Alive" ...

Disclaimer:                       | David Messer 
I'm always right and I never lie. | Lynx Data Systems 
My company knows this and agrees  | UUCP:  ihnp4!quest!viper!dave 
with everything I say.            |        ihnp4!meccts!viper!dave

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

Date: 9 Feb 87 17:25:17 GMT
From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Female Cosmonauts/Astronauts
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> I seem to recall a female face, looking into the shuttle from
> outside, in the movie "The Dream is Alive" ...

That's correct, it was Kathryn Sullivan, the only American woman to
participate in an EVA to date.  But it was three months after the cosmonaut
referred to above.  Sullivan made her EVA with David Leestma on mission 41-G,
October 1984.
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe
	Uniq Digital Technologies	rjnoe@uniq.UUCP
	28 South Water Street		+1 312 879 1566
	Batavia, Illinois  60510	41:50:56 N.  88:18:35 W.

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 14:51:08 GMT
From: cas@cvl.umd.edu  (Dr. Cliff Shaffer)
Subject: Re: Goals for the space program...
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Those interested in the future of the space program should look at the
January 23, 1987 issue of Science.  On page 426 is an article entitled
"A crisis in space research".  Two points may be of interest.  The first
is that, without any particular conscious effort on the part of NASA,
space science projects (as apart from projects such as the Apollo
program) are becoming bigger, much in the way of particle physics
projects.  This has serious repercussions for the support structure and
the budget/management procedures.  The second point is that, strictly
due to slowing down projects for budgetary reasons, the cost of many
projects has gone up dramatically.  Add to this the down time due to the
Challenger disaster, and we find that projects such as Gallileo and the
Space Telescope can double in price.  Simply by keeping to an originally
agreed funding schedule, the federal government can save itself
tremendous amounts of money.
	Cliff Shaffer
	cas@cvl.umd.edu
	...!cvl!cas

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

Date: 4 Feb 87 05:27:41 GMT
From: ulysses!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle/Station dependency
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7578@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> (Not
> everyone thinks the lengthy grounding is fully justified, in fact.  Chuck
> Yeager is reported to have resigned from the Rogers Commission with the
> comment "hell, just don't launch when it's cold".)

If Chuck Yeager resigned from the Commission, why does his name appear
on the signature page of the report?

If he had attended the Commission meetings, he would have known that
there were plenty of instances of O-ring erosion and blow-by at
temperatures as high as 75 deg F.  Since Hollywood has seen fit to make
this guy into an infallible hero, I wish he'd stop shooting from the
hip.

Phil

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 07:52:07 GMT
From: amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: SR-71
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702040414.AA13296@angband.s1.gov> KEN@orion.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes:
 >In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right
 >after takeoff.  I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat
 >up, to seal the fuel tanks.  Note: I have no contacts other than
 >published material.

I was under the impression that it was because of the large amount of
fuel burned at takeoff.  Those engines aren't the most efficient at low
speed/altitude.

 >About the altitude record, is it measured by level flight at that
 >altitude, or just the top of a ballistic curve?  I ask this because
 >the F-15 Streak Eagle has a maximum altitude of 98,400 feet even
 >though the engines flame out at 80,000 feet.  (Source: McDonnel Douglas

The rate-of-climb record that the Streak Eagle holds is to 98,400 feet
(i.e. 30,000 meters) but I think it coasted up to a much greater
altitude.  113,000 feet sticks in my mind, but I could be far off.
Anyway, it was over 100,000 feet.  I wonder how high they could have
gone if they were trying for an altitude record rather than a
rate-of-climb record?

David Messer 
Lynx Data Systems 
UUCP:  ihnp4!quest!viper!dave 
       ihnp4!meccts!viper!dave

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

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 87 15:14:12 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET
Subject: Information about the SR-71
 

Technically everything about the SR-71 is supposed to be classified.  In
actuallity, almost everything about this aircraft is widely known in the
aerospace community.  I've taken more than one (unclassified) tour of
Beale AFB where the SR-71s are based.  After some poking around and a
asking a few casual questions here are some answers: Maximum altitude:
110,000 ft.  Maximum Mach number: 3.41 .  Gee Wiz facts about the SR-71:
The SR-71 was designed from one set of master plans by only 75 engineers
in 1959 (yes, fifty-nine).  It first flew in 1964.  It's chief designer
is one of America's greatest aeronautical engineers: Clarence L. "Kelly"
Johnson, who was also chief designer of the U-2.  The SR-71 is made
almost entirely out of PLASTIC.  I was told this by an SR-71 maintenance
technician when I was leaning against an SR-71.  I expressed disbelief,
so he told be to "oilcan" the panels to see for myself.  The leading
edges and landing gear are made of titanium.  The SR-71 has a window on
the top for using a star-tracker for precise navigation.  The SR-71 can
hold only two people.  One is a pilot and the other works the navigation
and intelligence gear.  The SR-71 leaks kerosene like a sieve (I saw
this with my own eyes).  However this is **designed** so the fuel tanks
won't buckle due to thermal expansion.  The windows are made of quartz
to withstand the heat.  The special silver painted tires of the landing
gear are kept in a kerosene cooled container during flight.  The SR-71
**cruises** on full after-burner.  The SR-71 is one of the earliest
examples of a variable cycle supersonic engine.  The SR-71 uses a cone
type supersonic inlet with a variable inlet area.  This inlet cone is
mounted on a central column and can be brought in or push out by a
hydraulic actuator.  At cruise mach number the shock wave in the inlet
is detected by pressure taps.  The data is used by an analog(?) computer
for actuating the inlet cone.  The turbojet engine is standard
technology.  However there is a bypass after the first two stages of the
compressor.  When the SR-71 is at cruise velocity, the turbojet is only
**idling** with most of the air passing around the burner cans and
turbine stage (passing only through the first compressor stages).  After
bypassing the turbojet, the air goes directly to the after-burner.  The
SR-71 launches with the turbojet and full after-burner.  After being
airborne it cruises to about 30,000 feet on only its turbojet with the
afterburner off.  The SR-71 must immediately refuel because it is very
inefficient at subsonic Mach number.  Upon refueling it then goes on
after-burner to supersonic speed.  At this point the turbojet is powered
down and the SR-71 flies like a pseudo-ramjet.  I was told that the
faster the SR-71 goes the **more** fuel effiecent it gets.  However it
is limited to Mach 3.41 by temperature.  This can be verified by
calculating the stagnation temperature behind a 3.41 shock wave for
110,000 feet.  Maximum allowable temperature is the melting point of
titanium.  I was told that the SR-71 is an absolute pig to fly and no
fun for the pilot.  It's all tightly controlled by checklists because
excessive heating or cooling rates will damage the temper of the leading
edges.  Also the engines can "unstart" (swallow the shock).  An unstart
can result in immediate disintegration of the aircraft and death of the
crew.  Unstarts are virtually unpredictable.  Many SR-71s have crashed.
One last point, I was told that it costs $15,000 just to start an SR-71.
None of the facts that I've provided can be verified (as far as I know).
Believe at your own risk.
	Gary Allen

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #139
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04490; Thu, 19 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
	id AA04490; Thu, 19 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702191102.AA04490@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #140

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 19 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #140

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 140

Today's Topics:
	Dumping trash on Venus....  Will the Venusians object?
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
			Re: SR-71 (really U-2)
		   Re: government coverups of UFOs
		  Re: Goals for the space program...
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
			      Re: SR-71
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 05 Feb 87 16:04:12 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET
Subject: Dumping trash on Venus....  Will the Venusians object?
 

In an earlier article to Space Digest I suggested disposing of old or
defective ion engine propelled nuclear reactors by dumping them on Mars
or Venus.  There was (predictably) a whole chorus of cries from people
saying "why not dump it on the sun?"  Sorry guys, you swallowed that one
hook-line-and-sinker.  It requires **less** energy to fling something
from Earth orbit into interstellar space than to dump it into the Sun.
This can be demonstrated by calculating a Hohman transfer orbit to the
sun's surface versus a solar escape parabola at 1 AU periapsis then
add/subtract your initial kinetic energy from a 1 AU circular orbit.
Actually dumping radioactive garbage on the ice caps of Mars might
actually be a good way to terraform that planet.  Venus on the other
hand is the perfect garbage dump and good for nothing else.  Although I
was amused to read that at least one guy reading this on the net
actually believes someone living on Venus might object.  I hope he was
joking.
              Gary Allen

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

Date: 4 Feb 87 16:29:31 GMT
From: trwrb!aero!aero2!zeus@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Suess)
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <17185@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> dma@euler.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (Controls Wizard) writes:
>In article <975@athena.TEK.COM> grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley) writes:
>>There have been many articles in this group re. the space program
>>and where it's going (or isn't). It seems to me that the entire
>>problem lies with the politicians, . . .
>>
>I think you misstate the problem.  I agree politics inhibits the space
>program but it does so on both the civilian and military sides.  The 
>fundamental problem is the impossibility of long range planning in a
>nation where the government changes every 2 - 8 years.  . . .

What if, on the other hand, it's not politicians per se, nor
bureaucratic turnovers, but instead the people of the USA that are
inhibiting the space program?  If most people wanted a robust space
program *and were willing to shell out bucks for it*, then the situation
would be different.

If people had been willing to pay for a safer shuttle, for more manned
and unmanned missions, for a space budget ten times what it is now,
things would look very different.  People, unfortunately, have *not*
been willing to pay the extra bucks that would make the space program
better and stronger.

I believe that attaching any blame to politicians or bureaucracy ignores
the fact that government is we, and if we wanted it different, it would
*be* different.  (This "we" is, regrettably, not the "we" of this
newsgroup, nor is it limited to academics, researches, engineers, and
scientists.  It is, sadly, the "we" of "We, the people...")

Dave Suess			zeus@aero2.arpa.org

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 22:00:24 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60sB)
Subject: Re: SR-71 (really U-2)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702040414.AA13296@angband.s1.gov> KEN@orion.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes:
> Does anyone
>know at what altitude the engines on the SR-71 flame out?  Have
>the SR-71 engines EVER flamed out due to altitude?

I once heard a talk about the U-2 from a former U-2 pilot.  It seems
that the U-2 does occasionally flame out and the pilot must descend
below 60,000 ft. to restart the engines.  (Gary Powers was shot down
doing this.)  I would assume that SR-71's are not immune to flame outs
either.

Another interesting story he told is about how the Russian interceptor
pilots would attempt to shoot down the U-2.  The U-2 would be cruising
along at 70,000+.  The interceptor would get a running start and climb
towards the U-2.  At about 60,000 ft. it would flame out.  Since the
interceptor's small wings were worthless at this altitude, it would
essentially be on a ballistic path and as manoeuverable as a brick.  The
U-2 pilot would be watching this happen.  As soon as he sees the flame
out, he starts a slow turn (a U-2 can't turn quickly at that altitude).
When the interceptor gets to the U-2's altitude, the U-2 is well off to
one side, too far away for the interceptor's missiles to be any good.

The U-2 pilots had fun watching these Soviet bricks go by.

Dan Tilque
dant@tekla.tek.com

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 07:29:38 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <126@lmi-angel.UUCP> wsr@lmi-angel.UUCP (Wolfgang Rupprecht) writes:

>I am cross posting this to sci.physics. Hopefully this will improve
>the fact to fancy ratio. 

I am cross postin this to rec.arts.sf-lovers to get some
imaginative intelligence into the matter. 

>In article <> rjp1@ihlpa.UUCP (Pietkivitch from AT&T) writes:
>>Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate
>>of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon?

>In a more serious vein, I recall reading a very interesting book on
>the subject back in high school (sorry it was too long ago to recall
>the author/title). Essentially the book tried to inject a bit of
>science in this field.

One such book was by an editor of Aviation Week (now about 95% retired)
- one Phil Klass, whose theory was that most of the unresolved cases
could be explained by "ball lightning".  Ball lightning research was
being done by the Russians at the time as a possible weapon, and so a
group of wild eyed optimists here, was able to get the Air Force
interested for a while and also have it "protected" by classification.

BUT.... NOBODY knew at that time what BL was. Then it was "proven"
theoretically that it couldn't exist from general considerations.  Of
course, this was a very shorted sighted proof (based on miss applica-
tion of the virial theorem (inward forces must balance outward forces on
the average) which did not cover the concept of BL as we know it now.
Correctly applied BL like the PLASMAK(tm) and the Spheromak magnetic
topologies are ideally MHD stable and have a significantly higher
internal energy.

>..
>nebulous 'metallic' (daylight), glowing pulsating object (nightime). 
>These 'objects' .. .accelerate at bone-smashing rates, drown out AM
>radios with static, and even stall cars. The observers often noted a
>bright metallic look (even on the side away from the sun). A larger
>number of sighting were near high voltage power line. Some sightings 
>were accompanied by radar 'bogies' in the area. 

In bright sunlight the dense energetic electron ionized plasma layer
supported by the external vacuum poloidal field (omnigenous) is so dense
it will reflect the radiation into the infrared and perhaps in special
conditions it could reflect into the visible portion of the spectrum
giving us a "metallic" looking skin in "bright" external light.

>The book proposed that these sightings were actually ball lightning,
>or something closely related. The apparent acceleration (from hovering
>here, to over the horizon in no-time flat), being caused by the
>phenomenon "petering out" and shrinking. The rapid directed motion was
>just an illusion. This also explained why there was never a sonic boom
>reported. The AM radio static, affinity for power lines etc, was due
>to its charged nature. The glowing or translucent nature of the
>sightings fits this model well also. 

It has little to due with a "charge" or even alternating voltages.  What
model??  The "true" explanation relates to a very powerful
magnetoplasmoid with energetic currents.  Plasma oscillations can,
nevertheless, be set up which would interfere with both AM and FM
broadcasts, and the CURRENTS in the high voltage lines will attract them
up to the point where the conducting surface is within a few
centimeters.  BL's are often seen "skating" along transmission lines
until they hit an insulator, explode, and many times shatter the
insulator (about 8 inches by 6 feet).

>Unfortunately, I believe that free floating ball lightning is still a
>contested phenomenon. Does anyone know of any studies on this beastie?
>Can it be generated under lab conditions? 

So contested that when we suggested doing a small experimental study for
the Plasma Physics Divsion of the NSF, the junior contract manager
became so disturbed that he threatened to call security if we persisted
in discussing it.  He made it evidently clear that Ball Lightning can
NOT be explained and therefore CAN NOT exist!  He didn't want to listen
to anything that might shake up his concept that he had "the correct"
solution to that problem.  Further anyone who studies the phenomena is a
"crackpot".

		"If it ain't in my textbook, it just ain't."
                "After all if it did exist then I would know what
		it is!  And, don't bother me with your facts or
		hypothesis"

>(*) I thought the funniest fraud case was a couple that claimed to be
>kidnapped by aliens. They sold a book, and went on a lecture circuit
>talking about their experience. The frosting on the cake was a claim
>that a shiny spot on the sheet-metal of their car had become
>temorarily radioactive from the exhaust of the UFO. They knew this
>because a compass held near the spot spun rapidly!!!

There have been a number of cases where ball lightning has strongly
magnetized ferro-active materials and have even generated radioacti-
vity in stones and bricks.  The radioactivity is induced by an intense
beam of five to twenty MeV energetic electrons which is released
tangentially when the "mantle" of the Ball lightning ( field trapping
conducting shell) becomes unstable or is "punctured" thus releasing the
currents in a ballistic beam.

IMPORTANT: We are currently seeking private funds to do these
experiments and may go ahead just because of our curiosity.  If there
are any of you that have "personally" observed ball lightning please -
MAIL - me a description of it.  But PLEASE, do not fit it to any theory,
just describe what you saw no matter how bizarre and seemingly
inconsistent or contradictory.  Timing, color, size, odor, noise,
electrical or magnetic effects, shape, cause of formation, death (die
with a whimper of a boom), motion, attachment or free floating, with air
currents or "bucking them", bounce, damage, rays, feeling, (was it
fearsome) and so forth.

If you are in physics, electrical engineering, and the DC Washington
area and would be interested in contributing to the experiment, give
me a call. 

Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075            
Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222    
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 04:21:48 GMT
From: csustan!csun!psivax!nrcvax!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@lll-lcc.arpa  (Mark Muhlestein)
Subject: Re: Goals for the space program...
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I think that to really facilitate the breakout into space we need to
establish a capability for manufacturing items outside of earth's
gravity well.  A lunar mining and materials manufacturing facility would
seem to be a good choice.

A first step might be a lunar polar orbiter to check for possible
volatiles in the polar regions which might help get things rolling
without having to bring so much stuff from earth.

	Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc.

{ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 04:20:18 GMT
From: csustan!csun!psivax!nrcvax!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@lll-lcc.arpa  (Mark Muhlestein)
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> All this discussion about nuclear energy has reminded me of a crazy
> idea.  Construct a very large nuclear reactor to be placed into Earth
> orbit. .....

It seems to me that if you're going to go to all the expense to build a
reactor in space, why don't you build a solar power satellite?  I know
that Gerard O'Neil and the Space Studies Institute have done feasability
studies based on using lunar materials, etc. which looked reasonable to
me, at least.

There would be no need to refuel it, maintenance would be much less, and
much more energy could be generated for a reasonable cost.  This over
and above the obvious safety considerations.

I am new to the net (this is my first posting).  Has there been much
discussion of solar power satellites?  In particular, I am curious about
people's ideas on the practicability of such a system.  Are there any
serious proposals?  Are people afraid of relying on an energy source
that could be relatively easily destroyed?  Would we really have to use
lunar sources for the materials?

It seems to me that the potential benefits of a solar power satellite
should at least stimulate some discussion by people in a position to
further such an effort.


	Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc.

{ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm

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

Date: 5 Feb 87 20:37:52 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: SR-71
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702040414.AA13296@angband.s1.gov> KEN@orion.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>[Discussion of SR71 speed and altitude records]...
> 
>About the altitude record, is it measured by level flight at that
>altitude, or just the top of a ballistic curve?  ... If the record is
>for level flight, does anyone want to take a guess at the maximum
>altitude for a SR-71 on a ballistic curve?  Does anyone know at what
>altitude the engines on the SR-71 flame out?  Have the SR-71 engines
>EVER flamed out due to altitude?

While I do not know the altitude limit for the SR-71, its predecessor,
the U-2 reconnaisance aircraft, was designed for level flight at
extremely high altitudes.  How high?  Well, my thesis advisor, Richard
Muller, did a series of microwave background measurements using
detectors flown on NASA U-2's.  On his office wall is a very nice color
photograph, taken during one of the Apollo missions.  In the foreground
are the LEM and a space-suited astronaut, standing on a cratered Lunar
plain.  In the background, clearly visible, is a parked U-2... :-) :-)

	Jordin Kare	jtk@mordor.s1.gov

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #140
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07137; Fri, 20 Feb 87 03:02:41 PST
	id AA07137; Fri, 20 Feb 87 03:02:41 PST
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 87 03:02:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702201102.AA07137@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #141

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 87 03:02:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #141

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 141

Today's Topics:
			Aluminum/oxygen rocket
			  Al203 condensation
		  Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
      Re: Dumping trash on Venus....  Will the Venusians object?
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
		      Art Contest Speaker (OKC)
	 Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
		       Re:  Fast shuttle launch
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Feb 87 21:38:39 GMT
From: ulysses!gamma!zeta!mb2c!edsdrd!edstb!msudoc!crlt!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Aluminum/oxygen rocket
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Thanks to all who have responded to the previous posts.  Here I go with
some actual real live figures.  (Everything here is derived from
information published in the _CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_,
CRC Press, 55th edition, or _Handbook of Tables for Applied Engineering
Science_, CRC press, 2nd edition).

The actual amount of energy released by aluminum/oxygen combustion sets
a ceiling for the impulse obtainable from such a rocket.  I checked the
trusty CRC, and got a heat of combustion of 404,080 calories per
gram-mole of products (about 102 grams).  Assuming 100% excess O2, this
gives an energy of combustion of 1.13e7 J/kg of combustion products.  A
100% efficient nozzle would transform this into an exhaust stream with a
velocity of 4750 m/sec.  Since there is no such thing as a 100%
efficient nozzle, here are the exhaust velocity, impulse and mass-ratio
figures for efficiencies of 70% down to 25% (I have no idea what is
typical, and it seems reasonable to be pessimistic).  The assumed lunar
orbit skims the surface and requires a delta-V of 1680 m/sec.

Nozzle		Exhaust		Specific	Mass ratio
eff (%)		vel. (m/sec)	impl. (sec)	(to lunar orbit)
-------		------------	-----------	----------------
70		3980		405		1.52
65		3830		391		1.55
60		3680		375		1.58
55		3530		359		1.61
50		3360		343		1.65
45		3190		325		1.69
40		3010		306		1.75
35		2810		287		1.82
30		2600		265		1.91
25		2380		242		2.03

By comparison, the LEM used nitrogen tetroxide/hydrazine fuel, which
gives a vacuum specific impulse of about 320 with a nozzle throat/bell
area ratio of 20.  The corresponding mass ratio is 1.71, not much
different from the above.

This looks like it will fly!  (The 20-megawatt light of Keith's would,
using the 50% efficient nozzle, burn about 1.8 kg of Al and O2 per
second and produce about 5950 newtons of thrust [about 1330 pounds].)
Furthermore, even if it's made *horribly* inefficient (25%), it still
works halfway reasonably.

The ideal "energizer" gas for this reaction would be helium, but that's
in rather short supply on luna, so we will just have to settle for
oxygen.  Life is tough, isn't it?  ;-)

!set flame=on
Those persons who quibbled about oxygen being tied up in the
products of combustion for other reactions also -- phooey.
They don't yield solids at the typical combustion temperature.
!set flame=off

Please send reply mail to {online|ihnp4}!itivax!mnet!russ; I am using
crlt temporarily until problems with M-Net's spool volume are fixed and
I can get news there again.

					Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
					{online|ihnp4}!itivax!mnet!russ

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

Date:         Wed, 11 Feb 87 10:14:56 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
Subject:      Al203 condensation
 
  > From a quick persual of the CRC Handbook, it appears
  > that aluminum-oxygen burning would produce about 10% more
  > specific impulse ( thrust per pound of fuel+oxidizer ) than
  > hydrogen-oxygen burning...
  > Specific impulse ( correct me if I'm wrong ) is
  > proportional to  Sqrt( E/M ), where E is the energy
  > input and M is the mass of the propelents.
  > The problem with an Al-O rocket would be the combustion
  > chamber. Either it would have to have a lining temperature in
  > in excess of 2100 degrees Centigrade, or ...
 
   The formula for kinetic energy is E=1/2*mv**2

so clearly v=sqr(2E/m)   where E is the energy released per reacted
molecule and m is the mass of the reaction product.  If this v were
all directed out the back of the rocket, Isp=v(exhaust)/g.
 
  The question is, though, how much of this kinetic energy can be used
as thrust?  Remember, thermal energy is by definition random.  To
produce thrust we need to direct the momentum in one direction.
This is the function of the nozzle, which adiabatically expands the hot
gasses, lowering the pressure and temperature and converting this energy
into directed energy.  If Al2O3 condenses into a solid at 2100C,
then the adiabatic expansion (neglecting supercooling) STOPS at
2100C (call it 2400 K).  At this point, how much of the thermal
(undirected) energy of the gas has been converted into (directed)
kinetic energy?  Since E(thermal)=(n/2)kT (where n is the number
of degrees of freedom, depends on the gas), the formula for
specific impulse including condensation is
       Isp=sqr[2E*(T(reaction)-T(condensation))/m]/g
or, for the specific case here
       Isp (Al/O2) =sqr[2E*(T(r)-2400)/m]/g
 
Because of the square root factor, you lose big.
 
--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                      EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu

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

Date:     Mon,  2 Feb 87 22:14:12 CST
From: Benjamin Chase <bbc@rice.edu>
Subject:  Re: Aluminum/liquid oxygen rocket
To: space-request@angband.s1.gov

Putting aside the issues of thrust and exhaust velocity for just a bit,
just what is the exhaust going to contain?  Solid aluminum oxide (Al2O3)?
Isn't that what sapphires are made of?  Aren't they somewhat hard?  Won't
they be a little abrasive to the rocket nozzle when moving through it at
high speeds?  And do we end up with lots of aluminum oxide dust in orbit?

	Concerned,
	Ben Chase

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

Date: 6 Feb 87 00:58:38 GMT
From: news@csvax.caltech.edu  (Usenet netnews)
Subject: Re: Dumping trash on Venus....  Will the Venusians object?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords: 
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
Path: oddhack!jon

In article <8702051508.AA19382@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>Actually dumping radioactive garbage on the ice caps of Mars might
>actually be a good way to terraform that planet.  Venus on the other
>hand is the perfect garbage dump and good for nothing else.  Although I
>was amused to read that at least one guy reading this on the net
>actually believes someone living on Venus might object.  I hope he was
>joking.
>              Gary Allen

	Carbon chauvinism strikes again. More to the point, we may very
well WANT the waste in a few decades. Venus is not too useful now, but
who can say in a few centuries? We still treat the oceans and atmosphere
as a garbage dump despite strong evidence we may regret it soon.
	I hope YOU'RE joking about dumping it on Mars. Dropping
pulverized Phobos parts on the ice caps to raise the albedo was a more
elegant method I've heard proposed.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date: 6 Feb 87 00:17:57 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <125@aero2.ARPA> zeus@aero2.UUCP (Dave Suess) writes:
>If people had been willing to pay for a safer shuttle, for more manned
>and unmanned missions, for a space budget ten times what it is now,
>things would look very different.  People, unfortunately, have *not*
>been willing to pay the extra bucks that would make the space program
>better and stronger.

>I believe that attaching any blame to politicians or bureaucracy
>ignores the fact that government is we, and if we wanted it different,
>it would *be* different.  (This "we" is, regrettably, not the "we" of
>this newsgroup, nor is it limited to academics, researches, engineers,
>and scientists.  It is, sadly, the "we" of "We, the people...")

	The input 'we' have to government is generally limited to voting
and letters to our congresscritters. People are usually not willing to
vote for a pro-space candidate who violates their other ideological
beliefs (Lyndon LaRouche presents material which is pro-space, but I'm
not going to vote for him because of that!), which leads to problems for
organizations like SpacePac trying to decide who to support. As I
recall, they were giving money to both Glenn and Reagan during the
primaries.

	I would be delighted if 10x the current amount of my taxes went
to NASA instead of tobacco and dairy subsidies, military aid to Israel
and Egypt, and the like [and even more delighted if they just gave the
money to me so I could invest in space myself], but that's not going to
change regardless of who I vote or don't vote for. It's sort of like
having 20 people go out for dinner. 11 want to go to McDonalds and 9 to
Burger King. But in politics the 9 are forced to go along regardless of
how stupid they think it is.

	Followups to talk.politics.misc, please.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date: 6 Feb 87 00:49:00 GMT
From: okstate!uokmax!rob@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Robert K. Shull)
Subject: Art Contest Speaker (OKC)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The Kirkpatrick Planetarium in Oklahoma City is looking for a speaker
for their Third Annual "Visions of the Universe" student art contest.
The theme of the contest ranges from science fiction and fact to
fantasy.  We are interested in either a scientist or science fiction
author. The speech is to be given at the banquet honoring finalists and
winners at 7:30 PM on February 27th, 1987. If you are interested or have
a recommendation, please send electronic mail, or contact the
planetarium at:
 
                        Kirkpatrick Planetarium
                        Christina Reeves-Shull
                        2100 N.E. 52nd St.
                        Oklahoma City, OK  73111
                        Phone 405-424-5545
                              405-321-3396 (After 5 PM and weekends)
 
The planetarium may be able to cover some travel expenses and/or lodging.
 
                                Thank you,
                                Christina Reeves-Shull
                                Education Specialist

	Robert K. Shull
	University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network
	{bacyn,glmnhh,lll-lcc,occrsh,okstate,oktext,texsun}!uokmax!rob
	CIS 73765,1254		Delphi	RKSHULL

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

Date: 4 Feb 87 19:38:14 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I thought this bit of news was of interest to the newsgroup:

[Copied from the Illinois L5 Spacelines newsletter, February 1987]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

		THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE
		EQUAL IN VALUE TO THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT.

In 1984 the public debt of the United States was about 1,500 billion
dollars.  The volume of an asteroid 5 kilometers in diameter is roughly
65.4 cubic km.  Common meteorites are 81% silicate rock (of little
economic value on the Earth), and approximately 13% free metals.  The
most common metal is iron, but there are also significant quantities of
nickel and cobalt:

	11.65% iron worth $6,200 billion
	 1.34% nickel worth $11,400 billion
	 0.08% cobalt (a strategic material)
	and 4609 metric tons of gold, worth $60.8 billion, as an impurity.

And there are 10,000 more asteriods out there waiting for us...

Space Development - It's Worth It.

[This message is brought to you as a public service of the Peoria
 Chapter of the L5 Society Promoting Space Development, 1060 E. Elm,
 Tucson, AZ 85719]

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

Of course, the startup costs for a venture of this magnitude is
formidable, but maybe they would make a profit on the second or third
asteroid?  Any estimates?

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

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

Date:     Fri, 6 Feb 87 13:37:43 EST
From: Brent W Baccala <baccala@usna.arpa>
To: cas@cvl.umd.edu
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  Re:  Fast shuttle launch

> Suppose the Russians stranded a crew in space, or all our spy
> satellites went blinko, or perhaps The Comet is coming our way (or
> whatever emergency scenario you like).  How long would it take
> to get a shuttle into space, starting today, if no expense or risk
> were spared?

I doubt that we could move faster then the Russians.  An SL-6 failed on
Oct 3, putting its payload into a bad orbit.  A replacement was launched
12 days later.

    - BRENT W. BACCALA -
    Computer Aided Design/Interactive Graphics
    U.S. Naval Academy
    Annapolis, MD

    <seismo!usna!baccala>
    <baccala@usna.arpa>

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #141
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08960; Sat, 21 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST
	id AA08960; Sat, 21 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST
Date: Sat, 21 Feb 87 03:02:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702211102.AA08960@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #142

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 142

Today's Topics:
			    Solar Garbage
		   Re: Earth's Mass and Grav Const
		     Re: nuclear fission in space
		 Info request: Kline-Fogleman airfoil
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
				Migma
	    Challenger Center for Space Science Education
			       Re: TAU
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Feb 1987  22:52 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Solar Garbage
In-Reply-To: Msg of 5 Feb 1987  06:28-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at angband.s1.gov>

Actually it would not be costly to drop garbage into the Sun - provided
that it is in a LEO orbit sufficiently above the atmosphere.  The trick
would be to use a light sail system, first to slowly elevate the ship
into much higher orbits and, eventually, use the moon to escape Earth
entirely.  After that, we use the sail to tack so as to reduce the solar
orbit velocity.  Then, we cleverly exploit Venus and Mercury to get
below them, and continue to tack down until the sails start to melt.
All this will take many years (but who cares) and require very little
power and weight.

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

Date: 3 Feb 87 17:54:02 GMT
From: pur-phy!newton!clt@h.cc.purdue.edu  (Carrick Talmadge)
Subject: Re: Earth's Mass and Grav Const
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <965@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes:

>I'd like this simulation to be as good as I can make it, and I believe
>that potential sources for these errors are in the values I'm using for
>the mass of the Earth or for the universal gravitational constant. The
>present values were found in the 1968 CRC.  What are the current best
>values for these terms?  I need as many digits of accuracy as I can
>get.
>				Thanks
>				Fred Mendenhall

Since what actually enters in these equations is the product of G*M,
where G is the universal gravitational constant, and M is the mass of
the Earth, I would suggest using the measured value of G*M.  For this
you have your choice:

From Earth-Moon laser ranging:

	G*M = 3.98600444(10) times 10^14 m^3/sec^2

From measurements of the trajectory of the LAGEOS satellite:

	G*M = 3.986004342(20) times 10^14 m^3/sec^2


The number in parentheses represents the error in the least significant
digits, i.e., 1.002(10) -> 1.002 +- 0.010.

Hope this helps!

Carrick Talmadge
clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu

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

Date: 6 Feb 87 00:02:20 GMT
From: well!msudoc!crlt!russ@lll-lcc.arpa  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <438@lewey.AIT.COM>, evp@lewey.AIT.COM (Ed Post) writes:
> in article <MS.V3.18.wr0m.80020d05.allisonpark.ibm032.1632.1@andrew.cmu.edu>, wr0m#@andrew.cmu.edu (Walter Henry Roscello) says:
> > Does
> > anyone have any reasons not to send them to the sun?
> 
> In order to send something directly into the sun, its orbital velocity
> has to be killed relative to the sun.  If I remember correctly,
> earth's orbital velocity is on the order of 17 miles/sec.

About 18, if memory serves.

> On the other hand, a gravity-whip orbit past Venus or the moon might
> do the trick at considerably less energy.

Or a gravity-whip past Jupiter.  This is exactly how the solar-polar
missions were supposed to get there.

Someone (obviously un-versed in orbital mechanics) said something silly
about "unstable orbits".  Unless someone is going to actually take aim
with a self-propelled reactor and drop it someplace, a crash is a very
remote possibility.  First, a reactor is so dense that, even if it were
parked in a *very* low orbit, the orbit would take a very long time to
decay.  Second, if the guidance system were to fail, you could detect
this and simply shut down the propulsion system until it could be fixed.
You just plot your orbits such that the reactor is never at risk of
colliding with the earth should the power die at any time.  (Very easy.)

If the reactors were going to be used to provide power on Earth, they
would be in geosynchronous orbits and thus a *long* way from the ground.
Meltdowns would be harmless; escaping vapor would be scavenged by the
solar wind and blown from the solar system.

Possible use for a dying reactor: use it to push a one-way outer planets
probe.  (Or a solar probe?)  This uses its last gasps in a productive
manner.

					Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
					{online|ihnp4}!itivax!mnet!russ

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

Date: 4 Feb 87 17:42:44 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!thunder!mjsamorodny@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (mjsamorodny)
Subject: Info request: Kline-Fogleman airfoil
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I am a mechanical engineering student doing my degree project on the
Kline-Fogleman airfoil.  It was featured as used in a paper airplane in
the April 1984 issue of Omni Magazine and also in a book called "The
Ultimate Paper Airplane" by Richard Kline [Simon and Schuster 1985].
The inventor has appeared on "60 Minutes" and "Letterman" as well.  It
is similar to a conventional symmetrical airfoil but with a notch or
step in the bottom.

What I'm looking for is sources for published windtunnel test data or
any other type of information anybody has on it or where I can find
some.  I hear that NASA has done tests on it but are they published
anywhere?  An aircraft company called Amerijet in Ohio was supposed to
build a small business jet using this concept.  Did this happen?

All I have is the book and the Omni article.  Any news would be greatly
appreciated.  This is my first time on the net, so please forgive any
faux pas.

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

Date: 7 Feb 87 07:35:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
To: space@angband.s1.gov
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)

In article <877@ihlpm.UUCP> dcn@ihlpm.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) writes:
>		THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE
>		EQUAL IN VALUE TO THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT.
>...

	I think we need to be a little more sophisticated than arguments
like this; there's no particular shortage of iron, nickel, cobalt etc.
in the Earth's crust either. The same problem exists as with asteroids,
however - it costs more to get than it's `worth'. It will require truly
massive industrialization of space before we can introduce
extraterrestrial resources in the supply chain in significant amounts
(so you have a 5km asteroid in LEO - how do propose to land it in a
useful fashion?), and I believe it will be much cheaper to develop
techniques of getting the low-grade stuff here on Earth.

	Now, for use in space, lunar & asteroidal materials are going to
be the way to go in a few decades - because they WILL be cheaper in
space than sending it up from here.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date:     Sat, 7 Feb 87 13:03 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  Migma

There was some talk a few months back about fusion power for use in
space, and recent talk about fission reactors for use in spacecraft and
aircraft.  Recently, someone mentioned the migma reactor.

The migma reactor was invented by Bogdan Maglich, a former particle
physicist, who has for years been trying to sell it to a largely
unsympathetic fusion community.  Migma is superficially similar to
magnetic confinement plasma fusion, in which some configuration of
magnetic fields is used to contain a relatively cool (about 10 KeV)
H2/H3 thermaized plasma.  In migma a magnetic mirror configuration is
used to contain a highly nonequilibrium plasma in which MeV range ions
are trapped on orbits that intersect at the axis of the device.

This scheme has some advantages (if it works; that Omni article only
grudgingly mentioned the possibility it would have insurmountable
instabilities): (1) Ions are at much higher energies than electrons, so
synchrotron radiation losses are reduced.  The ions also create a
diamagnetic well in which the magnetic field is greatly reduced, also
reducing synchrotron losses.  (2) The self-intersecting orbits make the
ion density nonuniform, with a sharp density peak in the center.  This
increases the fusion rate over a uniform plasma.  (3) Ion energies are
higher than in conventional schemes, so one can burn advanced fuels.
Use of advanced fuels can greatly reduce or possibly eliminate neutron
production and induced radioactivity, and eliminates tritium breeding
and storage simplifying reactor design and maintenance. (4) With low
neutron production, more power is carried by fast ions, and can be
converted to electricity in a direct converter (which has no moving
parts, aside from the ions) at high efficiency.  Fission and DT fusion
must use thermal cycles, which are inefficient and/or bulky.  (5) The
concept would permit small reactor modules with power output of perhaps
several megawatts.

While I'm not sure the reactor will be able to economically burn exotic
advanced fuels (He3+He3, H1+Li6, He3+Li6 or H1+B11), Maglich's group has
presented simulations showing that a stable migma could easily ignite on
H2+He3. 10% of the power would be carried by neutrons.  The reactor
would have an engineering Q of at least 45.  Power density would be 20
MW(th)/m**3.

Maglich's company, United Sciences, has looked at space applications of
the migma reactor.  It has a power/mass ratio an order of magnitude
higher than fission reactors, and produces power in the form of high
voltage DC, good for driving ion or colloid engines.  A migma powered
ion engine would have an Isp of 10,000 seconds and a mass/thrust ratio
of 70 kg/newton, vs. 5000 seconds and 500 kg/N for fission-electric
propulsion.

Maglich's group has built four reactor models.  Migma IV has reached (in
1983) a density of 10**9 to 10**10 deuterons/cm**3 and a confinement
time of 20-45 seconds, at an ion energy of 700 KeV.  I believe this was
at the time the highest energy * density * confinment time product
achieved in any controlled fusion device.  They hope to increase the
density in the next experiment by 1-2 orders of magnitude and the
confinement time by 1 order of magnitude by switching to protons (to
reduce charge exchange losses) and using electron cyclotron heating to
reduce electron drag.  A working reactor would have to increase the
central density by four orders of magnitude, so don't bet your life it
will pan out.

Migma is apparently controversial in the fusion community.  Lawrence
Lidsky, who wrote that article in Technology Review ("The Trouble With
Fusion") that was very critical of "mainline" DT fusion, supports
Maglich (according to that Omni article he is on United Sciences'
steering committee), and his article can be considered a thinly veiled
pro-Maglich manifesto.  Maglich himself has apparently been less than
diplomatic in his criticism of mainline fusion, leading to problems with
pillars of the fusion community who, unfortunately for Maglich,
influence government funding through peer review, and have careers and
prestige invested in tokamaks.  At a plasma physics conference last May,
Maglich gave a talk openly disparaging a peer review of his Air Force
grant proposal (see the abstract in Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., early 1986).

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

Date: 6 Feb 87 17:54:53 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (Rick Kolker)
Subject: Challenger Center for Space Science Education
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

On the anniversary of the Challenger accident, the families of those
aboard announced the Challenger Center as a continuation of the work
left undone by the tragedy.

The Center is the collective name for a series (the first two will be in
Washington DC and Houston) of station sites and connecting
infrastructure aimed at using space as a means to promote education in
the sciences, math and communications.

Any classroom in the country will be able to hook into the centers'
computer system as an interactive source.  Teachers and students at the
station sites will live and work in a simulated space station
environment.

I pass this information (that many of you have undoubtedly already seen)
on, because I will be functioning as the Center's interface with the
various computer networks.  Right now, that's onlyu Compuserve and (with
my employers' cooperation) Usenet, but hopefully guest accounts on other
nets can be set up soon.

I solicit your ideas for the center, help in passing the word, (and help
in getting in touch with other nets...anyone a sysop?)

Let's keep the usenet discussion on sci.space.

Thanks
rich kolker

Rich Kolker            
8519 White Pine Drive  
Manassas Park, VA 22111
(703)361-1290 (h)      
(703)749-2315 (w)

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

Date: 6 Feb 87 22:01:07 GMT
From: mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@seismo.css.gov  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Re: TAU
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> andrew@alberta.UUCP (Andrew Folkins)
> Check out February's "Sky & Telescope", there's a short note on TAU.
> Basically, "the mission would last 50 years and venture beyond Pluto to
> the fringes of the Oort cloud".  
> [...]
> One question I have about this : "by sending TAU opposite to the direction
> of the solar system's direction of motion, the craft will escape the Sun's
> influence in the shortest possible time."  Doesn't the Sun have the solar
> equivalent of a magnetic tail, and wouldn't the probe then be travelling
> straight down it?  It makes more sense to send the probe at right angles
> to the direction of the Sun's motion.  You don't get any extra delta v
> from the motion of the solar system, but the heliopause is closer.

The odd thing is, you don't get significant extra delta-V from the solar
system by going "opposite" to its "direction of motion".  It seems to me
that one would want to go to where the solar magnetosphere and ion wind
and so on fade into the galactic background as fast as possible.  I'm
not sure which direction that would be, but doubt it would be right
angles, and I can't see any reason at all for it to be "opposite" to the
"direction of motion".  Can anybody else?

Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #142
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10178; Sun, 22 Feb 87 03:02:20 PST
	id AA10178; Sun, 22 Feb 87 03:02:20 PST
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 87 03:02:20 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702221102.AA10178@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #143

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 143

Today's Topics:
			    Solar Garbage
			      Re: SR-71
			 Hazards of Plutonium
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #129
		   Re: government coverups of UFOs
	      Propulsion with Metastable Nuclear Isomers
			     UFO nonsense
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
		       Re: Hazards of Plutonium
		      Remarks on an N-Body code
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 7 Feb 1987  10:37 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Solar Garbage
In-Reply-To: Msg of 6 Feb 1987  23:17-EST from Mail Delivery Subsystem <MAILER-DAEMON at angband.s1.gov>

Actually it would not be so costly to drop garbage into the Sun -
provided that it originates in a non-decaying LEO orbit sufficiently
above the atmosphere.  The trick would be to use a light sail system,
first to slowly elevate the ship into much higher orbits and,
eventually, use the moon to escape Earth entirely.  After that, we use
the sail to tack so as to reduce the solar orbit velocity.  Then, we
cleverly exploit Venus and Mercury to get below them, and continue to
tack down until the sails start to melt.  All this will take many
years (but who cares) and require very little power and weight.

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

Date: 7 Feb 87 04:10:52 GMT
From: necntc!encore!linus!alliant!spain@husc6.harvard.edu  (Dave Spain)
Subject: Re: SR-71
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702040414.AA13296@angband.s1.gov> KEN@orion.UUCP (Kenneth Ng) writes:
>In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right
>after takeoff.  I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat
>up, to seal the fuel tanks.

Although I'm just speculating, it may also be the case that the extra
weight of a full fuel load just makes the thing too heavy to take off
within a "reasonable" amount of runway.

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

Date: 7 Feb 87 22:44:49 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Hazards of Plutonium
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The following information is taken from N. I. Sax, _Dangerous
Properties of Industrial Materials_, 2nd edition (New York:Reinhold),
1963, p. 1112.

PLUTONIUM
                 General Information
Description: Radioactive metallic element
Formula: Pu.
Constant: At wt: 239
                 Hazard Analysis
Toxicity: Highly toxic.  The permissible levels for plutonium are the
lowers for any of the radioactive elements.  This is occasioned by
the concentration of plutonium directly in the blood-forming sections
of the bone, rather than the more uniform bone distribution shown by
other heavy elements.  This increases the possibility of damage from
equivalent activities of plutonium and has lead to the adoption of
the extremely low permissible levels given.

Radiation Hazard (Section 5, p. 91): Artificial isotope Pu(239),
half-life 2.4E4 years; emits alpha particles of 5.15 MeV and gamma
rays of 40-50 keV.  For permissible levels see table 5 on page 113.
Other plutonium isotopes are similarly toxic.

[What follows is my own interpretation, based on the above and on a
longer analysis read a year or two ago; unfortunately, I couldn't
find the longer analysis again.]

1. Chemical toxicity is not mentioned.  I would expect it to be
a bit worse than lead.

2. The radioactive hazard is minimal, _provided_ the plutonium is not
inhaled or ingested.  However, this proviso is impossible to
guarantee in a present-day industrial setting.  On the other hand,
equally hazardous substances are routinely used in industry.

3. As with all radioactive materials, damage from contamination is
normally not immediate but rather is in the form of increased cancer
risk in later years. Thus young people should be more concerned and
old people less concerned about radioactive contamination.  I don't
think existing standards take this age effect into account.

4. Some of the earlier discussion concerned the possibility of a
reactor falling into the ocean.  The allowed level for plutonium in
water given by Sax is 5E-6 micro-curies per liter.  (This is for
soluble plutonium and for exposure to the general public.  Insoluble
plutonium can be a factor of 6 higher, and the occupational standards
are about a factor of 20 higher.  On the other hand, the standards
might have become more stringent since 1963.)  I'm guessing that a
modest reactor for space applications might contain 10 kg of
plutonium (Anybody have a better number?), which I calculate to be
about 500 Ci.  In order to meet the above standard, it would have to
be diluted by cube of water 500 meters on a side.


Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

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

Date:  8 Feb 1987 13:00-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #129
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 8 Feb 87 03:16:15 PST

Gary: I don't think that the main stream of environmentalists in this
country are quite as ideologically oriented. There might be targeting
of the space program, but I doubt we would get more than a lunatic
fringe of the environmentalists.

Over the last few years environmental groups have become mush more
distanced from the left, as they realize that the left is no better
than the right in protecting wilderness resources, air and water
quality, and so forth. In fact, one of the more successful groups, the
Nature Conservancy, uses outright capitilist methods: they BUY the land
outright via donations. So does Audobon Society. Some of them even
lease gas rights, under tighter controls than the government, and use
the money to support wildlife preserves.

We in the space movement actually feel that the pragmatic (ie save the
environment and hang the ideology) environmentalists are a natural
constitutency for us. But I will say that they are fairly anti-SDI, so
I would expect that portion of space to be under fire. This doesn't
matter to groups like L5 since we're neutral on the issue anyway.

Summary: look for a fringe attack, but I doubt you'll see massive
support behind it. And if it does, I'm sure L5 could mount counter
demonstrations...

Warning: We all have to make sure that regardless of our attitudes
about military, SDI or whatever, that we don't allow space in general
to become to closely associated with the military. There be dragons my
friends...

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

Date: 8 Feb 87 08:08:35 GMT
From: stride!tahoe!jimi!robert@UTAH-GR.ARPA  (Robert Cray)
Subject: Re: government coverups of UFOs
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7597@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> the waffer but no, they couldn't tell him the results.  Why?  Because it was
>> clasified.  Now if this was a normal (Nabisco) waffer would they clasify it?
>
>Sure they would -- this is the Air Force we are talking about!  Those clowns
>would classify the color of the sky if they thought they could get away
>with it.  Inferring sinister motives from the case you describe requires

Where I work at EPA, we have thousands of pictures of the sky at Edwards
AFB used to determine the inherent contrast at a given moment.  About a
year ago, some big-shot at the air force heard about them, and sent
about 5 guys down to confiscate them all.  It was pretty funny, becuase
no one was really sure where they all were, some where in desk drawers,
in boxes here & there, in the wharehouse.  They got about 4 months
worth, and some poor sap at the AF had to go through each slide (one
every hour every day) and make sure there were no pictures of B1 bombers
or UFOs escaping from the hanger :-) or whatever is was they were afraid
of.

					--robert


CSNET:   robert%jimi.cs.unlv.edu@relay.cs.net
UUCP:    {sdcrdcf,ihnp4}!otto!jimi!robert
         seismo!unrvax!tahoe!jimi!robert

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

Date:     Sun, 8 Feb 87 15:31 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  Propulsion with Metastable Nuclear Isomers

According to C. Collins at U.T. Dallas, energy storage in metastable
nuclear states can approach 1E12 joules per liter for thousands of years
[1].  Collins's group is looking into these materials for use in gamma
ray lasers.  Their approach is to pump the nuclei from the metastable
state to a slightly higher unstable state using either x rays or intense
lower frequency coherent radiation.

Being able to build a gamma ray laser would be interesting, but there
might also be a possibility of inducing incoherent emission with
relatively little investment in pump energy.  This could make an
excellent source of energy for nuclear launchers and aircraft.
Collins's energy density estimate of 1E12 J/liter means a specific
energy of perhaps 1E11 J/kg, which is the kinetic energy of matter
moving at about 400 km/sec.  That is much more than enough for a
launcher; several orders of magnitude less energy would still be
superior to chemical fuels.

Conceptually, a small pile of a metastable isomer would be pumped by a
laser or an intense microwave source.  Nuclei in the pile would decay,
either by gamma emission or by internal conversion (ejection of an
atomic electron).  In any case, the decay energy would be absorbed
locally, heating the pile.  Hydrogen (or perhaps some denser gas, at the
beginning of the launch) would flow through the pile, be heated and
expelled at high speed.  Part of the hydrogen outflow could be used to
drive a turbine/generator, providing power for the pump laser.

The advantage of this scheme over a fission reactor would be the reduced
shielding requirements (no neutrons or high energy gamma rays) and lack
of shortlived decay products and their troublesome afterheat. A properly
chosen isomer would emit only low energy photons (10's of KeV) which
could be easily absorbed.

[1] C. B. Collins, Prospects for a gamma ray laser based on upconversion,
    Bull. Am. Phys. Soc., 32(2), page 264, 1987.

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

Date: Mon, 9 Feb 87 09:50:56 EST
From: weltyc@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty)
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: UFO nonsense

	I'm not one to really debate UFO's with anyone - I find it
interesting that most sighting are by "good ol' boys" who spend most of
their time drinking 150 proof moonshine, however.
	I did see a show once, though, that looked into these supposed
UFO coverup stories.  The angle they used was US Govt testing of
military technology that is illegal, in an international treaty sense.
Therefore, they can not even admit that they were testing this stuff,
and letting people think it was a UFO is easier.  The angle worked, they
seemed to explain all of the cases (they examined) using this theory.
The crash in the southwest so many people are worried about was
examined, too.  They concluded that it was a test flight of a helecopter
or something.  Human bodies after being burned and mangled can look
pretty alien...

	(was that convincing enough, commander, or do you think these
humans will still be suspicious?  Breep barglbloop)

					-Chris
					 weltyc@csv.rpi.edu

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

Date: 9 Feb 87 19:11:20 GMT
From: milano!wex@im4u.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <877@ihlpm.UUCP>, dcn@ihlpm.UUCP (Dave Newkirk) writes:
	[list of other materials in asteroid deleted]
> 	and 4609 metric tons of gold, worth $60.8 billion, as an impurity.

Hmmm.  I know that gold is an excellent conductor; Burroughs (where I
used to work) used it in the edge connectors of circuit boards.  The
gold was valuable enough that they paid the cost of persons and machines
to retrieve the gold from junk boards.

If gold were significantly cheaper (or if you were building in space
where copper et al are rarer) what would be the effect on computer
technology?  Can gold stand the heat?  Does it give better performance?

(I guess this is not exactly the correct group for this, but darned if I
know what the right one is.  This also may be relevant to discussions
showing the profitability (or lack thereof) of mining asteroids.)



Alan Wexelblat
ARPA: WEX@MCC.ARPA or WEX@MCC.COM
UUCP: {seismo, harvard, gatech, pyramid, &c.}!sally!im4u!milano!wex

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

Date: 9 Feb 87 19:30:20 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hazards of Plutonium
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> 2. The radioactive hazard is minimal, _provided_ the plutonium is not
> inhaled or ingested...

My recollection is that ingested plutonium is actually not tremendously
dangerous, because it is not absorbed well.  Inhaling it is the big worry.
I could be wrong about this.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 11:26:54 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Remarks on an N-Body code
 

In Vol. 7, No. 130 of Space Digest, Fred Mendenhall asked for help in
debugging an N-Body code.  Fred, I am sorry to say that there is no easy
fix for your problem.  You assumned **falsely** that third body
perturbations are dominant in low earth orbit.  In actuality the
oblateness terms, J2-J4 and atmospheric drag dominate until you have a
gecentric radius of 1.1E8 feet.  If you are only interested in the
N-Body problem, then let me suggest that you investigate the orbit of
the asteroid Toro.  The orbital elements for Toro are tabulated in the
"Astronomical Almanac 1986" on page G12.  However if you insist on
investigating low earth orbit trajectories, then I suggest that you read
"Astrodynamics" by Samuel Herrick.  Use the MSIS 1977 atmospheric model
by A.E. Hedin.  I've written such a code myself and it is over several
thousand lines long.  Good luck.
                                 Gary

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #143
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11625; Mon, 23 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST
	id AA11625; Mon, 23 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702231102.AA11625@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #144

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 03:02:35 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #144

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 144

Today's Topics:
		Space Enthusiasts as Environmentalists
			       Re: TAU
			    Re: SR71 info
	     Re: Plutonium Daughters and Grand daughters!
			  heat of spacecraft
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
	   Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 87 07:00:05 GMT
Subject: Space Enthusiasts as Environmentalists
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)

In article <539805656.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>We in the space movement actually feel that the pragmatic (ie save the
>environment and hang the ideology) environmentalists are a natural
>constitutency for us. 

	Have there ever been any signs that they in the environmental
movement agree? People have been saying this for over a decade but that
doesn't make it true. If the Sierra Club started lobbying for the space
station, I might believe it. And just how many environmentalists are
``pragmatic'' as opposed to ``ideological'' anyway? There are certainly
a lot of ideologically pro-space people (as I understand the term). Talk
about ``historical imperatives'' to go into space, analogies to the fate
of China after they ceased exploring, and the like sounds real
convincing to us but doesn't make much impression on the average person.

>		But I will say that they are fairly anti-SDI, so
>I would expect that portion of space to be under fire. This doesn't
>matter to groups like L5 since we're neutral on the issue anyway.

	True in theory, but so many prominent members of L-5 -
particularly members of the Board(s) - are pro-SDI that we seem to be
perceived that way anyway (at least by pro-space, non-L-5 people I have
talked to). If you were present at the SF Conference straw poll
conducted by Keith Henson, you will recall that 95% of the people
present were in favor of L-5 taking no position on the issue; but >85%
indicated they were PERSONALLY in favor of SDI. It is thus obvious why
L-5 is seen as pro-SDI. Actions like inviting Gen. Graham to the Space
Development Conference are not going to reinforce a neutral image in
most people's mind (I am not objecting to it myself, just pointing this
out).

>Warning: We all have to make sure that regardless of our attitudes
>about military, SDI or whatever, that we don't allow space in general
>to become to closely associated with the military. There be dragons my
>friends...

	Too late. Look at the current shuttle manifest once they start
flying again; it may be a NASA vehicle but DOD is providing the
payloads. They are also funding the only new expendable launch vehicles
(Titan 4, Delta, and perhaps a heavy launcher for SDI), providing the
majority of funding for the Aerospace Plane, and trying for more than a
toehold on the space station (and if all of this doesn't bother you as
much as it does me, you're probably wearing a uniform). Space IS closely
associated with the military; all we can do is try to equalize the
massive and growing imbalance between military and civilian space
funding.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 07:30:42 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: TAU
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <987@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes:
> ... a probe planned to be launched
> around 2005, intended to cruise out to about 1000 AU...
>
> ... The main problem is that it is likely that, while the probe is still
> heading out to its operational distance, a more effective drive will
> be developed--say something along the lines of a portable fusion plant.
> The probe could be obsolete before it ever gets used...  So you
> get the situation that if you wait for a few more years to build the
> probe, you get your data back sooner).
> 
> On the other hand, postponing something like this isn't really a good
> idea--if we decide to wait a few more years until interplanetary drive
> systems become a bit more mature, we might end up waiting indefinately...

Just like I'll never buy a computer if I repeatedly decide to wait one
more year for a model that's twice as fast.

Just because TAU will be operating for 40 years doesn't mean that it
will take 40 years to be useful.  It will have become the farthest-out
probe long before that.  Even if a later probe takes over that honor,
its data will still be useful, as it will be reporting on a different
region of space.

			David Smith
			HP Labs

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 07:35:34 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: SR71 info
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> the Mach 5.0.  It is known, however, that at least 150 attempts to
> shoot it down have been unsuccessful.  I am led to believe that part of the
> trick is simply out-running the SAM.
> 
Around 5 years ago, Flight International wrote that the SR-71 had been
fired on by missiles over 800 times without taking a hit.  The SR-71 model
sold in toy stores carries the same claim on its box, but with the number
put at over 900.

			David Smith
			HP Labs

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 10:22:35 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Plutonium Daughters and Grand daughters!
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7640@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>My recollection is that ingested plutonium is actually not tremendously
>dangerous, because it is not absorbed well.  Inhaling it is the big worry.
>I could be wrong about this.

Plutonium is a "super heavy metal" just rolling in electrons, and when
you add in the sublevel transitional states then you have a a chemical
nightmare.  It does tend to precipitate protein (amino acids), but
stomach acid can do the trick, and prepare it for digestion.

The other problem is that one is stuck with it and all of its daughters,
granddaughters, and whatever lovely little jaspers that the neutrons
take a fancy to "activate". Sure, some of them have long life times..

You get the whole ball of wax... mother-in-law included!

Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075
Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP

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

Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 13:05:31 PST
From: mcgeer%ji.Berkeley.EDU@berkeley.edu (Rick McGeer)
To: space-request@angband.si.gov, space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: heat of spacecraft

    okay, so i'm a little naive in this area.  tell me why a re-entry
    vehicle cannot slow down sufficiently while re-entering the earth's
    atmosphere so as to not generate such immense heat from friction.
    how slow would this be?  it seems like i used to know the answer to
    this, but i've been out of school for a while and my brain's since
    been cluttered with other things...

    -- jdm

	It takes energy for a spacecraft to change from a free-fall
orbit to ground-level, no matter how slowly it descends.  The energy of
a K kg object in free fall at r km is always = -G Me K/2r (potential
energy = -G Me K/r, kinetic energy = K v^2/2, v^2/r = G Me/r^2 => k.e. =
G Me K/2r On the other hand, the energy of the object on the surface of
the earth is:

				2
	-G Me K	   1 |2 pi Re |  K
	-------- + - |--------|    = K * -6.2528E8 joules
	  Re	   2 |8.6E5   |

For an object in orbit at R metres above the earth's surface, we have:

	-G Me K
	--------
	Re + R

Taking 200 km (= 2e5 metres), this works out to:

	K * -6.0728E+8 joules,

which gives us a difference of about 1.8E7 joules for each kilogram of
your spacecraft.  Now, some (most) of that is generated by your engines;
on the way up, all of it is.  On the way down, you'd sooner use the
atmosphere to absorb some of that energy you're shedding.  But energy
doesn't go away -- it's merely converted from one form to another.  In
this case, heat.  The object heats both itself and the atmosphere.

	Actually, the way to generate the *least* heat is to descend
very rapidly; blast once to kill of your excess velocity, drop like a
rock, then blast again to kill your vertical velocity.  Highly wasteful
of fuel, but if you shape the ship for maximum terminal velocity you
generate very little heat.

						-- Rick.

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 04:03:40 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@hplabs.hp.com  (Mark Muhlestein)
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ...
> I believe that attaching any blame to politicians or bureaucracy ignores the
> fact that government is we, and if we wanted it different, it would *be*
> different.  (This "we" is, regrettably, not the "we" of this newsgroup, nor
> is it limited to academics, researches, engineers, and scientists.  It is,
> sadly, the "we" of "We, the people...")
> 
> Dave Suess			zeus@aero2.arpa.org

Would somebody please explain why it is that the creatures on this
planet squabble endlessly over the puny resources of a tiny speck
floating in the inconceivabe vastness of the universe?  Everything
humanity could ever want is available for the taking.

Why do we continue to play this zero-sum game when the real sum is
infinite (for all practical purposes)?  For everyone a quality of life
richer and more human than we can imagine is reachable, if only enough
of the right people could realize it.

Sometimes I just want to scream, "Get me of this **** planet!"


	Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc.

{ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 03:38:52 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@hplabs.hp.com  (Mark Muhlestein)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1519@sci.UUCP>, daver@sci.UUCP (Dave Rickel) writes:
> In article <8702021753.aa03258@CAD.USNA.ARPA>, baccala@USNA.ARPA (Brent W Baccala) writes:
> > ...  Beam the laser down, and have the rocket ride the beam up.
> > Since clouds are primarily a low-atmosphere phenomenon (and the
> > ones higher up are thin), the rocket could be equipped with standard
> > jets to get above the atmospheric junk.  Then fire up the laser,
> > and sail off on a light beam...
> 
> ... 
> Oh well.  Now for the hard part.  Building and launching the laser booster
> and its power supply.  What kind of a power supply do you need? ...

How feasable would it be to have a satellite in geosynchronous orbit
either:

1) generate energy from a large array of solar cells to power a laser?

	or

2) build a really big solar reflector (dynamically focussable paraboloid)
   and power the rocket directly?

I really don't have the background to do the relevant calculations, but
it seems that if you had a manufacturing capability in space (probably
lunar), either of these might be a cost-effective solution.  They could
be centered over the eastern coast of any equatorial area with lots of
empty ocean to the east for minimum danger in case of mis-pointing.

	Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc.
{ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm

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

End of SPACE Digest V7 #144
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00672; Tue, 24 Feb 87 03:02:37 PST
	id AA00672; Tue, 24 Feb 87 03:02:37 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 87 03:02:37 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702241102.AA00672@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #145

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 24 Feb 87 03:02:37 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #145

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 145

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Fission, Fusion, Aneutronic Energy, Migma etc.
			  Re: Solar Garbage
			   Re: UFO nonsense
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #129
			    Re: SR71 info
		   Re: Earth's Mass and Grav Const
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 87 10:44:26 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Fission, Fusion, Aneutronic Energy, Migma etc.
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <480@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc)
writes:          .  . ... ...         . We have
> made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts (some of which 
> are not applicable to space) to the Air Force Studies Board Committee 
> on Aneutronic Fusion Power, Phase I. .. .. B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) 
> exceeds other approaches by 10^4, .. . 

In article <3650@milano.UUCP>: WEX@MCC.ARPA (Alan Wexelblat) writes:
>I thought that fusion reactors also produced hazardous (radioactive?)
>wastes.  Not the same ..as fission ,.. still a problem to dispose of... ? 

Yes and NO! The government (DoE) sponsored programs (obsolete
technologies) will be very radioactive because of their pressure
limitations and power constraints, easily ignited Deuterium Tritium fuel
is the only one that might work -- even then not commercially.

Two concepts claim to be capable of burning aneutronically -- no neutron
production or other radioactivity.  The Migma is a kind of a fire fly,
delicately osculating rosettes of orbiting ions.  By comparison, the
PLASMAK(tm) microstar generator ejects a 60 hertz pulsed welders arc of
liquid density gas that is fusion heated to drive inductively generated
10 gigawatt electrical AC power or to directly drive by expansion, boost
phase propulsion engines.

>What happens if we create a fusion reactor in space?  Does the B/R
>value (to a site on Earth surface) increase or decrease?  Are wastes a
>problem for a PLASMAK reactor in space (say, LEO)?

It works as well in deep space as it does submerged deep in a massive
planet's atmosphere.  It is the ideal way with baggage to go to and fro
and thither and yon.

===
In article <8702072035.AA23734@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET 
("Paul F. Dietz") writes:

>The Migma reactor was invented by Bogdan Maglich, a former particle
>physicist, who has for years been trying to sell it to a largely
>unsympathetic fusion community. ...

>This scheme has some advantages (if it works; that Omni article only
>grudgingly mentioned the possibility it would have insurmountable
>instabilities): (1) higher [energy ions]..[and their] diamagnetic well
>..  reduced, also [reduce] synchrotron radiation. (2) The self-
>intersecting orbits make ..a sharp density peak in the
>center...increases the fusion rate over a uniform plasma.  (3) [Higher]
>Ion energies ..so .. can burn advanced fuels.. ..[which] ..reduce or ..
>eliminate neutron production and induced radioactivity, ..  simplifying
>reactor design and maintenance. (4) .. fast ions, can be converted to
>electricity in a direct converter at high efficiency.  Fission and DT
>fusion must use thermal cycles, which are inefficient and/or bulky.
>(5) The concept would permit small reactor modules with power output of
>perhaps several megawatts.

By comparison (1) the PLASMAK plasmoid's dense Mantle (plasma shell)
reflects [about twenty harmonics] the cyclotron radiation emanating from
the high field plasma Kernel (toroidal fuel cell) for reabsorption.  (2)
The maximum applied (partially inertial) compression of the gas blanket
and the pressure leveraging effects of it toroidal field (Spheromak-like
topology characteristic) can develop plasma densities of a few times
10^18 in HB yielding about 60 megawatts/cc at peak.  (3) SAME as above
(4) In PLASMAK(TM) technology the fusion energy goes to Bremsstrahlung
and then to heating of the compression blanket.  This causes expansion
which drives "self compression heating" of the plasmoid to squeeze the
last possible drop of recoverable aneutronic energy out of the remaining
fuel.  Releasing the blanket into inductive MHD devices generates
electric power with conversion efficiencies up to 95%.  (5) The
aneutronic PLASMAK(tm) is very compact, indeed ( each burning
PLASMAK(TM) Kernel is only 135 cc, and as pointed out above produces up
to tens of gigawatts (average continuous power)!
 
We haven't worked out any verified numbers for space applications at
this time, and the "guesses" have a considerable range, but still it
looks very, very good -- probably an order of magnitude better.  D-He3
burning engines would be efficient and very robot friendly, and H-B11
would be human (men -- Heh! Heh!) friendly as long as you were more than
5 kilometers down range of the direct exhaust flame during take off.

>Migma is apparently controversial in the fusion community.  Lawrence
>Lidsky, who wrote that article in Technology Review ("The Trouble With
>Fusion") that was very critical of "mainline" DT fusion, supports
>Maglich (according to that Omni article he is on United Sciences'
>steering committee), and his article can be considered a thinly veiled
>pro-Maglich manifesto.

Actually, Larry likes Maglich's concepts BECAUSE it is ANEUTRONIC, BUT
he likes the PLASMAK(tm) concept for this reason, too, but he likes it
more because of its technique for solving the "wall" problem.
Rosenbluth likes the PLASMAK(TM) concept because of it stability and its
simplicity and elegance.  That is said WITHOUT compensation.

To say that Lidsky's article was a veiled pro-Maglich manifesto is 

              *** B L O O D Y   N U T S *** 

and quite exasperating!!!!  As a matter of fact, both the fusion
community and Maglich have yet to come to grips with the "Wall Problem",
among other problems of a fundamental engineering nature.

>Maglich himself has apparently been less than diplomatic ... 

Gee!  What else is new.  What entreprenuer isn't a bit of a dip?

                            Fish school, 
                 and so do physicists and .. and ..           

Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075
Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP

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

Date: 9 Feb 87 17:52:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


/* Written  9:52 pm  Feb  6, 1987 by MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU in uiucdcsb:sci.space */
/* ---------- "Solar Garbage" ---------- */
>  After that, we use the [light] sail to tack so as to
>  reduce the solar orbit velocity.
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:sci.space */

  From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem.
With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the craft
exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft perpendicular to
its long axis.  With a light sail, what serves as the keel?  Tilting the
sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the area exposed to the
proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the direction of the force
vector.

  Since the fluxes of charged particles, neutral particles, and light
all may impinge in slightly different directions (as they are affected
differently by the electromagnetic environment in transit), a
sufficiently clever sail can use this effect to gain a small amount of
directional control.  One can also get an applied force at a different
direction by the expensive technique of deploying a reflector to give a
light flux from another part of the sky.  The latter technique seems
awfully expensive for garbage disposal.

Is there some method for tacking a light sail that I haven't
encountered yet?

Kevin Kenny			     UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign	       CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET
NSA line eater food:               ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA)
    Bomb, secret, terrorist, cryptography, DES, assassinate, decode, CIA, NRO.

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 17:42:18 GMT
From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: UFO nonsense
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702091450.AA07689@csv.rpi.edu>, weltyc@CSV.RPI.EDU (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
> 
> 	I did see a show once, though, that looked into these supposed
> UFO coverup stories.  The angle they used was US Govt testing of
> military technology that is illegal, in an international treaty sense.
> Therefore, they can not even admit that they were testing this stuff,
> and letting people think it was a UFO is easier.

I don't know whether this is a significant source of sightings in the
US.  However, this is certainly a major factor in UFO sightings in the
USSR.  It doesn't even involve the testing of weapons systems that are
illegal in any sense.  The Soviets have such a pervasive paranoia that
virtually no military launches are supposed to come up for public
discussion.  Hence a series of "jellyfish" sightings received a fair
amount of play before it was firmly established that they were
unannounced launches.  I think some American UFO cranks still bring up
these cases.

  Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
  {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
  ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
  University of Texas

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 20:31:32 GMT
From: joel@media-lab.mit.edu  (Joel Kollin)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #129
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

As an engineer and avid environmentalist who strongly supports space
colonization, I am revolted by the narrow-mindedness shown by those who
"oppose environmentalism because it is anti-progress".  I think space
colonization is essential if we want an Earth worth living in, and I
reject the notion that Greenpeace people are a bunch of Soviet dupes who
hate technology.  Greenpeace opposes SDI on many grounds, most of them
political, but I don't recall them badmouthing the civilian space
program.  I distrust ideology personally and tend to look at problems in
tangible terms.  Like 1 out of 4 Americans getting cancer. One ton (or
is it more?) of TOXIC waste generated per person, per year in the USA.
Irreplacable species being wiped out daily with no understanding of
their impact on the biosystem.  Let's face it - if the rest of the world
had our standard of living with today's technology this planet would go
to hell in a handbasket faster than you can say "James Watt". I can't
understand how anyone who has ever thought about the phrase "quality of
life" for any length of time can not support both space colonization and
strict environmental controls designed to account for the hidden costs
of resource use.

Sorry for the rush job but I have work to do.

Joel Kollin (joel@media-lab.mit.edu)

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

Date: 10 Feb 87 22:00:17 GMT
From: panda!teddy!svb@husc6.harvard.edu  (Stephen V. Boyle)
Subject: Re: SR71 info
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1275@hplabsc.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
>> the Mach 5.0.  It is known, however, that at least 150 attempts to
>> shoot it down have been unsuccessful.  I am led to believe that part of the
>> 
>Around 5 years ago, Flight International wrote that the SR-71 had been
>fired on by missiles over 800 times without taking a hit.  The SR-71 model
>
>			David Smith

I remember reading an interview with an SR-71 pilot who had been engaged
in overflights of the combat area during the Six Days War. When asked if
he had encountered any trouble with the Soviet-supplied ground-to-air
missiles (SAM-3s?) he replied "Nah, we saw 'em coming and just outran
them." He went on to say that they had a few "interesting" moments with
the hurriedly-supplied successor missiles, but that it had basically
been no problem to duck them.

Re: SR-71 info. An interesting article was written by Clarence 'Kelly'
Johnson that appeared in the July 1982 issue of Popular Mechanics. This
article has some interesting discussions of the design and operational
problems associated with a Mach 3+, 80,000+ ft. operational ceiling
aircraft. A couple of things that are mentioned are:

Fuel: Kelly Johnson states that "The fuel had to be stable under
temperatures as low as -90 deg. F. in subsonic cruising flight during
aerial refueling, and to over 350 deg. F. at high cruising speeds when
it would be fed into the engine fuel system.  There, it would be used
first as hydraulic fluid, at 600 deg. F., to control the afterburner
exit flap before being fed into the burner cans of the powerplant and
the afterburner itself."  In Mark Meyer's book, "Wings", it states that
"... The SR-71 leaks fuel badly" as a reason for the refueling after
takeoff.

Fuselage and wing skins: The Popular Mechanics article describes the
problems encountered in designing and fabricating the titanium panels,
including the longitudinal corrugations in the wing surface panels to
allow for heat-induced expansion. It also states that there were
problems encountered in the design of high-temperature plastics for
radomes, etc. The article also has a surface temperature diagram of an
SR-71 by way of illustrating the cooling load design problems
encountered. The peak on the diagram is 1050 deg. F., apparently over
the combustion chamber of the Pratt & Whitney J58 engines.

Engine flameout: The article says that "With the engines located halfway
out on the wing span, we were quite concerned with the very high yawing
moment that would develop in an engine-inlet stall." It goes on to
describe the installation of accelerometers in the fuselage to sense and
trigger automatic 9 deg. rudder correction. "Thsi device worked so well
taht our test pilots often couldn't decide whether the left or right
engine had blown out. They knew they had a blowout, of course, from the
bad buffeting they received with a 'popped shock'. Subsequently, an
automatic restart device was developed which limits this engine-out time
to a very short period."

Performance: The most interesting comment on performance came by way of
a statement on the design problems encountered in the design of the
ejection system. "Special attention had to be given to the crew escape
system to allow safe ejection from 0 mph at sea level to Mach 4 at over
100,000 feet."

There's lots of other neat, interesting stuff in the article, including
a comment that the J58 was tested by running the exhaust from another
engine into it's inlet, by way of simulating the high-temperature
ram-air inlet that would be encountered operationally.

Steve Boyle
{decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!svb
svb@suntan

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 87 04:27:11 GMT
From: well!msudoc!crlt!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Earth's Mass and Grav Const
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <965@inuxe.UUCP>, fred@inuxe.UUCP writes:
> I'm in the process of debugging a n-body simulation program and
> I've noticed that in both LEO satellites and in the orbital
> motion of the moon I end up with an error in orbital period of
> 1.4%.

> I'm using for the mass of the Earth or for the universal gravitational
> constant. The present values were found in the 1968  CRC.

> 				Fred Mendenhall

Have you also corrected for the 2000-mile difference between the
earth/moon distance and the moon/center of mass distance?  This
would give you about a 1% error in the value R, and about 1.5%
error in orbital period.  Good luck.

 Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
	    ihnp4!itivax!mnet!russ

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #145
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03031; Wed, 25 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST
	id AA03031; Wed, 25 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702251102.AA03031@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #146

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 87 03:02:39 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #146

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 146

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Goals for the space program...
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
	   Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
			  Re: Solar Garbage
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
			  Re: Solar Garbage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 87 05:01:35 GMT
From: well!msudoc!crlt!russ@lll-lcc.arpa  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Goals for the space program...
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2614@ecsvax.UUCP>, duktip@ecsvax.UUCP writes:
> ... Where to now?
> ... but what
> should follow the space station?  Moon-base?  Mars-mission?  Other?

>                                           -G. Semones
>                                            Duke University

How about something that begins a money-making, self-sustaining venture
in space, like powersats?  One way to make certain that Congressional
monetary concerns won't scuttle something is to make it be *lucrative*.

Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
    ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 87 18:09:45 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> If gold were significantly cheaper (or if you were building in space where
> copper et al are rarer) what would be the effect on computer technology?
> Can gold stand the heat?  Does it give better performance?

My understanding -- I'm not an expert on this -- is that gold is
certainly useful in electronics but it's not a wonder metal.  Cheap gold
would be nice but would not produce a lot of changes.  It's great stuff
for connectors because it refuses to form much of an oxide film, and
contacts to silicon are normally made using gold wires because the
resulting bond has various good properties.  It would be nice to be able
to put a good thick gold coating on connectors so one wouldn't have to
worry about second-rate substitutes or about wear on
microscopically-thin gold plating, but this would be a convenience
rather than a revolution.

Doing without copper, on the other hand, would be rather more painful.
It's everywhere in electronics and there isn't a particular good
substitute that I know of.  (If there were one, it would probably be in
wide use by now, because copper is not cheap even on Earth.)

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 10 Feb 87 23:59:11 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> We cannot afford "costly" technological fixes in the present economic
> situation...

The original proposal clearly assumed a somewhat altered economic
situation, notably a more vigorous space program -- one which does not
let immensely valuable assets fall out of orbit through neglect!

> Let in fission reactors of uranium and SDIO will throw up
> plutonium reactors...

After it's been cooking for a few months, there's not much difference:
it's the fission products that are the real danger.

By the way, since there are already a number of uranium fission reactors
in orbit (Soviet ones), what do you mean by "let in"?

> ... safety in that environ ... would be so poor 
> that manned fixes would be sheer madness...

So you use remote-controlled maneuvering units instead, like the one TRW
is building for the Shuttle only bigger (and, for this application,
probably more radiation-hardened).  Keep the human controllers a
kilometer or two away so they are relatively safe but still on hand to
change tools etc.

> Avoiding "decaying orbits" ain't that simple.  If one of these things
> "ranaway", there is no borated sand to pile on it to shut it down, and to
> expect that it would NOT generate orbit disturbing gas jets is naive...

An orbit disturbing gas jet solid and coherent enough to de-orbit a
large reactor in high orbit would be quite something to see.  I wouldn't
be surprised about small disturbances in its orbit, but changing it to
an atmospheric-entry orbit is stretching things a bit.

> ... Besides,  this approach is just too damn 
> expensive for the amount of reliable and safe power/mass you get for the
> return.

The alternatives aren't cheap either.  I agree that the economics need
more study before the idea would look viable, but it's not utterly
ridiculous.

> >Let us not let our paranoia run away with us.  As the man pointed out, a
> >nuclear reactor is not particularly hazardous before it starts operation.
> >The Soviets have lost .. one nuclear reactor into the ocean ...
> 
> Nuts!  Buried under the salt ocean? Hmmmm! ...

Nuts yourself; the Soviet reactor is a matter of historical record.
Reactors without built-up fission products just aren't that dangerous.

> ... Try scattering that crap over a large low orbital envelope where planes
> or even satellites pick up the dusty fall-out for the next ... years.  

If it's scattered over a large low orbital envelope, it isn't going to
be especially dangerous.  Not wonderful, no -- one would like to avoid
putting us back to the days of the high fallout levels of the 1950s --
but not a terrible disaster.  Incidentally, how would it get scattered
that way?

> >... you go up and fix it long before it gets far off course.  
> 
> Not me, buddy;  you can go, and don't bother coming back (the polluting
> afterglow, you know)...

"Polluting afterglow"?  What in the world are you talking about?  And as
you might suspect, I wouldn't go in with a wrench personally, but by
mechanical proxy.  My point was: if a chemical plant malfunctions, we
fix it.  If an oil tank farm malfunctions, we fix it.  That sort of
thing happens every day.  Given a vigorous space program, what's so
different about an orbiting reactor?

> Incidentally, due to the cost cutting necessary 
> because the Japanese are supporting our debt spending less and less with
> each passing year, you will have to pay for this attempt yourself..

Given the sort of orbital infrastructure implied by the original
proposal, that shouldn't be any more difficult than paying for, say,
getting an oil-well fire put out by professionals.

> ... We have made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts ...
> ... B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) exceeds other 
> approaches by 10^4, so the development time will be quite short, 
> notwithstanding the long term development and high capital cost 
> difficulties with current (tokamak) type approaches.  

When it's a sure enough thing that the SEC will let you sell stock in
it, let me know and I'll probably buy some.  Until then, please do not
cite it as a reason not to pursue alternatives.

			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 87 06:25:55 GMT
From: well!abd@lll-lcc.arpa  (AbdulRahman Dennis Lomax)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: abd@well.UUCP (AbdulRahman Dennis Lomax)

Once again an idea is proposed involving generating a lot of heat at
substantial distances from reflected sunlight.  Not possible. Here's
why:

The *brightness* of reflected light can never be greater than the
source. In order to produce an effect at earth surface equal to the
effect of direct sunlight, the mirror would have to have an angular
diameter as seen from the surface equal to the sun's (or about one- half
degree). This presumes perfect focus and perfect reflection.

At geosynchronous orbit, that mirror would be well over 300 km.  in
diameter. And that's just for one sun, hardly enough heating effect to
explosively propel rockets.

What burning mirrors do is increase the angular diameter of the image of
the sun as seen from the object being heated. This works (as we all know
from experience) with short focal length mirrors or lenses. But it is
not a practical way to heat things at a distance.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 87 04:01:08 GMT
From: ihnp4!aicchi!dbb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch)
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

All of this assumes one rather unsupportable fact; That you would EVER
want to totally lose something that you had boosted into orbit.  Even
reaction products and highly poisonous items might be of use some day.
It might be a much better idea to pick a lunar crater to use as a waste
dump.  The crater should be large enough to be a good target, and large
enough that any splattered material would be contained.  It would be
much much cheaper to mine the dumpsite for exotic materials than to
carry them up from earth or to mine them from the lunar soil.  Note that
I don't want to hear any environmental arguments about this... You
cannot damage an ecology which does not exist!

-David B. (Ben) Burch
 Analysts International Corp.
 Chicago Branch (ihnp4!aicchi!dbb)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 87 12:35:09 GMT
From: cartan!brahms.Berkeley.EDU!gsmith@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gene Ward Smith)
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <151@iconsys.UUCP> mmm@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Muhlestein) writes:

>Would somebody please explain why it is that the creatures on this planet
>squabble endlessly over the puny resources of a tiny speck floating in
>the inconceivabe vastness of the universe?  Everything humanity could
>ever want is available for the taking.

  Well, since you asked: the resources are not here, but floating out in
the inconceivable vastness of the universe you talked of. They are not
developed, and not easy to develop. Your complaint sounds more like
outright idiocy than naivety to me, since this is all so painfully
obvious I really wonder why I am bothering.

>Sometimes I just want to scream, "Get me of this **** planet!"

  Leave anytime you feel like it: I aint stoppin' you.

ucbvax!brahms!gsmith     Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 87 18:02:56 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The L5 Society says (quoted by Dave Newkirk):

>                   THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE
>                   EQUAL IN VALUE TO THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT.

That is a bit of an understatement. Say rather

                THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE
          EQUAL IN VALUE TO AT LEAST 10 TIMES THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT.


    Element    market     concentr.     value/lb
               price/lb   in aster.     of aster.
               (A)         (B)          (C=AxB)
   -------------------------------------------------

    silicates   0.00         0.87         0.00
    
    iron        0.10         0.11         0.01
    
    nickel      3.50         0.02         0.07
    
    cobalt     15.00         0.0008       0.012 
    
    gold     5000.00         0.00000001   0.00005
                                         ---------
    Elemental value of 
    asteroid material (D) ..............  0.09 $/lb
    
    Blasting, collection, processing,
    separation, smelting, casting,
    launch, deorbit, recovery,
    remelting, refining, packaging, 
    shipping, delivery, marketing,
    communications, development,
    management, insurance, capital,
    and other costs (est.) (E) .........  0.12 $/lb
    
     
    Net profit per pound (F=D-E)  ...... -0.03 $/lb

    Mass of asteroid (G) ................ 500,000,000,000,000 lb

    Net profit per asteroid (H=FxG) ....  -15,000,000,000,000 dollars
    
    US national debt (I) ...............   -1,500,000,000,000 dollars
    
    Ratio (J=H/I) ......................  10
    
:-)

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 87 15:21:12 GMT
From: gatech!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb@hplabs.hp.com  (Random)
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <163400004@uiucdcsb> kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>
>From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem.
>With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the
>craft exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft
>perpendicular to its long axis.  With a light sail, what serves as the
>keel?  Tilting the sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the
>area exposed to the proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the
>direction of the force vector.
>

A solar sail is tacked against GRAVITY. The craft is in an orbit around the 
sun. You then use the sail to apply either a push in the direction of travel
to get farther out, or a push against the direction of travel to fall inward.
For example, a craft orbiting clockwise when seen fromabove around the sun
could do the following:

	SUN-----------/			SUN-----------\
		      v				      v
	
	Push in direction of		Push against direction of
	travel, go faster.		travel, go slower.
-- 
					Random (Randy Buckland)
					Research Triangle Institute
					...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #146
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05845; Thu, 26 Feb 87 03:02:33 PST
	id AA05845; Thu, 26 Feb 87 03:02:33 PST
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 87 03:02:33 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702261102.AA05845@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #147

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 26 Feb 87 03:02:33 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #147

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 147

Today's Topics:
	   Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
			  Re: Solar Garbage
			  Re: Solar Garbage
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
		 Re: Aluminum-powered rocket engines
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 04:47:00 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

in article <149@iconsys.UUCP>, mmm@iconsys.UUCP (Mark Muhlestein) says:
% 
%> > ...  Beam the laser down, and have the rocket ride the beam up.
%> > Since clouds are primarily a low-atmosphere phenomenon (and the
%> > ones higher up are thin), the rocket could be equipped with standard
%> > jets to get above the atmospheric junk.  Then fire up the laser,
%> > and sail off on a light beam...
%> 
%> ... 
%> Oh well.  Now for the hard part.  Building and launching the laser booster
%> and its power supply.  What kind of a power supply do you need? ...
% 
% How feasable would it be to have a satellite in geosynchronous orbit
% either:
% 
% 1) generate energy from a large array of solar cells to power a laser?
% 
% 	or
% 
% 2) build a really big solar reflector (dynamically focussable paraboloid)
%    and power the rocket directly?


I'll try to tackle some of these questions.

================

First question is: how much power are we talking about?  Answer: a
whole lot.  Using the space shuttle as a model, we can get some
ballpark estimates.  At takeoff, the shuttle weighs almost exactly
2.0e6 kg, including solids and fuel.  A lot of this is just a crude
way of getting it above the atmosphere, and not really accelerating it
to orbital velocity.  Assume for a moment that we have a nice friendly
first stage that can get it up to 100000 ft and mach 3.  We now drop
the shuttle and fuel tank and let the orbital laser have at it.  This
gives us a starting mass something below 1.0e6 kg -- I used 640e3 kg
for my analysis only because that's as much as the current main
engines can push at 1g.  (3 engines, 2091kNt vacuum thrust each.)  By
the time you reach orbital velocity, the reaction mass is all used up,
and the shuttle (with cargo) masses about 165000 + 30000 = 195e3 kg.
The average mass over the time of acceleration is therefore
(195e3+640e3)/2 = 417e3 kg.

We are trying to accelerate 417e3 kg to orbital velocity -- 7.6
km/sec.  The energy needed to accomplish this is (m*v^2)/2, or about
12e12 joules.  If we are doing the work at 3g, which is the top limit
for the shuttle (due to cargo constraints), our time to orbit is 7.6
km/sec divided by 3*9.8 m/sec^2 or 259 sec: about 4.3 minutes.  During
this time, the average power is 12e12 joules divided by 259 seconds,
or 46.4e9 watts.  A typical commercial nuclear power plant generates one
gigawatt -- we need 46 of them.

As an aside, the laser beam generates some momentum itself.  The
momentum of a photon is equivalent to its energy divided by C, so the
beam applies a total of 12e12/300e6 = 40e3 kg-m/sec of momentum to
both the laser and the shuttle -- about 156 Nt (or 35 pounds) of
thrust during the time power is supplied.  Considering how much a 46GWt
power plant must weigh, this is fairly small, but with continuous use
it could cause major changes in the orbit.

================

Second question: how about solar power?  The "solar constant" is the
power density of solar radiation at the earth's orbital distance --
1340 Watts/m^2.  Assuming perfect conversion, you need 12e12/1340 =
8.96e9 square meters of collection area, or a circular collector 100km
in diameter.  Naturally, if you can find a way to store up 12e12
joules when you're not firing the laser, you can cut your power
requirements considerably.  (This is not an option if your collector is
a simple reflector.)

Again, the beam applies a small but significant thrust to the
collector.  In this case, since we are reflecting the light instead of
generating it onboard, the momentum imparted is doubled.  We have a
fairly decent solar sail here (if it's light weight).

================

Enough ramblings.  The point is, you need a whole heap of energy to
get a shuttle into orbit -- a substantial fraction of the world's
current energy generating capacity for a few minutes.  If you ever get
an opportunity to see a launch in person, you'll understand just how
much power that amounts to.

-- 
Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp
American Information Technology    (408)252-8713

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 05:38:52 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

in article <163400004@uiucdcsb>, kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu says:

% From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem.
% With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the
% craft exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft
% perpendicular to its long axis.  With a light sail, what serves as the
% keel?  Tilting the sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the
% area exposed to the proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the
% direction of the force vector.

If you slant the sail relative to the sunlight, the momentum imparted
by the "photon" component stays perpendicular to the sail.  The
charged particles mostly don't bounce -- they stick to the sail, so
their contribution is always directly away from the sun.  All in all,
if you have patience, you can get where you want to go.  It requires a
whole lot of sail area -- 100km diameter gets you on the order of 70
pounds of thrust around the earth's orbit (not counting charged
particles).  If your garbage weighs 10000 pounds and the sail weighs
90000, you get 0.0007 gees acceleration.  It would take you 130 hours
to get out of the earth's gravitational well from LEO assuming perfect
conditions. Unfortunately, atmospheric drag is much greater than solar
radiation thrust for thousands of miles away from the earth, so the
use of sails below Clarke orbit is silly.  Also, you only get to use
the sail about half the time you're in Earth orbit -- the half of the
orbit going towards the Sun is useless.

Nonetheless, let's say we've eventually gotten into solar orbit.  From
there, you need to lose about 18 miles/sec to hit the sun.  Here, the
sail has to be tacked to get a force against the velocity vector.  A
45 degree tack reduces the effective sail area by sqrt(2), and the
force against the velocity vector is only sqrt(2) of the total force.
Nonetheless, you get 0.00035 gees in the right direction.  That takes
8.5e6 seconds to reduce the velocity to zero, or about 98 days.

I hope someone who knows more about:

	1) thrust to mass ratio of sails
	2) atmospheric drag in LEO

will get on the air with better numbers than these "back of the
envelope" estimates.

Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp
American Information Technology    (408)252-8713

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 05:00:10 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <163400004@uiucdcsb>, kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> >From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem.
> With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the
> craft exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft
> perpendicular to its long axis.  With a light sail, what serves as the
> keel?

	Gravity serves as a sort of keel.  It always pulls you toward the star
unless you are close to a planet or something (which makes it more complicated
but not unmanageable), whereas the light pushes you in a direction
perpendicular (well, not exactly if your sail is not a perfect reflector) to
the sail (but always at least somewhat away from the star), as long as you are
moving at non-relativistic speeds.

>        Tilting the sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the
> area exposed to the proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the
                                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> direction of the force vector.
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

	That (the under-carated part) is only true for a sail that absorbs all
of the light, which would be only half as efficient as a sail that reflected
all of the light (as well as not allowing you directional control).  We don't
know of any perfect reflectors, but something which reflects most of the light
is good enough.  Remember that you get more force from reflecting the light
than from absorbing it, and that this force is directed opposite of half way
between the direction of incoming light and the direction of outgoing light
(that is, perpendicular to your sail), or closer to opposite of the direction
of incoming light if your sail is not a perfect reflector.  This isn't exactly
the way gaseous wind works on a sail (because a gas interacts with itself,
unlike a stream of photons), but it's close enough to make obtaining
directional control quite similar.  Again, you use the star's gravity for a
keel.

> Since the fluxes of charged particles, neutral particles, and light
> all may impinge in slightly different directions (as they are affected
> differently by the electromagnetic environment in transit), a
> sufficiently clever sail can use this effect to gain a small amount of
> directional control.

	The solar wind should work fairly similarly to the light (although
you're right that magnetic fields will cause its direction to be slightly
different; furthermore its velocity is much less than that of light) if the
particles in the solar wind do not stick to (or lose most of their kinetic
energy in collision with) the sail.

>                       One can also get an applied force at a different
> direction by the expensive technique of deploying a reflector to give
> a light flux from another part of the sky.  The latter technique seems
> awfully expensive for garbage disposal.

	Don't need it.

> Is there some method for tacking a light sail that I haven't
> encountered yet?

	Yes -- see above.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 03:52:36 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!cca!g-rh@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7650@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>
>My understanding -- I'm not an expert on this -- is that gold is certainly
>useful in electronics but it's not a wonder metal.  Cheap gold would be nice
>but would not produce a lot of changes....

Actually gold is a wonder metal.  It is more conductive than copper, it is
almost completely corrosion resistant, it is highly malleable, and has a
number of other useful properties.  If gold were very cheap it would be
the metal of choice for wiring (with copper added for hardening).  It would
also be the metal of choice for plumbing!  Gold plating would be the
natural choice for protecting metal surfaces (car bumpers for example)
against corrosion.  Copper cladding in ships would be replaced by gold
cladding.  Because of its softness gold is not useful as a structural metal.
(Its weight is also telling.)  However gold has a lot of neat properties
which would be really useful if it were as cheap as aluminum or steel or
even copper.

Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 87 17:34:15 GMT
From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@AMES.ARPA  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Aluminum-powered rocket engines
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702022206.AA10355@angband.s1.gov>, OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes:
> 	The problem with an Al-O rocket would be the combustion
>     chamber. Either it would have to have a lining temperature in
>     in excess of 2100 degrees Centigrade, or it would build up a ( thick )
>     crust of alumina within it. That's pretty hot! 
> 
> 				Dennis O'Connor

Not necessarily.  Bleeding a layer of liquid aluminum over the
combustion chamber and nozzle could prevent any buildup of alumina at
temperatures far below 2100 C.  Aluminum melts at 660 C.  Using ceramic
(even alumina or alumina/zirconia?) combustion chambers and nozzles,
cooling by liquid aluminum and preheating the oxygen supply might well
suffice, and the layer of bled aluminum would both protect the surfaces
against abrasion (white-hot sandpaper grit streaming by, OUCH!) and
buildups.  (On the other hand, zirconium oxide melts at ~2700 C, which
might make it a good material for chamber/throat sections in which the
alumina is still hot enough to be fused, and thus not present an
abrasion problem.)

 Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
	    ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #147
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07891; Fri, 27 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
	id AA07891; Fri, 27 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702271102.AA07891@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #148

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 27 Feb 87 03:02:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #148

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 148

Today's Topics:
		   Supernova of the century? (MORE)
		 Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE)
		   Re: A nuclear fission in space??
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 87 04:55:57 GMT
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Yaron P Sheffer)
Subject: Supernova of the century? (MORE)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


We are still baffled... For one thing, the object has reached
a halt in the rise, standing at about 4.6-4.5  magnitude,
still well below the expected brilliance from a normal Supernova.
Secondly, there are new spectral features. If these are hydrogen
lines, then the Supernova is of type II, i.e., a massive young
supergiant undergoing a core collapse (underwent already...).

Searching the field, astronomers have come up with a candidate
precursor to the Supernova: a 12th magnitude B type supergiant
which has been catalogued before. Its position agrees to within
one second of arc with that of the Supernova, and if indeed
this is the one to explode, that star SHOULD BE DELETED FROM SAID
CATALOG DUE TO, ER..., DEATH BY NATURAL CAUSES...

This agrees nicely with the extensive region of nebulosities
mentioned before, i.e., an active star forming region filled with
very massive young supergiants all heading towards Supernovae
explosions at this time or another.

Yaron Sheffer
Astronomy At Austin

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 87 14:56:46 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

  From the Feb 25th IAU circulars 4317, 4318: the supernova is showing
p-cygni profiles of Ha, Hb, and Hg. The blueshift of these lines are
17,400, 16,100, and 15,500 km/sec, respectively. Looking like a Type II,
which should reach magnitude -1. Various observations show the SN still
at magnitude 4.3 to 4.5.

The position is extremely close to a B3 I (blue supergiant) previously
seen at mag. 10.5.  [blue supergiants are not supposed to generate type
II SN!!, although type II's are not well known.] 

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu
      BITNET:  wyatt@cfa2

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 00:45:51 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: A nuclear fission in space??
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7658@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>After it's been cooking for a few months, there's not much difference:
>[uranium vs plutonium] it's the fission products that are the real danger.

At launch time there is a difference. 

>By the way, since there are already a number of uranium fission reactors in
>orbit (Soviet ones), what do you mean by "let in"?

They and the Japanese hunt whales... I'm speaking USA.. SDIO needs are
huge and it would be a mistake if they use fission to try to solve that
problem (militarily as well as environmentally).

>So you use remote-controlled maneuvering units .. bigger (and, for this
>application, probably more radiation-hardened). 
>Keep the human controllers a kilometer or two away so they are relatively
>safe but still on hand to change tools etc.

Sounds so easy and so cheap.  What's relatively?

>An orbit disturbing gas jet solid and coherent enough to de-orbit a large
>reactor in high orbit would be quite something to see.  I wouldn't be
>surprised about small disturbances in its orbit, but changing it to an
>atmospheric-entry orbit is stretching things a bit.  

It is not as if this thing can't generate the pressure build up and
catastrophic release to produce an eccentricity in its orbit capable of
"catching" the exospheric edge at some point along its orbit.

>Nuts yourself; the Soviet reactor is a matter of historical record.  Reactors
>without built-up fission products just aren't that dangerous.

The mass of this stuff is an important consideration and also the number
of pieces it comes back as.  In the Soviet case, if memory serves, it
came back pretty much intact.  That won't always be the case.  I would
not exactly conclude very much from that "mouse" when it is "elephants"
that are to be orbited (by comparison--analogously).

>If it's scattered over a large low orbital envelope, it isn't going to be
>especially dangerous.  Not wonderful, no -- one would like to avoid putting
>us back to the days of the high fallout levels of the 1950s -- but not a
>terrible disaster.  Incidentally, how would it get scattered that way?

If it is bits and dust, it will be scattered by the general hemispheric
churn as it settles in.  If it is plasma, then it should be able to
spread over the magnetic surfaces until it deionizes throughout the
exosphere, and especially in the lower altitudes over the poles.

>"Polluting afterglow"?  What in the world are you talking about?  And as
>you might suspect, I wouldn't go in with a wrench personally, but by
>mechanical proxy.  My point was:  if a chemical plant malfunctions, we
>fix it.  If an oil tank farm malfunctions, we fix it.  That sort of thing
>happens every day.  Given a vigorous space program, what's so different
>about an orbiting reactor?

A bit over descriptive, as is my usual "cartoonish" style.  The reactor
at three mile island can be "fixed", once it cools down enough that
humans can approach it.  It is not inconceivable that these "beasties"
could become so "hot" and remain so that even remote robotics (sensors)
would have serious malfunctions.  The question could be "is there enough
time to analyze the problem, anticipate the state the device will be in
during intercept and first aid, do something meaningful to stop the
runaway and then stabilize the orbit?".  >that shouldn't be any more
difficult than paying for, say, getting an >oil-well fire put out by
professionals.

These days that could be a hell of a problem... well maybe not at
eighteen bucks per.. but the perceived resource in space may not be that
important compared to AIDS.. Central America . News gate.  the SSC,
Mars.  GRH is an ongoing PROCESS -- it reaches all nooks.  One never
knows if his pile of "unspent" money will stay there or will be GRH'ed
of existence.

>> ... We have made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts ...

>When it's a sure enough thing that the SEC will let you sell stock in it,
>let me know and I'll probably buy some.  Until then, please do not 
>cite it as a reason not to pursue alternatives.

Since PLASMAK(tm) Aneutronic energy will prove to be viable, and is a
much more desirable alternative, it is being presented to the USAF, not
yet to the public sector.  I, for one, will certainly not pass up the
opportunity to encourage its funding over that of more limited
technologies with serious side effects such as nuclear fission.

             To dump fission energy remnants into the sun
           Use PLASMAK(tm) Propulsion driven garbage scows.

Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
{mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP    | decade |

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 87 23:20:03 GMT
From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@ames.arpa  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <480@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (who
is usually much more lucid) writes:
>>>	- you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay?

Please, Paul, don't you know anything about orbital mechanics?  Spare
us this sort of thing until you do, okay?  Orbits decay from air drag,
which is quite quantifiable (especially since Skylab gave us such good
measurements of atmospheric heating and expansion).

>In article <7555@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP the normally level
>headed (Henry Spencer) writes:

>>So avoid orbits subject to serious decay.  [...]
>>[...]  If the thing's orbit
>>starts to decay, you don't sit around wringing your hands in anguish, you
>>go up and reboost it.

>We cannot afford "costly" technological fixes in the present economic
>situation.  Let in fission reactors of uranium and SDIO will throw up
>plutonium reactors.

Why?  The whole point of nuclear ion engines is going to be for outer
planets probes and space tugs.  If one tug malfunctions, you can move it
around with another one (you might as well have 2 or 3).

>  Their efficiencies are horrible...

So?  The concern is power/mass and energy/mass ratio.  Concerns about
thermal efficiency belong where you aren't paying $5000/kg to launch
things.

>... and safety in that 
>environ ( minimized weight, cooling reservoir, etc.) would be so poor 
>that manned fixes would be sheer madness.

So build them as throwaways; if they malfunction, you simply forget
them.  Such a malfunction is not likely; except for the rod drives, the
space based reactors would resemble the RTG's (Radioisotope Thermal
Generators) which have powered our outer-planets probes for decades.
These things run for many, many years.  Further, they can survive an
atmospheric re-entry without losing radioactives (they have to, they're
"hot" from day 1), which a reactor would not have to worry about.

>  Avoiding "decaying orbits" >ain't that simple.

Please, Paul, learn some orbital mechanics before you make assertions
like this.  A perigee over 150 miles is sufficient to keep even a
satellite of low mass/area ratio (like Skylab) up for many years.

>If one of these things "ranaway", there is no borated 
>sand to pile on it to shut it down, and to expect that it would NOT
>generate orbit disturbing gas jets is naive.

Now, exactly what would cause "orbit disturbing gas jets" from a reactor
made of uranium carbide, graphite and some heat pipes?  One could easily
compute the maximum impulse from losing all the heat pipe working fluid
(in *one* direction) and insure that it would not be sufficient to cause
a re-entry.  Or, one could have a small hydrazine-powered auxiliary
attitude control system.  These have also been around for decades.  You
have also not yet shown a mechanism for thermal runaway.  Without a
cooling system subject to breakdown or constriction (how can you break a
heat pipe?), you cannot have a thermal runaway either.

>Now you are seeing "paranoia"
>and that is just the type of reaction that many even avid supporters  of 
>the space program would have.   Besides,  this approach is just too damn 
>expensive for the amount of reliable and safe power/mass you get for the
>return.

Paranoia, yes.  Rational, no.  You're obviously a nuclear-phobe and
unable to consider this rationally.  If you were a judge in a case
regarding a phobia of yours, would you not disqualify yourself?

>Nuts!  Buried under the salt ocean? Hmmmm! .. how convenient.  Try 
>scattering that crap over a large low orbital envelope where planes or
>even satellites pick up the dusty fall-out for the next ... years.  

If it can't re-enter after it's hot, what's the worry?  Or suppose
it's designed to survive re-entry and impact intact, just in case (this
can be done, RTG's are designed to)?  What dust?

> [regarding fixing a broken spacecraft]
>Not me, buddy;  you can go, and don't bother coming back (the polluting
>afterglow, you know).  Incidentally, due to the cost cutting necessary 
>because the Japanese are supporting our debt spending less and less with
>each passing year, you will have to pay for this attempt yourself..

Remember, these are throwaways.  If it's not on course for Terra (and
you don't put on one), you just turn off the ion thrusters and forget
it if the reactor malfunctions.  The spacecraft might even be designed
to separate from a damaged reactor on command, allowing replacement by
a human without radiation shielding.  Plug a new (cold) one in and go.
Use a robot tug (another cheap reactor and ion thrusters) to push the
dead reactor into a nice, high parking orbit to cool off.

>>> Let's face it, nuclear fission is dangerous.  Moving it into space isn't a
>>> cure-all.

The dangers from nuclear fission are from human exposure to radioisotopes
directly or through the food chain.  The most dangerous isotopes, released
into space, would decay long before they got down to us.  Big deal. You
just expose your paranoia here, Paul.  What's your *rational* objection?

>It makes it MORE dangerous to put it into space, not less.

Backing for this assertion?  What failure modes would cause a reactor
to dump its isotope inventory onto people or their food supplies?  (I
think you have none.)

>We have
>made a presentation along with other FUSION concepts (some of which 
>are not applicable to space) to the Air Force Studies Board Committee 
>on Aneutronic Fusion Power, Phase I.  If Phase II approves, modest 
>funding would begin in 88.   B/R values for PLASMAK(tm) exceeds other 
>approaches by 10^4, so the development time will be quite short, 
>notwithstanding the long term development and high capital cost 
>difficulties with current (tokamak) type approaches.  

Please, Paul, by making irrational, unbacked arguments against fission,
you prejudice your own case as well.  How long will it take to get a
good fusion reactor design up in space?  How much does the smallest one
weigh (BIG question)?  Projected power/mass ratio?  How many years until
I can get one?  How much more research is yet to be done?  Has anyone,
anywhere achieved net power return from a fusion plant?  (Who did I just
see complaining about costly technological fixes?)  We can build fission
reactors *now*, and we *know* that they work.  They can also be built
small enough to power space probes of reasonable mass.  Can you say
this?  I think not.  I don't want to bet any part of the space program
on a dream when off-the-shelf technology is ready to do what needs to be
done.

>| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |

Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
    ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #148
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10013; Sat, 28 Feb 87 03:03:54 PST
	id AA10013; Sat, 28 Feb 87 03:03:54 PST
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 87 03:03:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8702281103.AA10013@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #149

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 28 Feb 87 03:03:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #149

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 149

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Solar Garbage
			  Re: Solar Garbage
			Re: heat of spacecraft
       Re: Battleships (was: Re: Future of U.S. space program)
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
			     Range Safety
       SRB fuel burn rate (was: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST)
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 14:44:36 GMT
From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <163400004@uiucdcsb> kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>>From what I've seen, ``tacking'' a light sail presents a problem.
>With a (water) sailing craft, a tack works because the keel of the
>craft exerts a force opposing any effort to move the craft
>perpendicular to its long axis.  With a light sail, what serves as the
>keel?  Tilting the sail reduces the applied force, by reducing the
>area exposed to the proton and photon flux, but it doesn't change the
>direction of the force vector.

Tacking involves the use of two forces that can be made to act in
different directions.  When you tack a sailing ship, the forces are
those of the wind on the sail and the water on the hull & rudder.
When you tack a free balloon, similarly, the forces are the wind
on the balloon and the wind at a lower altitude on the air anchor.

Tacking with a light sail uses as the two forces the light pressure
and gravity.  Gravity always acts towards the star.  Light pressure
however can be made to act at any vector pointed at least a little
out from the star.  This is because the sail reflects the light,
and so the force vector is always orthogonal to the angle of the sail
(assuming a perfect albedo).  With care, you can transfer from any
direct closed orbit about the star to any other direct closed orbit,
since you can gain angular momentum by tilting the sail and lose it
by "backing" the sail:

		Primary way up here
			||
			\/  light goes that way

	----------------/------>  your orbit this way

			^ your sail tilted thus
			  (force acts down & to the right)

and you are gaining angular momentum.  Use a "\" sail to lose angular
momentum.  Rotate the "/" out of the plane of the VDU screen to change
the plane of the orbit.  Watch out for UFOs: a vessel under reactionless
drive is supposed to yield to a sailing vessel but many don't.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 87 08:20:24 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

You're forgetting that solar sails are usually reflective, not absorbent.
The total momentum imparted to the sail by a single photon is the vector
difference of the photon's initial momentum (radially outward from the sun)
and the photon's final momentum after being reflected.  This vector can be
steered around easily by turning the reflector at various angles to the
incident sunlight. Since it is just as possible to get a momentum component
that opposes the orbital velocity vector as well as aiding it, it is therefore
straightforward to spiral toward the sun (i.e., "tack against sunlight").

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 11 Feb 87 09:23:49 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: heat of spacecraft
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

If you wanted to remove orbital energy by some means other than air
friction, about the only way would be to do a "reverse launch" burn with an
equal-but-opposite delta-v than you did getting into orbit in the first
place, thus doubling your delta-v requirements.  Since the fuel required
goes up exponentially with total delta-v capability, this is clearly
expensive. It's MUCH easier to dissipate that energy in air friction.
As long as you can put most of this energy into the surrounding air instead
of your spacecraft, you'll survive.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 20:06:56 GMT
From: scw@locus.ucla.edu  (Stephen C Woods)
Subject: Re: Battleships (was: Re: Future of U.S. space program)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <695@kodak.UUCP> sprankle@kodak.UUCP (Daniel R. Lance) writes:
>In article <523@pixar.UUCP> good@pixar.UUCP writes:
>>In article <975@athena.TEK.COM> grahamb@athena.TEK.COM (Graham Bromley) writes:
>>>Don't forget, in the age of jet airplanes and smart missiles,
>>>this [...]. If NASA is closed down to pay
>>>for a new brigade of cavalry one should not be too suprised.
>>
>>In all fairness [...] (inflammable Sheffield vs armor-plated New Jersey,
>>for instance), [...] be so careful with *all* the
>>money they get.
>
>I disagree.  While battleships are certainly majestic,
>imposing, and beautiful ships, I see no position for them in the modern
>navy.
>
>Yes, Iowa-class ships are heavily armored.  Such protection did not save
>the Bismarck, the Prince of Wales, or the Repulse in World War II--and they
>were done in by WWII aircraft, which were much slower and less heavily
>armed than strike aircraft are today.  (Surface ships played a major part
>in the sinking of the Bismarck, but British carrier aircraft sealed her fate.)
>Also, one should remember that tactical nuclear weapons did not exist
>back then.

It also didn't save the Yamamoto, however the cases are not the same any more.
(1)Modern missiles don't have the capability to penetrate any substantial
armour (say thicker that 3 to 4 inches). (2) Missiles don't carry as much
explosives as earlier weapons (the 1500+ pound Exocet missile only has a 200
pound warhead). (3) Modern warships (Post 1940) have an anti-aircraft capability
that is almost unbelieveable, the ships mentioned [Bismark, POW, Repulse etc.]
had, by modern standards, no AA capability at all.

>These ships are as large, as psychologically valuable and as vulnerable
>as aircraft carriers.  They require the same escorts and air cover as do
>carriers.  Yet they fill no special role--naval aircraft can launch cruise
>missiles and perform ground-attack missions with much more versatility,
>and their 16-inch guns are easily outranged by anti-ship missiles.

Presumably they are not ment to operate as a substitute for the CVA(N) but
rather as a suplement to them.  As far as vunerability I recall seeing some
movie footage of one of the early H-Bomb tests, in it you can see a warship
being tilted up at about a 45 degree angle (pitching) by the surface wave
caused by the detonation.  This ship (Prinz Eugien(SP?)) was the same
ship that accompanied the Bismark.  She didn't sink until about H+40(hours),
even though she was within 1/2 mile of the center of the blast.

>Dreadnought battleships have never played a decisive part in any major
>naval war; they have been obsolete weapons since the end of WWI. [...

Here you are wrong, by its very presence, with out firing a significant
shot in anger (bombarding a weather station isn't significant), the Tirpez(SP?)
caused the lose of at least one convoy (PQ-17), and in fact put a cramp on the
RN and USN until she was finally sunk.  As an aside it took 3 direct hits with
20 (yes twenty) ton (tallboy) bombs to finally sink her.

>]Their appeal lies in their propoganda value, not in their fighting strength.
>They have never, and will never, rule the seas.  We need to spend our money
>on better ships, yes--small, well armed, fast, survivable ships, not
>crippled giants.  The Royal Navy nearly lost two world wars because it
>prepared for them by building dreadnoughts when they needed escort craft.

It is a reasonable assumption that the Germans refrained from attempting
an invasion of England in 1940 because (1) the RAF was still around, and
(2) because Raeder(SP?) [The CIC of the German Navy] told Hitler that the
German fleet (mostly Large destroyers (actually small CLs{light crusers}),
Pocket Battleships (actually Large CAs{heavy crusers}) and PT boats [e.i.
small, well armed, fast and survivable]) could not keep the British fleet
away from the (hypothetical) invasion fleet.

>
>We need to spend our money on important things--on the weapons we need to
>guard ourselves from attack (but no more than that), and on things such
>as a sane and long-ranged space program to prepare for our future--not
>to waste it on the relics of the past.

Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614
UUCP: ...!{inhp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs!scw  ARPA:scw@locus.UCLA.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 15:17:13 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpf!straka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Straka)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> > If gold were significantly cheaper (or if you were building in space where
> > copper et al are rarer) what would be the effect on computer technology?
> > Can gold stand the heat?  Does it give better performance?

> because it refuses to form much of an oxide film, and contacts to silicon
> are normally made using gold wires because the resulting bond has various
> good properties.  It would be nice to be able to put a good thick gold
  ^^^^

Actually, in the semiconductor industry, connections to actual silicon
(on the topside of the wafer) is done with aluminum since it actually
alloys with the silicon (sometimes this is good, sometimes bad).  On the
backside, gold is often used for good die attach, although many
manufacturers use just plain Si.  By the way, gold diffuses like hell
through Si, so sometimes it is not good at all since it acts as a
dopant.

Anyway, (heat-based) gold ball bonding from the leadframe to the
aluminum on the chip is common in the industry because it is less tricky
than the other major competitor, aluminum (ultrasonic wedge bonding).
Gold also is much better than aluminum in not breaking in plastic
packaged devices during the molding process.

HOWEVER, anyone in the semiconductor industry has heard of the dreaded
"PURPLE PLAGUE", where the gold-aluminum interface (on the chip)
deteriorates with time and heat, generating a purple-colored compound
which insulates, not conducts.  Failures can ensue.  Some people do gold
ball bonding better than others.  All is not rosey.

Sorry for the long relpy, but books can (and have been) written on the
subject.  Gold is NOT ideal for everything.  By the way, I sort of
assume that most people know that silver is actually a better electrical
conductor than gold, anyway.

Rich Straka     ihnp4!ihlpf!straka

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 13:46:08 GMT
From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (George Erhart)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The properties of gold which make it most desirable (in non-decorative
applications) are its conductivity (thermal and electrical) and
corrosion 7resistance. Its conductivity is about midway between those of
copper and aluminum, but as Henry pointed out, it does not readily
oxidize, so that contact resistance is more stable for gold.

The corrosion resistance is another point. A gold foil is typically
applied to sattelites, Moon landers, etc; I would suppose this is
because gold will provide an eternally reflective surface, for reliable
heat radiation properties.  Regardless, this is a rather minor use of
gold (although, with a density of over 19 g/cm^3, it would be nice if we
didn't have to lift so much of it into orbit).

Gold melts at 1063 C, 20 degrees lower than copper. Naturally, alloying
will change the melting point. Gold is frequently alloyed with silver,
copper, nickel, and zinc; these alloys often have reasonably good
mechanical properties (comperable to high-strength copper alloys).

Other possible applications in space might be: reaction mass for ion
engines, radiation shielding (how decadent ! I love it !), mirrors (esp.
for lasers), projectiles (good enough to take out satellites; sorry, I
just saw "The man with the Golden Gun")...

I think a more pressing problem might be the effect of this newfound
gold on the gold market, and possible repercussions in world economics.
Of these matters, I am blissfully ignorant.

	Bill Thacker    	cbatt!cbosgd!cbdkc1!serial!wbt

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Feb 87 23:40:17 pst
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: ucdavis!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Range Safety

>   This is simply ludicrous.  Either they lack some information, or they
>are omniscient.  Since I don't think NASA can afford to hire God, the
>former seems a good bet.  The value of the information that they lack,
>and the cost of providing it, may dictate that they are getting an
>appropriate amount of information.  But it is clearly ridiculous to
>claim that they have perfect information.  If they did, couldn't they
>have made the correct decision not to destroy the Challenger SRBs?
>
>   -- David desJardins

What makes you so certain that they did not make the correct decision?
At this point in time it is not possible to determine what the outcome
might have been had the boosters been left intact - perhaps they would
have landed on a vessel at sea - which would have killed somebody...

				Eric Hildum

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 17:52:11 GMT
From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@ames.arpa  (Russ Cage)
Subject: SRB fuel burn rate (was: Re: space news in Oct 27 AW&ST)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <877@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, desj@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (David desJardins) writes:
>    This doesn't seem right.  I was under the impression that once the
> SRB fuel is ignited there is basically nothing you can do to extinguish
> it.  I suspect that the firing of the RSS caused the exhaust to escape
> in all directions, and thus provide no thrust and no smoke tail, but I
> don't believe that it would extinguish the fuel.

The SRB fuel burn rate is a roughly polynomial function of pressure
(according to Jim Loudon).  At sea-level, the fuel would burn slowly,
much slower than a match head.  At lower pressures, it will go out.
This is exactly what happened after the booster destruct; unburned
fuel was found inside some of the recovered booster segments.

 Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
	    ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ

------------------------------

Date: 12 Feb 87 20:10:09 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!lwall@hplabs.hp.com  (Larry Wall)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <710@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@jumbo.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>                THE METALS FOUND IN ONE 5 KM ASTEROID ARE
>          EQUAL IN VALUE TO AT LEAST 10 TIMES THE U.S. NATIONAL DEBT.
> [and proceeds to derive a huge NEGATIVE value with a :-) ]

Actually, we'd never find out what the actual costs of doing it are.  We'd get
the asteroid into orbit around Earth, start dumping metals on the market,
the prices would drop, and the government would start paying the company NOT
to mine the asteroid.  We end up spending 10 time the national debt anyway,
and don't get the metal to boot.  C'est la government.

Larry Wall
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!lwall

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #149
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12336; Sun, 1 Mar 87 03:02:22 PST
	id AA12336; Sun, 1 Mar 87 03:02:22 PST
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 87 03:02:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703011102.AA12336@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #150

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 1 Mar 87 03:02:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #150

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 150

Today's Topics:
			      Re: SR-71
		     Re: Taking off from the moon
			Re: heat of spacecraft
			 mailing list removal
			   Re: Range Safety
		       UFOs and Ball Lightning
				 gold
		    Soviet Womens' Names in Space
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #136
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 87 20:01:00 GMT
From: decvax!ima!mirror!beldar!peterb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: SR-71
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right
>after takeoff.  I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat
>up, to seal the fuel tanks.  Note: I have no contacts other than
>published material.

	The reason for this is that the SR-71 leaks like a sieve on the
ground. Its tanks are of the wet seal variety, i.e. the heat and stress of
flight cause the tanks to seal perfectly(or close enough...). So why top
off a plane that'll lose it on the ground. Also, I don't think I would
like to be around when a 71 has a hot start...

	There is enough fuel to get it off the ground, up to 10000 feet, and
wait up to 15 minuites for a tanker. Beyond that it's a rock.

Peter Barada
Xyvision, Inc. (617)-245-4100
UUCP: ...!mirror!beldar!peterb

------------------------------

Date: 9 Feb 87 20:13:00 GMT
From: decvax!ima!mirror!beldar!peterb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Taking off from the moon
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


>
>	If you want to get off the moon, and are willing to
>    build a large industrial base to do it ( such as a high-
>    volume rock cracker ) why not just throw dirt at yourself ?
>
	... Discussion of vertical rock thrower at plat on bottom of
	ship...

	This is a great idea, but only works once. Not because the
physics break down, but because the amount of material that is in orbit
trash any further attempts to land in that area.

	Even if the rocket is travelling straight up, the material will
arc off from the collision and fall further and further from
the starting point, some of it eventually entering orbit. Just imagine the
material that DOESN'T hit the plate... It will have an orbit that is
HUGE, so large that approaching the moon would become a crap shoot.

Peter Barada
Xyvision, Inc. (617)-245-4100
UUCP: ...!mirror!beldar!peterb

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 87 19:53:25 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: heat of spacecraft
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> If you wanted to remove orbital energy by some means other than air
> friction, about the only way would be to do a "reverse launch" burn with an
> equal-but-opposite delta-v than you did getting into orbit in the first
> place, thus doubling your delta-v requirements.  Since the fuel required
> goes up exponentially with total delta-v capability, this is clearly
> expensive. It's MUCH easier to dissipate that energy in air friction.
> As long as you can put most of this energy into the surrounding air instead
> of your spacecraft, you'll survive.
> 
> Phil

This is an answer to half the original question.  As for the second part,
it is best stated as "Why can't I come down very slowly, so that I don't
need to dump off all that heat in such a short time?"  The answer to this
part is that you can dump only a small amount of your orbital momentum
before you've gotten into a path that intersects the earth's surface.  At
this point you still have a lot of velocity to dispose of.  As a result,
re-entry paths are limited to about half a revolution or less.

Incidentally, this fact also explains why you can't parachute down from
orbit and why whipping up asteroidal material into a "vacuum foam" wouldn't
be workable.  Both of these scenarios burn up during re-entry (unless
you whip the asteroid up into space-shuttle tiles!)

Dan Starr

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 14 Feb 87 13:01 CST
From: <WCE8760%TAMVENUS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  mailing list removal
To: space@angband.s1.gov
X-Original-To:  space@angband.s1.gov, WCE8760
 
 

Please remove user mcm9147@tamvenus from your mailing list.
This user no longer has an account here. His node name might also be TAMSTAR.
 
thanks
WCE
sysmgr

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 87 17:12:19 GMT
From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov  (Crah)
Subject: Re: Range Safety
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702130740.AA07400@clover.ucdavis.edu>, hildum@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU@clover.UUCP (Eric Hildum) writes:
> What makes you so certain that they did not make the correct decision?
> At this point in time it is not possible to determine what the outcome
> might have been had the boosters been left intact - perhaps they would
> have landed on a vessel at sea - which would have killed somebody...
> 
> 				Eric Hildum

Or worse yet - the SRB is no longer towing a heavy shuttle fuel tank.  
It might (barely) have enough propellant left to do something really
bad, like get into near-orbit.  Or orbit.  In either case we never
even get to see the pieces, hence Rogers commission would have nothing
to go on except films and telemetry.
	
As I understand it, the RSO did not fire the charges until the 
SRB's turned back toward land, since the test range does not extend
far inland, this was a wise choice.

	-Bill Yerazunis

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 14 Feb 87 21:23 ???
From: KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.csnet@relay.cs.net
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  UFOs and Ball Lightning

Wolfgang Rupprecht asks in Space Digest #132 about confirmed existence
of ball lightning.

A while back I attempted to research this phenomenon myself.  There is
very little on it and I can't remember much of what there was.  It HAS
been created under laboratory conditions, with strictly controlled
conditions (perfectly mixed gasses, etc.).  It is true plasma, but
no one (that I know of) really knows what makes it tick.

It does occure in nature.  My father had a personal experience with
ball lightning once (which is why I made a modest effort to check up
on it.)  He was walking home one night (Michigan - I understand it has
been reported in limited geographical locations) right when a major
thunderstorm was brewing and on its way.  A single brightly glowing and
crackling ball dropped rapidly from the clouds above.  It hovered
a few feet off the ground and made its way down the street in erratic
motions, jumping between metallic objects.  It "latched" on to a power
line and moved rapidly down the line past my father.  It then lept
with unbelievable speed from the line to a nearby trashcan, setting
off an explosion which destroyed the trashcan and knocked my father
into a ditch!

I saw a newspaper clip about an incident here locally just this summer.
A man was living in an apartment or something that was a few stories
up.  He was sleeping with his window open during a thunderstorm.
A lightning ball floated through his window.  Its loud crackling awoke
him just in time for him to see it jump to a lamp or something and destroy
an entire wall in his apartment.

It is a fascinating phenomenon!  In any case, I can see how it could
easily account for numerous UFO sightings.  It can move very rapidly
and seems to like metallic objects.  It is very bright, makes a lot of
noise, and has been reported to remain in existence as long as two
minutes.  If you have ever experimented with an old spark gap generator,
you know it doesn't take much arcing to completely disrupt an AM
radio.  That amount of electrical energy has been known to magnetize
objects.  The UV emission could easily cause "sunburn" which is also
often a claim of the sighters.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 87 16:29:05 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: gold
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The question of use of gold in circuits has many implications.
Gold is the only highly conductive metal that can be layed onto
materials in very thin coatings. Angstrons are used in some applications.
Because it does not oxidize this makes it highly important for connective
surfaces ... edge connectors, IC sockets etc. It is also of tremendous
value in space antennas. Buckminster Fuller is purported to have stated
"that all the gold should be used for coating antennas in space." !
The softness of gold is highly valued in making connections. When an
IC is pushed into a gold alloy socket, the soft gold forms a mesh bond
around the IC leg, this is less true with harder metals. Anyone who
has been at a site where cleaning off the edge connector caused a 
failed circuit to be re-activated, realizes the importance of good 
electronic connections. The thickness of the gold is normally of little
value. Only if the circuit is taken in and out several times (a bad
practice under any circumstances) does the gold layer deteriorate.

While gold is highly conductive, it is not the most conductive metal
available. Silver is the highest conductor but has the additional 
property of oxidizing readily. Its use in high quality solders takes
advantage of the added conductivity. For most low frequency circuits,
these properties are of negligible value and tin is just as good,
but for high frequencies, this ceases to be the case. 

In addition there are properties of various metals that enter into
alloying during the production of specialized semi-conductors. (I have
even less knowledge about this so I won't expound on this discipline).

------------------------------

Date: 14 Feb 87 03:16:00 GMT
From: decvax!cca!mirror!gabriel!inmet!janw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Soviet Womens' Names in Space
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

No, the usage is much like here. The Soviet law permits  the  new
spouses  to adopt either of the two surnames or to keep their old
ones; but almost always it is the bride  who  takes  the  groom's
last name. Tereshkova, being famous, is different: after she mar-
ried Nikolayev, she has been usually referred to  as  Nikolayeva-
Tereshkova.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 1987 14:32-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #136
In-Reply-To: Space's mail message of Sun, 15 Feb 87 03:15:44 PST

1) Battleships: Iowa class is poorly armored on the relatively flat
   bottoms. A torpedo that explodes a set distance beneath the keel will
   cave the bottom in and sink it. Such did not exist in WWII. They are
   good only for museums and show the flag gun platforms. It IS a cost
   effective, accurate and deadly gun platform as long as no one REAL
   is shooting back.

2) Fission in space: I'm not terribly upset by it, but I do agree with
   Koloc that the Aneutronic idea, if it pans out, makes the argument
   moot. And ushers in a 'New Age' at the same time.

3) Reagan non-backing of space: Partially due to Donald Regan and the
   palace guard. Reagan basically likes space, but these turkeys have
   zeroed access to him on the subject. I think they're afraid he might
   try for a Kennedy instead of their fundamentalist agenda. Besides
   this, there has indeed been no direction or real policy in decades,
   as has been stated.

4) Method for less policy sensitive space management: Look to the
   infant private entrepreneurial space companies for your answer.

NOTE: I recently heard on the grapevine that SDIO intends to do a
      feasibility test of the laser launch concept in ~1992. Tie this
      in with the NASP, which might already have it's airframe under
      construction, and the funding of the Moglich aneutronic energy
      source, and we might see some interesting things happening very
      soon. If these indeed come about, I promise to eat my prior words
      against 'dark' programs. I might even start waving a flag...

------------------------------

Date: 15 Feb 87 17:45:34 GMT
From: uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@utah-gr.arpa  (Mark Muhlestein)
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <934@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, gsmith@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>   Well, since you asked: the resources are not here, but floating out in
> the inconceivable vastness of the universe you talked of. They are not
> developed, and not easy to develop. Your complaint sounds more like outright
> idiocy than naivety to me, since this is all so painfully obvious I really
> wonder why I am bothering.

You appear to have missed the point I was trying to make.  Of course it's
true that the resources are not developed, and are not easy to develop.
The real question is:  given the benefits to humanity of a "breakout" into
space, are we ("we the people") making the appropriate effort to utilize
space resources?  And if not, why?

I agree that the problem is hard, as you say.  But do you think it is 
insoluble?  It seems likely that if enough grass-roots enthuasiasm existed,
both in the East and the West, we could surely make more progress
toward a solution than we are making now.

It seems to me that if more people realized that it is possible to
have an economy of plenty instead of scarcity, the ideological 
differences would lessen in importance.

If half, say, of the resources (money, mental effort, etc.) currently 
directed to "defense" were available for R&D toward utilizing space
resources, perhaps you (and, unfortunately, I) would not feel so 
pessimistic.

I guess I was just curious (1) what others thought about the peculiar
situation we find ourselves in, and (2) if anyone has any ideas on
what can be done.
-- 

	Mark Muhlestein @ Icon International Inc.

{ihnp4,decvax,seismo!ut-sally}utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #150
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14203; Mon, 2 Mar 87 03:02:30 PST
	id AA14203; Mon, 2 Mar 87 03:02:30 PST
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 87 03:02:30 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703021102.AA14203@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #151

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 87 03:02:30 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #151

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 151

Today's Topics:
	      Re: SPACE Digest V7 #118; sexist language
	      Re: SPACE Digest V7 #118; sexist language
		     Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning
			     Star Travel
			  Re: Solar Garbage
		    send failed on enclosed draft
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 87 04:54:26 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #118; sexist language
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>In article <2492@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> don@opal.berkeley.edu (Don Curry) writes:
>>[Koloc replies with a bunch of unadulterated etymological bullshit, trying

>>In article <504@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>was "bause" not "boys" she heard.  Now I guessed wrongly it would have

Wrong again... What's new??  "Cow shit" should be: "bouse"   NOT: bause,
bois, ....etc. 

Yep... open mouth insert boot   .  ...    damn plastic artificial
soles!

+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP    | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 87 19:13:50 GMT
From: jade!opal.berkeley.edu!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Don Curry)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #118; sexist language
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <517@prometheus.UUCP> pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M. Koloc) writes:
>
>That doesn't change the fact that Curry is a persistent jaded
>son_of_a_mick_trick as one could find in this fair_land. 
>+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
>| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
>| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
>| {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP    | decade |
>+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

Gee, thanks for the compliment, Paul!  "Persistent" I'll buy, but "jaded"
is far off the mark.  As for "son_of_a_mick_trick," not close either.

Just stop trying to win debates with obviously invalid arguments, and you
might not get your ass nailed to the wall so often.

And don't forget what happened to Prometheus!  (Damned eagles, always coming
around for a free meal!)

don@opal.berkeley.edu

         Don Curry
         Computer Facilities & Communications, 
         University of California, 
         Berkeley CA 94720  (415) 642-0587 

         "Dh' aindeoin co theireadh e!"

------------------------------

Date: 16 Feb 87 22:55:59 GMT
From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov>, KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET writes:
> A single brightly glowing and
> crackling ball dropped rapidly from the clouds above.  It hovered
> a few feet off the ground and made its way down the street in erratic
> motions, jumping between metallic objects.  It "latched" on to a power
> line and moved rapidly down the line past my father.  It then lept
> with unbelievable speed from the line to a nearby trashcan, setting
> off an explosion which destroyed the trashcan and knocked my father
> into a ditch!

There are other reports, including a famous one about a Russian
contemporary of Ben Franklin's who died during an encounter with
one. (He had tried to trap a large charge using a lightning rod
and a Leiden jar.)  Few such reports took place in front of a calm
scientific observer which is why at least one group of researchers
has persistently claimed that ball lightning is a fluorescence 
phenomenon involving very low energies.  I think the documentation
of such incidents is sufficient that few people believe this explanation.
-- 
"More Astronomy                Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
 Less Sodomy"                  {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
  - from a poster seen         ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    at an airport              University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Feb 87 15:57:29 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Star Travel
 

In Vol. 7, No. 134 of Space Digest, Geoffrey A. Landis, in a valiant
effort to change the subject to something **other** than politics or
Voyager (the airplane), brought up the subject of Star Travel.  Thanks,
Geoffrey for the summary on Star Travel.  Also, you're **right**, the
subject did require changing.  One of the propulsion schemes that was
listed has caused me some depression.  Back in 1975, I was rummaging
around the UC Berkeley engineering library and found an obscure paper by
R.W. Bussard, entitled "Galactic Matter and Interstellar Flight",
Astronautica Acta, 6, 179-194 (1960).  In this paper, Bussard described
the "interstellar ramjet".  This is a device that collected interstellar
hydrogen and then burned it in a nuclear fusion reactor.  This
marvellous machine could (according to his calculations) achieve
**relativistic** velocities.  At first glance this very original idea
look like the key to opening up the entire galaxy to human exploration.
I went through all of his math (it's modified special relativity) and
the algebra was correct.  However his idea had two killer bugs that were
immediately apparent.  One is, he assumned an interstellar hydrogen
density of 1.0E3 particles per cubic centimeter.  The other bug was
he assumned **all** of the hydrogen could be burned in a fusion
reactor.  In actuality, interstellar hydrogen (as Geoffrey correctly
pointed out) is only 0.1 particles/cc.  Also most interstellar hydrogen
is protium which is an isotope that will undergo fusion **only** within
the core of stars through a nuclear catalytic cycle (the so called Bethe
cycle).  I then performed a calculation myself and determined that the
electromagnetic field strengths necessary to attract the hydrogen would
cause structural failure of the vehicle (by orders of magnitude) even if
it was made out of diamond.  These are the obvious killer bugs for
Bussard's idea.  Others are errosion of the vehicle by interstellar
grains, drag on the vehicle from noncombustable hydrogen and the
galactic magnetic field, the problem of converting the energy of the
fusion reaction into thrust, and many others.  Unfortunately we must
assign the Bussard Ram Jet to that pile where one will find such other
clever ideas like the perpetual motion machine, the FTL drive, and the
anti-gravity drive.  It is depressing to see that despite being able
to rigorously prove the Bussard Ram Jet is unworkable, one will
never the less find science fiction novels based upon this idea, (i.e.
Larry Niven's novels) and articles written about it in professional
journals, i.e. BIS and AIAA.  Alot of people haven't gotten the word
that this idea simply doesn't work.  People have been kicking antimatter
around for sometime.  I'll let another reader of Space Digest attack
this one since it's pretty easy to shoot down.  I see only two hopes for
star travel:  One is through nuclear fusion to nonrelativistic
velocities.  The other is through some new "rabbit out of the hat" via a
new unified field theory.  Because of the "Fermi Paradox", I suspect
that there are no new "rabbits" in the hat.   The Fermi Paradox is:  "We
are on the verge of being able to travel to the stars.  The sun is a
common star and the earth is not unusual.  Therefore life in the galaxy
must be common.  If we can travel to the stars then the bug eyed
monsters must be able to do it also.  However there are no bug eyed
monsters, ergo the paradox."  The Fermi paradox tells us that speeds of
greater than 10 Psol (percent speed of light) are unobtainable for a
manned vehicle.  At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a
civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star (by
galactic scales this is a tiny distance).  With this sort of radius
limitation, the entire galaxy could be filled with intelligent life but
the various civilizations would never physically encounter each other
except in rare cases.  Unless "flying saucers" are real (which I
seriously doubt), we may conclude that only through enormous nuclear
fusioned propelled "Arks" can a species travel to the stars.  I strongly
suspect that only a fairly large and healthy interplanetary civilization
could foot the bill for an Ark and even then for only two or three
Arks.  This *is* an argument for space industrialization.  However I
find it a rather depressing one.
                               Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 87 04:37:18 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!bonham@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Michael Bonham)
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <MINSKY.12277160621.BABYL@MIT-OZ>, MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU writes:
(paraphrased somewhat)
> Actually it would not be so costly to drop garbage into the Sun -
> <...> The trick would be to use a light sail system from Low Earth Orbit,
> elevate the ship into much higher orbits and use the moon to escape Earth.
> After that, tack so as to reduce the solar orbit velocity.  Then
> cleverly exploit Venus and Mercury and continue to
> tack down until the sails start to melt. <...>

First of all, you can't use the light sail for propulsion after it melts ;-)
You could spend half a century tacking the solar garbage scow
(or for that matter, a scientific probe) down to a close solar orbit,
but after the light sail melts away there is no mechanism for losing
the remainder of orbital velocity, apart from solar atmosphere friction.
Your hazardous material will sit there waiting to collide with somebody
else's flame-proof sail.

If you really want to dump radioactive waste into the sun with a solar
sail you'll have to tack out to the outer planets (where gravity boosts
are more effective) and then take a running dive precisely into the sun.

Secondly, the solar sail and guidance mechanism is pretty expensive, couldn't
you just aim the craft at Jupiter, release the pallet of waste on a
trajectory to boost it into the sun, then put the light sail (it's much
more manoevrable now) into a trajectory back to earth, or mars, or wherever
the next load of garbage is?

But then again, why waste a valuable resource such as heavy atoms by dumping
them into the sun?  Launch them into a cometary orbit and when they come back
in a half a million years (or 2, or 10) they'll be decayed into useful metals
Well, *somebody* may find them more useful as a lump than as vapor in a star.
Eh?!
    _|_    __/__
   __+__    /_	         Mike Bonham
    /__    |__|
   /\./     /|     ..!{ubc-vision,ihnp4}!alberta!calgary!bonham
   _/ \_  _/ |_|

------------------------------

To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 87 12:26:38 EST
From: LT.Sheri.L.Smith@mitre.arpa, USN <ltsmith@mitre.arpa>


------- Forwarded Message

To: ltsmith@mitre
Subject: send failed on enclosed draft
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 87 13:35:41 EST
From: LT.Sheri.L.Smith@mitre, USN <ltsmith@mitre>

  : loses; [USER] 550 ... User unknown
post: 1 addressee undeliverable

Message not delivered to anyone.

- ------- Unsent Draft

To: space@angband.s1.gov
cc: 
Subject: Challenger Produces Swing in Attitudes
- - --------

Washington Post,  2 Feb 87.  Science Notebook.  Reproduced without 
permission

____________________

Challenger Produces Swing in Attitudes

The explosion of the space shuttle Challenger one yer ago produced a large
and surprising change of opinion in favor of the space prgram, including
a swing of attitudes toward more manned space flights, according to Jon
D. Miller, director of the Public Opinion Laboratory at Northern Illinois
University.

Unlike other accidents of technology such as the chemical plant explosion at
Bhopal, Inndia, and the nuclear power mishap at Three Mile Island that
reduced support for the technology involved, the shuttle accident produced 
a sudden surge of support. 
     (I'm a little skeptical of this analogy...SLS)

Miller and his group polled 2,005 people in a random national sample on the
subject of the space program two months before the accident.  He quickly
came back to sample the same people a few days after the accident, then
five months later.

Before the accident, 53 percent of thse surveyed said benefits of the space
program were higher than its cost.  Immediately after the accident, the same
people had shifted their attitudes, with 64 percent saying that benefits
were greaterthan the cost, Miller reported to the National Science
Foundation. 

An even greater swing took place when the question was money. There was an
"amazing swing" in which 57 percent of those interviewed just after the
accident upgraded their willingness to spend more money to get the space
program back on track as compared with what they had said before the
accident.

Before the accident most had favored holding the NASA budget constant,
but the postacident swing left 48 percent asking for more spending, 32 percent
asking for the same spending and 20 percent wanting less spending.

The swing was so great, Miller said, that his group at first was not sure
whether to believe the figures. But in the polling fivve months later,
the stronger positive attitudes remained high.

_______________

That narrowminded, dimwitted, diehard man-belongs-on-earth-or-God-wouldn't-
have-put-us-here 20% should be the focus of a dedicated educational effort
on the part of NASA and other space related groups. Are there any NASA
types out there who could tell us just what part of the NASA budget goes
towards propaganda...er, education of the public of the benefits (especially
the tangible one) of our erstwhile space program????  How about you L5
and High Society types? Do you allot any monies towards the furtherance
of our program through exciting and inciting John (Jane) Q. Stayhome
into voting FOR rather than against???

What we need is a nice bit of verifiably alien manufactured something or
other to wake people up. No live alien, though....At this stage in our
"space program", it'd be too embarrassing.


LT Sheri L Smith, USN
ltsmith@mitre

- - -------
Anyone who objects to the "man" in the second paragraph above can put a
"wo" in front of it. Flames on this specific topic will be generously
ignored.
- - -------

- ------- End of Unsent Draft

------- End of Forwarded Message

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #151
*******************


Version: 5
Labels:
Note:   This is the header of an rmail file.
Note:   If you are seeing it in rmail,
Note:    it means the file has no messages in it.

1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17012; Tue, 3 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST
	id AA17012; Tue, 3 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703031103.AA17012@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #152

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #152

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 152

Today's Topics:
	   What we should do in space during next 30 years?
		     space news from Nov 10 AW&ST
	   Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1987 February 15 05:58:36 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@su-ai.arpa>
To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: What we should do in space during next 30 years?

<KFL> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 01:43:51 EST
<KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
<KFL> Subject: Reply to massive missive - part I of IV

<KFL>   What IS your space development plan?

If you mean a fully documented fully detailed professional report, it's
not worth my time/energy since I don't have the power to get anybody
important to seriously consider it. If you mean general ideas about what
directions we should go:
 (1) Habitat in space, initially like the USSR is doing, but eventually
      like the new habitat in the "New World" (America) where people
      actually live there forever (have children there, grandchildren, ...)
 (2) Exploring: Moon, planets and their moons, asteroids, comets,
      interstellar gas, other stars and their planets etc. eventually.
 (3) Observing with various kinds of telescopes in space: everything
      there is to see out there; each new instrument discovers new kinds
      of objects which can then be studied in detail; we can't predict
      what we'll want to observe the way we can predict what we'll want
      to explore.
 (4) Science in absense of overwealming gravity, new subtle effects we
      can't observe on Earth because they are smashed by gravity, but in
      space we can perform delecate experiments where uncomputable
      effects from basic physical law causes previously unknown things to
      occur. Perhaps percolation, fractals, equilibrium, and other topics
      could be studied intensely looking for unexpected results.
 (5) Exotic (foreign = non-Earth) material usage. As we explore the
      material bodies in the Solar System in (2) above, we watch for any
      significant deposit of any material we might be able to process
      into useful form, then we develop the engineering and the logistics
      for preliminary use of these materials. Some will peter out, but
      others will become great mining operations like the Diamonds of
      South Africa or the coal of W.Va.
 (6) New propulsion and energy-conversion technologies. Even before we
      have an immediate practical use for antimatter or whatever, we
      should do preliminary development of the technology, including
      actual missions that use the newly-developed technology as an
      auxilary propulsion or energy system to evaluate it in use. Later
      when we need to divert an asteroid or comet from striking Earth or
      other populated area, or when we want to send a 0.5 C probe to
      Alpha Centauri, we'll have some technologies at hand to choose from
      instead of having to develop the technology as part of the mission
      (we still need to refine the technology, but if the basic
      technology is developed already we might be able to do the refining
      in just a couple years in parallel with the rest of mission planning).

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 87 01:18:17 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

[Well, I'm still further behind...  Being away and being sick haven't helped.
On the other hand, I'm making progress on going through the old Aviation
Leaks, and it's just a matter of getting things typed.  Cross your fingers.]

Most striking thing in this issue:  a two-page-spread ad, pages 6-7, from
Gary Hudson's company, Pacific American Launch Systems.  The vehicle this
one is pushing is one I haven't seen before, the "Liberty".  Private space
launcher.  "PAM-D2 class and larger spacecraft directly into geotransfer
orbit... only two engine starts to successfully complete the mission."
Laser ring gyros, cold gas thrusters.  Transfer, LEO, or escape orbits.
Ten tons to "polar sunsynchronous transfer", whatever that is.  Payload
diameter up to the diameter of the Shuttle cargo bay.  "Simplicity...
off-the-shelf avionics and propulsion technology... first launches in 1988...
launch fee is highly competitive... your payload into the proper orbit or we
will refund your fee and provide a free [reflight]..."  Most interesting.
The "Liberty IIa" pictured is a very plain vehicle, a cylinder with length
about 7 times diameter, blunt nose taper, not enough detail to tell quite
what the engine is.

Spot Image Corp acquires in-house image processing in Reston, Virginia,
using data fed from Spot's two Canadian ground stations.  US customers
previously had to rely on Spot's tape recorder, but North American images
now go direct to stations in Alberta and Ontario, then by courier to Reston.

China accelerates US marketing of Long March launch services.  Xichang launch
site to be expanded, including a second launch pad.

FAA head Engen says satellites are attractive for tracking and communication
for air traffic control, especially over the oceans.

Final checkout of the Polar Beacon and Auroral Research Satellite, slated
for launch Nov 13th.  Mission is to study impact of solar flares and auroral
activity on space communications.  The spacecraft spent eight years in the
Smithsonian before being refurbished for this mission.

US and Soviet negotiators agree on new space-cooperation pact.  Expected
final signing early 1987.  New agreement is much more specific than the
previous one of some years ago.  Soviets proposed to include a cooperative
Mars sample-return mission, but US negotiators had to reject this since the
US has no approved funding for it.  Mars items which did make it in include
joint selection of potential landing sites and coordination of existing
missions.  The new agreement includes careful limits on technology transfer,
although some DoD factions are expected to oppose it nevertheless, since the
Soviets might steal crucial information like which way is up.  US negotiators
were surprised and pleased that SDI did not come up during the talks, although
its dampening presence was felt on the US end:  one reason for the lack of
major hardware cooperation was the US fear that such projects could later be
held hostage to obtain concessions on SDI and such.  Soviet negotiators
clearly had much more flexibility to propose and discuss possible projects
than the US team did.

Participants (NASA, ESA, Japan's ISAS, and Intercosmos) in the Inter-Agency
Consultative Group have agreed to extend its lifetime and to look for another
major area of cooperation now that Halley work is winding down.  Looks like
it will be solar-terrestrial science, although other areas are being studied
for longer-term work.  Solar-terrestrial missions planned, in chronological
order, are:

Ulysses	solar polar mission	ESA, grounded since 51L, late 80s maybe
Exos-D	aurora and magnetism	ISAS, 1989
Interbol	magnetosphere	Intercosmos, 1990, 2+2 satellites
UARS	upper atmosphere	NASA, high-inclination polar orbit, 1991
Solar-A	solar X-rays		ISAS, 1991
CRRES	chemical release	NASA/DoD, 1992
Geotail	magnetotail		ISAS/NASA, lunar flybys for distant apogee, 1992
Wind	upstream solar wind	NASA, lunar flybys and/or halo orbit, 1992
Polar	polar magnetosphere	NASA, eccentric polar orbit, 1993
Relicht 2	solar wind	Intercosmos, secondary mission on board
				radio-astronomy satellite, 1992-3
Soho	solar astronomy		ESA/NASA, halo orbit, 1994
Cluster	magnetosphere		ESA/NASA, one main and three subsatellites,
				maybe more if Intercosmos joins, 1994

Halley imaging teams agree to cooperate on developing an accurate 3-D model
of Halley's nucleus.

NASA accelerates SSME tests, including approval of another test stand.  New
rate will approach that early in the Shuttle program.  Major issues are
mostly component lifetimes and reliability.

The meeting that approved the SSME test speedup also decided that the normal
thrust rating for post-51L flights will be 104%, the level used most often
in the pre-51L flights.  The alternative was to hold things down to 100%, at
least initially, for more safety margin (but less payload).

Major shuttle management shakeup, new organization much more closely following
that of Project Apollo.  Most notable feature is more centralization in the
Washington HQ, less autonomy for the individual NASA centers.  In particular,
top shuttle management is now in NASA HQ rather than JSC.

United Technologies submits unsolicited proposal to NASA for shuttle-derived
unmanned expendable.  First flight would be about three years after approval.

Discovery moved from VAB to OPF for a series of modifications to prepare it
for STS-26 [oh no, they've changed their feeble minds AGAIN about mission
numbering!  -- HS] in Feb 1988.

Fletcher will seek White House approval to hold NASA's budget at $10G or
more, which would substantially expand the civilian space program from
FY88 on.  Budget for FY87 is $10.4G, up over 40% from FY86, although a
big chunk of that is one-time funding for the Challenger replacement.
Fletcher will claim that 51L was partly a result of many years of chronic
underfunding.  Fletcher would need direct White House support to pull this
off, since the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting will *not* be
pleased.  Possible initiatives for the new funding include:

- "Civil Space Technology Initiative", laying groundwork for some of the
	National Commission on Space's recommendations, $100M in FY88
	rising to $300+M/yr by FY91.  Seven areas of research and technology
	development, from propulsion to life support.

- Global Geoscience System, $25M solar-terrestrial new start.

- High Alpha, military aeronautics research on high-angle-of-attack aero-
	dynamics and multiaxis thrust vectoring.

- Technology for the Advanced X-Ray Astrophysics Facility (big space X-ray
	telescope, proposed for later).

FY87 $10.4G budget includes $2.4G in one-time funding grabbed from DoD:
$2.1G for new orbiter, $36M for new IUS cradle, $265M DoD reimbursements
for shuttle operations [?], and $33M to start on a new TDRS.  The orbiter
money cannot be obligated before August, although NASA hopes to get things
rolling sooner by borrowing from other areas.  NASA will run for FY87 on
the FY87 continuing resolution; an authorization bill was passed just before
Congress recessed, but Reagan is expected to veto it [he did -- HS] because
it sets up a National Space Council to replace the dithering SIG-Space, a
change the White House dislikes.

Changes in NASA programs directed by Congress in the continuing resolution
include reinstating the terminated Advanced Communications Technology
Satellite ($77M), paying DoD shuttle reimbursements ($531M) half from the
Defense budget and half from NASA's [??!!??], putting the last $150M of
the $410M Space Station funding on hold until NASA addresses concerns about
international participation and early science results, knocking $5M off the
original $45M Aerospace Plane funding, rejecting a NASA request to transfer
some of the $141M Upper Atmospheric Research Satellite money to other things,
cutting Topex (ocean topography satellite) from $29M to $19M, adding $5M to
space research and technology (now $185M total) to start work on a flight
telerobotics system for the Space Station, killing $2M for studies of the
Shuttle Infrared Telescope Facility, requiring a comprehensive SRB hardware
acquisition plan (preferably with second sourcing) by 31 March, demanding
competitive procurement of any upgraded SRB design NASA buys, requiring
five-year plan for use of expendables for government payloads by Feb 15,
and cutting commercial-use-of-space funding a bit.

DoT's Office of Commercial Space Transportation gets major budget cut, almost
50% less than requested; impact not yet assessed.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 87 22:29:02 GMT
From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Organization: Information Sciences Institute, Univ. of So. California
Subject: Re: Laser Launched Rockets and Reactors in Space
References: <149@iconsys.UUCP>, <450@lewey.AIT.COM>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


	Among all this talk about new and radically different ways
of getting to orbit, I haven't seend any mention of an elevator.
Arthur C. Clarke wrote a novel, _Fountains of Paradise_, about the
building of an elevator to orbit. He didn't invent the concept, my
apologies to the man who did, but I've forgotten his name.

	The raw material was an asteroid positioned in Clarke
orbit. One big premise of the book was a big advancement in 
material science that allowed a vrey strong material to be made
from the stuff of an appropriate asteroid. Nothing we can say 
will happen by a certain year, but we can always hope.

	Another big problem is making sure the orbit is very
stable. Can't afford to have a tower like that tip over.

	They built the tower both up and down, keeping its
center of mass positioned correctly. When it was done, they
attached elevators and rode to orbit. Naturally they were fast
elevators, with no air friction above a certain height. One other
side effect of this really being a tower is that the only place you 
can step off the tower and be in a nice orbit is right at the asteroid.
Below that you don't have enough velocity and will fall to Earth.
Above it, your orbit will change, I'm not sure how much.

	The far end of the tower can also be used as a sling with
a limited number of destinations. Could still come in rather handy.

	Fascinating concept, cheap on energy (well, you don't need
it all at once, any way, it should still consume the same total amount),
and environmentally it beats the hell out of some  of the other
schemes. 

	Anybody have any numbers about necessary tensile strength
and things like that?


		--Rod

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #152
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19891; Wed, 4 Mar 87 03:03:06 PST
	id AA19891; Wed, 4 Mar 87 03:03:06 PST
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 87 03:03:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703041103.AA19891@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #153

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 4 Mar 87 03:03:06 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #153

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 153

Today's Topics:
		       IHW poor amateur support
		    Satellite Observing Made Easy
		 Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE)
	       Re: Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE)
		   NASA Press Release on SuperNova
			Re: SR-71 (really U-2)
			    Re: SR71 info
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 87 13:42:40 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Organization: AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis
Subject: IHW poor amateur support
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The new issue of Sky and Telescope (March?) covers a lot of the science
that was conducted on comet Halley. I was very disappointed to learn
that only about 500 amateurs, out of the several hundred thousand
amateurs, even bothered to submit data to the International Halley Watch
(IHW). I guess a lot of people like to dream but very few actually ever
do anything about their dreams. Maybe that is why we are still stuck on
this mudball.
			
				Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 87 16:46:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Subject: Satellite Observing Made Easy
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Mr. Orbit will send you a list of all the satellites you can see, and
when to look for them, for $10 a month.  The listings tell what direction
the satellite will be travelling and how high in the sky it will be, and
its estimated magnitude.  I have found the listings to be accurate unless
the satellite maneuvers during the month, as Salyut 7 or Mir sometimes do.
The address is:	Mr. Orbit
		P.O. Box 12175
		Orlando, FL 32859-2175
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 87 01:48:03 GMT
From: cbatt!cwruecmp!sundar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sundar Iyengar)
Organization: CWRU Dept. of Computer Engineering, Cleveland, Ohio
Subject: Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE)
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I am reading with interest the news about the Supernova.  Would someone
please tell where one may find this in the sky with the aided/unaided
eye?  I am not an astro* [:-)] and I have very little [read zero]
background in that area.  I don't even know where most of the star
groups [those with amusing names such as Big Dipper] can be found.  So
something like the following would be helpful.  If the earth were a disc
and one looked up lying down along the north-south axis, where would
this Supernova be as seen from the Northen Hemisphere (I am by the Great
Lakes) [do I hear some one say that it is visible only in the Southern
Hemisphere?  Oh well...]?

Thanks.

sundar r. iyengar		

arpa:  sundar%case.csnet           531, crawford hall
csnet: sundar@case		   case western reserve university
uucp:  decvax!cwruecmp!sundar	   cleveland, oh 44106

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 87 14:32:24 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Organization: Harvard-Smithsonian Ctr. for Astrophysics
Subject: Re: Re: Supernova of the century? (MORE)
References: <1893@cwruecmp.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> [...] Would
> someone please tell where one may find this in the sky with the
> aided/unaided eye?
> [...] [do I hear some one say that it is visible
> only in the Southern Hemisphere?  Oh well...]?

That's right - it's visible only well to the south, being almost -70 degrees
declination. It would be visible if you went well south of 20 degrees N.

-- 

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu
      BITNET:  wyatt@cfa2

------------------------------

Date:    Sat, 28 Feb 87 12:23:37 PST
From: aiz@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: NASA Press Release on SuperNova
To: space@angband.s1.gov
X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space@angband.s1.gov"

HDQ Release to SS
RELEASE:  87-20
 
NASA SATELLITE WATCHES EXPLODING STAR
 
 
     A telescope aboard a 9-year-old orbiting satellite continues
to monitor the intense emissions of ultraviolet radiation from a
recently discovered exploding star, called a supernova, located
163,000 light years from Earth.
 
     Scientists at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center (GSFC),
Greenbelt, Md., say that the International Ultraviolet Explorer
(IUE) satellite has performed superbly since Feb. 24, when
regularly scheduled operations were interrupted to focus IUE's
18-inch telescope, the largest now operating in space, on the
supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud, a neighbor galaxy of our
own Milky Way.
 
     Supernova 1987a, visible to the naked eye from Earth's
Southern Hemisphere, is the brightest seen since the year 1604,
and the first bright supernova since the invention of the
telescope around the year 1609.
 
     "We have contingency plans on file for special events like
the supernova," explained Dr. Yoji Kondo, IUE Project Scientist
at GSFC.  Kondo said interested scientists around the nation and
overseas submit so-called "target-of-opportunity" proposals to
use the IUE telescope on new exploding stars, comets and other
unusual objects.  Thus, the satellite operators have the
necessary information on hand to plan the telescope operations
when astronomers spot an event.
 
     Dr. Robert P. Kirshner, astronomy professor, Harvard
University, is directing the IUE scientific observations of the
new supernova.  He earlier had submitted a target-of-opportunity
proposal to study future bright supernovae with the IUE.  "This
is a real opportunity to explore a whole new region of a
supernova's spectrum," says Kirshner, who explains that previous
supernovae, since IUE was launched in January, 1978, were not
bright enough to study at the shortest ultraviolet wavelengths
accessible with the IUE telescope and spectrograph.  "Earlier
supernovae were studied at longer ultraviolet wavelengths with
IUE, but the measurement data on those objects "only hint at"
what is being recorded on the new supernova by IUE, since the new
object is much brighter."
 
     The first observations of the new supernova, made with IUE
on the afternoon of Tuesday, Feb. 24, revealed that it is an
intense source of ultraviolet radiation.  According to Dr. George
Sonneborn, staff astronomer at Goddard's Observatory Telescope
Operations Center, "although we made a very short time exposure,
just 15 seconds, the supernova is so intense that the first
spectrogram was overexposed."  Dr. Sonneborn is with the Computer
Sciences Corporation, which assists in operating the satellite
under contract to NASA.
 
     Ultraviolet rays are a form of light with shorter
wavelengths and greater energy than ordinary visible light.
Because ultraviolet rays are absorbed in the Earth's atmosphere,
the rays cannot be seen with ground-based telescopes.
Astronomers must study these rays from space.
 
     Explaining the significance of the discovery of the intense
ultraviolet radiation of the new supernova, Kirshner said, "the
new supernova is believed to represent the explosion of a star
much more massive than the sun.  Earlier in the star's lifetime,
according to current astrophysical thinking, it must have ejected
a great deal of gas that still surrounds it.  The intense
ultraviolet light found by IUE will be energizing the
circumstellar gas around the supernova, and IUE will tell us what
happens under these circumstances."
 
     Astronomers believe that new observations from IUE, besides
revealing the nature of ultraviolet radiation from a supernova
and its effects on surrounding matter, will provide precious new
data on the "galactic corona," a poorly-explored hot outer
atmosphere of our own Milky Way.  The Large Magellanic Cloud, the
small galaxy where the supernova is located, is also thought to
have a corona, which also will be explored thanks to the
supernova.
 
     Dr. Sonneborn states, "the supernova is like a bright light
bulb located beyond the galactic corona."  By studying the
absorption of ultraviolet light from the supernova that occurs in
the gases of the galactic corona, investigators will learn more
about the little-known region."
     Dr. Blair D. Savage, professor of astronomy at the
University of Wisconsin, Madison, who helped discover the
galactic corona, explains the scientific importance of the IUE
observations of the new supernova for exploring the galactic
corona.  "This spectacular event provides an unparalleled
opportunity to study the physical nature and composition of the
cool and hot gaseous matter situated in and around the Milky Way
and the Large Magellanic Cloud."
 
     The observation of spectral absorption lines due to the
galactic corona in the ultraograms obtained by IUE
indicates the supernova is probably beyond the corona and indeed
located in the Large Magellanic Cloud, as astronomers have
generally assumed.  However, further analysis is needed to
confirm this deduction.
 
     "It should be noted," says Kondo, "that this satellite is 9
years old and is still operating without some of its original
gyros and is long beyond its design lifetime.  This shows we can
still do first class space science with existing equipment."
 
     Observations of the new supernova will be repeated in coming
days as the great stellar explosion begins to fade.
 
     The IUE is a joint project of NASA, the European Space
Agency and the United Kingdom Science and Engineering Research
Council.  The satellite is controlled from the GSFC.
 
 
                             - end -

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 87 06:43:05 GMT
From: wdl1!mas1!gulvin@sun.com  (Tom Gulvin)
Subject: Re: SR-71 (really U-2)
References: <13296@angband.s1.gov>,, <11000002@beldar>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>>In a recent article someone mentioned that the SR-71 is refueled right
>>after takeoff.  I always thought this was to allow the plane to heat
>>up, to seal the fuel tanks.  Note: I have no contacts other than
>>published material.
>	The reason for this is that the SR-71 leaks like a sieve on the
>ground. Its tanks are of the wet seal variety, i.e. the heat and...

The actual reason that the SR-71 is refuled immediately after takeoff is
simple: with the engines spread so far apart and producing not-quite-
enough-thrust-for-safety-at-low-altitude, a fully fueled plane would
be in a very marginal condition if one of the engines failed.

Rather than risk the plane or modify it for better low level performance
(undoubtably at the expense of high level performance), they take off
light and refuel up in the air, where performance is better and recovery
options more available.

	Tom Gulvin - MAS - Cupertino, CA

P.S., the engines are set far apart to be in clear air which allows them
to receive undisturbed air flow. This is very important since the J-58's
are one of the few (only?) engines that actively capture the supersonic
shockwave inside of their inlet.

P.P.S., when the SR-71 is hooked up to the KC-135Q tankers, it is most
decidedly not 'warmed up' and the tanks are sealed. The fuel transfer
takes place at 15-30k feet and between about 200-350 knots. Instead
of the 400-1000 f. temp of recon-flight, the SR-71 is at about -40 f..

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 87 22:30:46 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: SR71 info
References: <8701151854.AA00437@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ... An interesting article was written by Clarence 'Kelly' Johnson
> that appeared in the July 1982 issue of Popular Mechanics...

The two most interesting things about that article were (1) I think it was
the first open publication to even *hint* that the SR-71's design was
driven as heavily by stealth requirements as by aerodynamics; and (2) the
article was very disjointed, hopping from one topic to another and never
delivering on some things promised earlier -- it appeared to have been
quite heavily censored.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #153
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02204; Thu, 5 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST
	id AA02204; Thu, 5 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703051103.AA02204@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #154

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #154

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 154

Today's Topics:
	       Reply to Klein-Fogleman airfoil question
		     space news from Nov 24 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 10:09:41 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Reply to Klein-Fogleman airfoil question

Key words: fluid dynamics, airfoils, aerodynamics

To the student from Purdue to posted and asked about this (I've lost
your return address).  Sorry to take to take so long.

Basically, you want to contact someone in the MIT Aero Department.
There are written reports, but it was concluded that this was
attributable as a low Reynolds number phenomena.  Most of the reports
were just a bit shy of ten years ago.  The reason this answer took so
long to find is that it was studied, found un-interesting, and the
current generation of CFDers here know little if nothing about it.
I had to get one of the more senior aerodynamics people to get me an
answer.  Interesting the difference between the analog aero people and
the computational aero people ;-).

Regarding the amount of money spent on the NASA PR/Education budget, we
are still working on determining that.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 87 01:43:13 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: space news from Nov 24 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

More concern that the Europeans will withdraw from the Space Station.  After
years of telling its international partners that their participation was
vital, and telling Congress that international commitments prevent backing
out of the Space Station, NASA is now telling the Europeans in particular
that the Station is basically a US project and they can't expect much say
in how it is run.

DoD issues directive on commercial space launch policy, outlining procedures
and responsibilities for DoD support of commercial launches.

Eosat will halt construction of the next Landsat unless OMB approves the
government subsidies earlier agreed on.

Jarvis booster eliminated from USAF medium launch vehicle competition
because, essentially, it's too good for the requirement.  [Would the USAF
reject a jet fighter because it exceeded all the specs? -- HS]  Jarvis is
still of more general interest, though.  USAF is also talking to Arianespace
about the possibility of Navstar satellites being launched on Ariane.

Year-old confidential NASA memo reveals NASA accepting increased risk and
reduced capabilities on Space Station to reduce budget estimate from $13G
to the more politically-acceptable $8G.  New estimates, due in January,
are expected to again exceed the $8G estimate that NASA gave Reagan.

NASA-ESA negotiations on Space Station deadlocked.  ESA is concerned that
the White House and the State Dept are playing no role, that ESA is not
being treated as NASA's equal, and that the US has no national space policy.
(Japan and Canada are not happy either, but their negotiations are at least
making progress.)  ESA is amazed that there is still no coherent policy on
how the Station will operate, who pays for it, and who makes decisions.
Particular sore points are Congressional decrees that the US reap 80% of the
benefits from the station and that the Europeans build the life-sciences
module since the US is building the materials lab.

Reagan vetos NASA FY87 authorization act, as expected, because of its
provision establishing a National Space Council to formulate space policy.
NASA operations expected to be largely unaffected since it is operating on
a continuing resolution.

Scientists on NASA's Space Station science task force warn NASA that too
much reliance on the shuttle, reductions in crew size, and lack of shuttle
opportunities to prepare Station-related experiments are jeopardizing the
Station's scientific utility.  The reductions in Spacelab flights will be
particularly troublesome, and NASA has been urged to add six Spacelab
flights to the pre-Station shuttle manifest.  There is concern that the
Station will monopolize civilian shuttle capacity for a considerable time
during Station construction unless expendables play a larger role than now
planned.  The payload capacity allotted to station science payloads is seen
as inadequate -- 30,000-50,000 lbs of payload and support in the first 12
Station flights is not a lot.  Reduction of the early crew to 4 will hurt.
Lower shuttle launch-weight limits will mean much more in-orbit installation
of equipment in the big modules, further reducing available man-hours.

Scientists strongly recommend formation of an international science advisory
group to coordinate Station science activities; at the moment, it's not even
possible to determine whether duplicate experiments are being planned.
NASA is taking this idea seriously and will probably do it.

Draft RFPs for the four major US Space Station work packages scheduled for
release Nov 26.

China gets three (!) more US reservations for the Long March booster.
Pan Am Pacific Satellite signs for launch of the refurbished Westar 6 on
Long March in or before May 1988.  Dominion Video Satellite signs for a
direct-broadcast-satellite launch in Dec 1987 and another in March 1988.
Iran also signed a letter of intent for a comsat launch on Long March 3.
China is promising to do whatever is necessary to satisfy the US government
on matters like security and transportation; they have already assured
customers that satellites will be exempt from customs inspection.

Preliminary assessments of the results of the Atlantis Pad 39B tests are
underway.  A number of minor changes to on-pad crew-escape procedures will
be made as the result of an escape drill.  The weather-protection system,
which was the primary reason for the pad tests, checked out and will be
installed on Pad 39A as well.  A countdown demonstration test is still
being analyzed; there were some software problems, thought to be related
to the fact that Atlantis had no engines fitted.  Measurements of the load
on booster field joints during the rollout showed no flexing, which
scuttles the theory that the sharp bend in the crawlerway to 39B was a
factor in the Challenger disaster.

NASA Ames seeks proposals for a reusable free-flying reentry vehicle which
could carry 600-800 pounds of science payload and return it with a soft
landing.  Launch by shuttle or Delta, in particular.  Must have own systems
for retrofire and reentry.  Initial launch 1988.  [I wonder if one could win
that contract with a refurbished Gemini capsule?  -- HS]

Johnson Engineering Corp. awarded crew-support-services contract for shuttle
and Space Station training at JSC.  JEC will design, build, and operate
Space Station mockups and assist in crew training.

Use of comsats over North Atlantic expected to decline unless Intelsat
changes current policy of charging same price for satellite links in all
regions of the world.  The underlying problem is that heavy-traffic areas
like the North Atlantic are cheaper to build for than light-traffic areas,
and the undersea-cable operators are free to base North Atlantic prices on
North Atlantic costs.  They also have rights to retain improvements in
efficiency that they accomplish, while Intelsat members must share them.
Cables have a particular edge in the US because communications carriers
must pass leasing costs of satellite circuits on to customers unaltered,
while costs of cables owned by the carriers are part of the rate base used
to calculate permissible profits.  The actual costs of satellite circuits
are still lower, for the moment at least, but that's not reflected in the
bills.  There are signs that Intelsat may get more flexible about prices
when competition gets rough.

Space Industries Inc considers some design changes to its Industrial Space
Facility.  A lower orbit than originally planned is being examined as a
way to make shuttle visits easier and more frequent; the higher propellant
cost of compensating for air drag may be worth it.  Higher orbits remain
of interest because of the notion of flying in the same orbit as the Space
Station.  SII is examining use of water from the shuttle as a propellant,
since the ISF has plenty of electrical power to turn water into steam, and
the lower orbit would benefit from cheap propellant.  Larger hatches are
also being looked at:  the Shuttle docking hatch will probably remain as
is, but the ISF's internal hatches will probably be the larger Space Station
hatch.  This will make it easier for customers to plan equipment for use
on either.  SII and its partner Westinghouse are starting a big push to
get most of the engineering design done, with a little hardware testing
thrown in.  SII says that doing as much engineering as possible before
starting to cut metal has always been the plan.

NASA has assured SII that it will honor the commitment for 2.5 dedicated
shuttle flights to deploy two ISFs, and will defer payment for the flights
until the ISFs are generating revenue.  But NASA has the flights listed
for 1992, and SII would like 1989 or 1990.

SII has no firm customers yet, but everyone is interested.  The ISF has
more time and power than Spacelab and shuttle missions, and a superior
microgravity environment.  NASA is particularly interested in that it may
provide a small-scale advance test of various Space Station operational
procedures.

Pictures of United Technologies' shuttle-derived unmanned launcher.  No
big surprises.  The propulsion/avionics module -- roughly, the tail end
of an orbiter -- stays with the payload carrier until retrofire, after
which the payload carrier burns up and the p/a module parachutes to a
landing, either at sea or on land.

Boeing wins minor NASA contract to study applications of automation and
robotics to the Space Station, emphasis on what the Station can do for
the technology rather than vice-versa.  Congress's idea, naturally.
[This is an idiotic waste of Space Station money.  -- HS]

[Well, this week's editorial was going to be a discussion of what needs to
be done to save the Space Station project, but that will have to wait.  An
article in Spectrum has reminded me that it's time for an editorial on the
first anniversary of the Challenger disaster.  (Okay, okay, so it's a bit
late, since when have my AW&ST summaries been on time?)

The article is the cover article in the February issue of Spectrum (which is
the all-members magazine of the IEEE).  It is, surprise surprise, a post-
mortem on the Challenger disaster.  The technical discussion doesn't contain
any surprises for those who read this newsgroup.  However, Spectrum has a
long-standing editorial interest in matters of engineering ethics,
whistleblowing, etc., and they went into that side of things somewhat.

Hans Mark:  "The only cricitism that I have of the [Rogers] report is
that they laid more blame on the lower-level engineers and less blame on the
upper-level management than they should have.  As with most of those
commissions, the guys on the bottom took the rap.  They quote Moore and
Beggs and a few others saying they didn't know about the O-ring problems,
which I find awfully hard to believe.  I mean, hell, I knew about it two
years before the accident and even wrote a memo about it.  I just find it
very hard to believe."

Roger Boisjoly, Thiokol:  "I had my say... So there was no point in me doing
anything any further."  Ben Powers, NASA:  "You don't override your chain
of command..."  Spectrum:  "At least two others, asked by the Rogers
Commission why they did not voice their concerns to someone other than
their immediate superior, replied in virtually identical language:  'That
would not be my reporting channel.'"]

[So...

First anniversary editorial:    What Happens Next Time?

Those who were reading this newsgroup shortly after the Challenger disaster
may remember me insisting that regardless of what organizational flaws were
present, specific people were responsible for the disaster, and that they
should be identified and punished.  This wasn't a real popular viewpoint,
especially when I pointed to the Morton Thiokol engineers as a probable case
in point.  I was roundly criticized for attacking people who were "just
following orders" and covering up dangerous flaws in order to save their
own jobs.

Spectrum:  "When no penalty is foreseen for being careless or doing wrong,
the very behavior that should be prevented is actually enforced.  Thus
penalties have to be clarified and exacted, said attorney Robert Levin.
'One of the things that's clear to me is that engineers do not speak the same
language as managers,' he said, 'and engineers as a group are not politically
savvy.  What I would very much like to come out of all this -- legislatively
or otherwise -- is that the next time this kind of dispute comes up, one of
those engineers can say "Damn it!  Look what it *cost* Thiokol."  Now you're
talking the language those folks understand'."

Well, it's a year later.  Have the guilty been punished?  Fat chance.
The good little boys and girls, loyal to their organizations (instead of
their professions, their country, and their species) have survived and even
been rewarded.  Myron Peretz Glazer, Smith College:  "If one looks at the
costs involved and the risks people took, it was the most disastrous thing
that could have happened, yet they walked away okay."  The most that has
happened to the top people at NASA was slightly early retirement -- at full
pension, naturally, since there was nothing wrong with *their* performance.

By contrast, the people who made attempts -- however feeble -- to speak out
have generally been punished for it.  Boisjoly, the man who objected (at
least, until he did as he was told and "put on his management hat") to
the launch, is on "permanent leave" from his job at Morton Thiokol.
Allan McDonald, the man at the Cape who tried to get the launch postponed,
just missed losing his job with M-T, and his career prospects are doubtful
at best.

And Morton Thiokol, whose management deliberately overruled the judgement
of its engineers that the launch was not safe, apparently mostly because
they wanted to safeguard their position as the SRB supplier?

They are fighting the payment of a $10M penalty required by their NASA
contract.  They are *receiving* million after million for the redesign
and testing work to fix the problem.  And to put the icing on the cake, the
issue of alternate suppliers for the SRBs is now on hold, probably for five
years or more.  "Look what it *cost* Thiokol."???  Morton Thiokol is
*PROFITING* *HEAVILY* from gross and willful negligence that killed seven
astronauts, destroyed billions of dollars worth of equipment, and endangered
the entire manned space program!

What happens *next* time?  When another engineer is asked to decide whether
he should keep quiet when his management is making a terrible mistake?
When another non-technical manager has to decide between backing his
engineers and keeping his customer happy?

I can't predict it for sure, of course.  Courage and honor turn up in the
most surprising places.  Maybe even inside Morton Thiokol.  But that's not
the way it happened last January, and that's not the way to bet.

The way to bet is that when -- not if -- such a decision comes up again, it
will be made the same way.  The engineer will shut up when his management
tells him to shut up.  The manager will keep the customer happy and to hell
with whether he's doing the right thing.  Both will cross their fingers and
pray that what they know to be a wrong decision won't be a disaster.  And
if the praying and finger-crossing don't work, and the shit hits the fan,
more astronauts will die -- and maybe the manned space program with them.

Why?

Because when Challenger and its crew disappeared into a ball of fire,
nobody was to blame.

						-- HS]
-- 
"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #154
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02361; Fri, 6 Mar 87 03:46:47 PST
	id AA02361; Fri, 6 Mar 87 03:46:47 PST
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 87 03:46:47 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703061146.AA02361@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #155

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 155

Today's Topics:
		  Want to bet he wins a Nobel Prize?
			 Re: New Developments
		Re: Want to bet he wins a Nobel Prize?
		      Superconductivity and SSC
	     Re: Next 30 years in space (try this again)
			    Fermi paradox
 Honest environmentalists should also support space industrialization
     SPACE Digest V7 #144; Space Enthusiasts as Environmentalists
	 environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet
       Re: environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 23 Feb 87 22:05 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  Want to bet he wins a Nobel Prize?
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.s1.gov", DIETZ

Recent breakthroughs in superconducting materials continue.
Paul C.W. Chu at U. Houston and coworkers at U. Alabama have now
discovered a compound that becomes fully superconducting at 98 degrees K.
Yes -- 98 K, 21 degrees above the boiling point of liquid nitrogen.
The composition is not yet public because of patent applications.  The
paper will appear soon in Physical Review Letters.

Tests are said to indicate the compound can withstand high magnetic fields
at liquid helium temperatures, although less near the critical temperature.
Chu is reported in Time magazine to think that 120 deg. K will be achieved
in a few months, and does not rule out 300 deg K (!!) -- a room temperature
superconductor (makes me think they've found a new mechanism causing
superconductivity).

If this stuff can be formed into wires (it's brittle), it will likely make
extraordinarily powerful magnets possible.  The SSC might shrink dramatically.
Indeed, requiring the SSC to consider using this material might provide
an extremely lucrative spinoff that could justify the whole project to
Congress.

Fusion would be helped, since the power density of a magnetic fusion reactor
scales as the fourth power of the magnetic field, and high temperature
magnets need less shielding because they're cheaper to cool.

Then there are Josephson junctions.  We already have CMOS chips
working in liquid nitrogen, so there's the possibility of building
CMOS chips with superconducting interconnects, or CMOS/JJ hybrid chips.
This wasn't possible before because the transistors would dissipate too
much heat to cool to liquid helium temperatures.  Room temperature
Josephson junctions would blow computing wide open.

Lots of other applications: maglev, mass drivers, power lines,
energy storage, NMR scanners, terahertz radar, MHD generators,
augmented railguns, microwave pulse weapons, and I'm sure a whole lot
more.

My mind is now thoroughly boggled.  Paraphrasing a certain president,
this is truly a super conductor.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 87 23:39:34 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: New Developments
References: <8702171753.AA01880@strange.SPAR.CAS.SLB.COM>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> I read in yesterday's paper that somebody had developed a superconductor
> that worked at liquid nitrogen, rather than liquid helium, temperatures.
> ... What was not mentioned... was that this
> new development makes the price of the classic electromagnetic catapult
> much much cheaper...

Not necessarily.  Superconductors are less popular in catapult designs than
they were, partly because they look less necessary.  The cooling problems
caused by ohmic heating in ordinary coils are mostly manageable, because
the duty cycle is low.  I suspect the verdict is "helpful, but not really
revolutionary".

> P.S.  Another implication of this new development was brought up to me
> by a friend:  Any high-school physics teacher can get liquid nitrogen.
> That means that there will be much more of a chance for the "average tinkerer"
> to play with superconductors in a meaningful way.

Eventually, yes.  Not right away.  My impression is that the materials in
question are very brittle and difficult to work with; it's not like it was
copper wire.  The delay between the discovery of high-field superconductors
and the commercial availability of superconducting wire was a decade or so,
as I recall.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 87 03:10:52 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Want to bet he wins a Nobel Prize?
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Then there are Josephson junctions...
> This wasn't possible before because the transistors would dissipate too
> much heat to cool to liquid helium temperatures.  Room temperature
> Josephson junctions would blow computing wide open.

Well, maybe not.  The cooling problem wasn't the only reason why JJs haven't
swept the field.  They are also fundamentally low-gain devices, which makes
it very hard to build working JJ LSI -- the precise control of characteristics
needed to make low-gain devices work well is nearly impossible in LSI.  IBM
concluded that the problem wasn't fixable.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 87 01:31:15 GMT
From: princeton!phoenix!pucc!PCJEFFRI@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Paul Jeffries)
Organization: Princeton University - Computing and Information Technology
Subject: Superconductivity and SSC
References: <8702240351.AA00239@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

A speaker (I cannot recall his name) address the topic of the SSC at the
Princeton University Physics Colloquim last week.  He said that the
recent superconductivity breakthrough will not effect SSC because the
refrigeration facility is only about $150 million (out of 5 or 6 billion
$).  Additionally, ths new material will probably be far more expensive
than the $120 million cost of the current wire.
 
I do not think he considered the prospect of a reduced radius due to a
higher field strength.
 
Paul C. Jeffries
PCJEFFRI at PUCC.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 87 01:06:39 GMT
From: sher@cs.rochester.edu  (David Sher)
Organization: U of Rochester, CS Dept, Rochester, NY
Subject: Re: Next 30 years in space (try this again)
References: <8702231756.AA13693@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

This in response to a cogently worded desire by Eugene Miya for more
funding for SETI.  I always wondered though about SETI, since we are
ignoring another intelligent species on Earth what we might expect to
do about intelligent species in space.  That is, we are happily
ignoring the dolphins, a species far closer to our own than anything
we can expect from another planet that is different enough from us to
be interesting.  Have the dolphins been proved unintelligent or is it
just our racial biases against unhanded beings or what?  In any case
establishing communications with dolphins should be a good test case
for establishing communications with alien life forms, I think.
Ps: I've heard about the SF story about the alien race who demanded
that we demonstrate our civilization by establishing communications
with the dolphins.  
-- 
-David Sher
sher@rochester
{allegra,seismo}!rochester!sher

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 4 Mar 87 13:13:13 PST
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa
Subject: Fermi paradox

     I think that I have an answer for the Fermi paradox.
Suppose that the universe is young, having originated in a big bang.
Older civilizations tend to be further from the point of origin,
and are more spread out than younger civilizations.  The bug eyed
monsters, although they can travel at .995 the speed of light,
naturally want to explore all of the stars in their own neighborhood
before wandering far afield.  This is primarily because they age
more slowly than their home planet while they are zooming around,
and they don't want to come back to a planet that is so far advanced
that it no longer cares what the explorers found out.
     If the monsters are sending out "Arks", as Gary Allen says,
then they are few in number and the likelihood of one coming close to
earth is very small.  So the monsters may be on their way, probably
by a combination of colonization and exploration.  Once we make
first contact with anyone, we may quickly learn about everyone.
The reason that they haven't already been here is due to the finite
age of the universe and the huge volumes of space that they have to
explore.  Does someone care to make an estimate of how long it should
be before they get here?
     P.S.  If they get here in time to read this, I apologize for
calling them "bug eyed monsters".
          Stan Attenberger

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 15:48:42 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Honest environmentalists should also support space industrialization
 

What confuses me is why "environmentalists" like Greenpeace should be
involved with SDI.  Opposition to SDI is supposably why they
demonstrated against the Titan-2 launch.  Greenpeace is not a pacifist
group or a group concerned with the correct usage of Aerospace
Technology.  My impression is that they were mainly into whales, cute
baby seals, and nuclear tests.  I used to be a member of the Sierra
Club.  The Sierra Club's big thing (at least under John Muir) was the
preservation of wilderness.  This is a very noble cause and one that I
still believe in.  However they got all wrapped up with the No-Nukes
issue to the detriment of the far more important wilderness preservation
tasks, (at which point I bailed out).  I know from experience that
there is a strong Luddite component in these "environmentalist"
organizations.  Will they seize upon the (unfortunate) SDI dominance of
the space program as an excuse to oppose the space program?  Die Gruenen
(the Greens) in Germany started out as being simply against nuclear
power, and for environmental protection.  Their current platform is
virulently anti-American.  The Greens advocate unilateral disarmanent in
Europe, and are quite Luddite in their attitudes towards all high tech,
particularly space travel.  Based on my experiences with Die Gruenen (I
live in Germany), I am convinced that these people have a deep emotional
hostility against any form of high technology.  I think any **honest**
environmentalist or person concerned with wilderness preservation has
to also be an advocate for space industrialization.  With the
industrialization of space, the Earth can be excluded from all polluting
commercial activity.  I think the Earth should be a world of parks,
farms and small cities.  The bulk of the human population with all of
its environmentally destructive (though wealth producing) activities
should be moved off-planet.  The main commerical activity of the
Earth should be as a tourist resort for the rest of the human race
which is living in space.        Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 1987  23:57 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
To: Space@angband.s1.gov, minsky%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #144; Space Enthusiasts as Environmentalists
In-Reply-To: Msg of 23 Feb 1987  06:21-EST from Ted Anderson <ota at angband.s1.gov>

As a board member of L-5 who is firmly anti-SDI, I wonder if Jon Leech
might have overlooked the possibility that some of those members were
pro-SDI not for reasons of military ideology but because it appear(ed)
to be a device to enhance support for space activities in general.

However, my impression agrees with Leech's: although the
environmentalists might in principle be, as Dale.Amon suggests, a
natural constituency for support of space activities, I suspect that
they tend to lean toward the "fix up Earth first" position - and I
don't see that first objective ever being accomplished thoroughly
enough to allow them to go on to the second.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 87 14:44:57 GMT
From: faline!thumper!daniel@bellcore.com  (Daniel W. Nachbar)
Subject: environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

At the beginning of the industrial revolution the Earth's atmosphere was
treated a vast, limitless dumping ground.  That view prevailed until a
few (~20) years ago.  It is now suggested that we use space as our next
"vast, limitless" dumping ground.

Other postings suggest that we can escape current political insanity by
fleeing into space much as our ancestors of the 1600's fled across
Earth's vast oceans.

Moving into space, as we must, will solve nothing.  It will merely allow
us to stall a little longer.  You can not escape yourself.

Dan Nachbar
bellcore!daniel

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 87 03:46:51 GMT
From: joel@media-lab.mit.edu  (Joel Kollin)
Organization: MIT Media Lab, Cambridge, MA
Subject: Re: environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet
References: <413@thumper.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <413@thumper.UUCP>, daniel@thumper.UUCP (Daniel W. Nachbar) writes:

> It is now suggested that we use space as our next
> "vast, limitless" dumping ground.

Even if space isn't mathematically "limitless" at least we don't have to worry
about destroying life (as we know it). Any objections to garbage are therefore
reduce visual aesthetics.
 
> Moving into space, as we must, will solve nothing.
> It will merely allow us to stall a little longer.

Not a panacea to be sure, but time is exactly what we need to survive.  We
need time for our society to catch up to our technology.  I think it is 
beginning to, what with slavery and SOME other atrocites now nearly non-
existant.  Space colonization will also make us realize what sustaining life
actually involves and force the development of non-polluting technologies.
Also, I think there is something to be said about keeping your eggs in more
than one basket. 

> You can not escape yourself.

No, but we must always try to transcend our limitations. Frontiers bring hope,
but it has been said that living in space can be a powerful reminder of how 
fragile life is.

> Dan Nachbar
> bellcore!daniel

Joel Kollin
joel@media-lab.mit.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #155
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05820; Sat, 7 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST
	id AA05820; Sat, 7 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST
Date: Sat, 7 Mar 87 03:03:02 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703071103.AA05820@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #156

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 156

Today's Topics:
Re: Honest environmentalists should also support space industrialization
	       Re: Honest environmentalists should als
	       Re: Honest environmentalists should als
			 UFO Coverup Question
		       Re: UFO Coverup Question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 87 01:47:42 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Honest environmentalists should also support space industrialization
References: <8702231534.AA12233@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ... With the
> industrialization of space, the Earth can be excluded from all polluting
> commercial activity.  I think the Earth should be a world of parks,
> farms and small cities...

It is worth noting that there may be some difficulties getting from here
to there.  Assume space industrialization does catch on big.  What happens
to Earth's economy when its balance of trade goes permanently deep into
the red?
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 87 14:52:00 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Honest environmentalists should als
References: <12233@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


[ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET.UUCP ]
>I think any **honest** environmentalist or person concerned  with
>wilderness  preservation has to also be an advocate for space in-
>dustrialization. With the industrialization of space,  the  Earth
>can  be  excluded from all polluting commercial activity. I think
>the Earth should be a world of parks, farms and small cities. The
>bulk of the human population with all of its environmentally des-
>tructive (though wealth producing)  activities  should  be  moved
>off-planet.  The  main commerical activity of the Earth should be
>as a tourist resort for the rest of the human race which is  liv-
>ing in space. 
> Gary Allen

I think it is an honest argument - also a *great* political argument!
I am moderately conservationist, myself - the issue, however, seems
to be politically sexy out of all proportion - far more than space
exploration as such. So, if the two can be linked positively, that
should give space expansion a boost. 

This is one thing that was left out during the discussion, in this
group, of the profitability of space industry: it all depends on
the zoning rules down on Earth!

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 87 02:37:00 GMT
From: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!hummel@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Honest environmentalists should als
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


/* Written by ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET (Gary Allen) in sci.space: */
> Gary Allen:
> What confuses me is why "environmentalists" like Greenpeace should be
> involved with SDI.
	   Though it may seem too rhetorical, space IS an environment.
	How is it seriously threatened by SDI?  It is threatened by 
	the need to test anti-satellite weaponry, and the orbiting 
	debris left behind.  If, as you later argue, we are to move
	our "wealth producing" activities into space, it had better not
	be a gamble to pass through LEO.
	   There is also the argument that the money that I would maintain
	is being WASTED on SDI could be used for costly reasearch that
	could benefit the environmentalists' causes (e.g., solar energy).

> Greenpeace is not a pacifist group or a group concerned with the correct
> usage of Aerospace Technology.  My impression is that they were mainly 
> into whales, cute baby seals, and nuclear tests...
	   The afternoon I spent a couple of years ago sifting through
	their low-budget office in downtown Chicago left me with the
	impression of their group as a clear-thinking bunch of folks
	whose formost concern is preventing the most(?) intelligent
	species on the planet from unwisely screwing over other species
	and more importantly, our descendants who will spit on our
	graves (ashes?) for the dirty, barren, expended world that we
	chewed up and spat at them down the years.

> ...I know from experience that there is a strong Luddite component in 
> these "environmentalist" organizations.
	   I don't see Greenpeace as a group directed by solely Luddite
	goals (see above), so if these "environmentalist" organizations
	do indeed have "a strong Luddite component", they have done an
	admirable job of enlisting their aid in a common goal without
	selling out to strictly Luddite concerns.

> Will they seize upon the (unfortunate) SDI dominance of
> the space program as an excuse to oppose the space program?
	   On a soapbox:  One of my congressmen (Rep. Terry Bruce, D-Ill.)
	has lacked amenability to the space program for fear that SDI is
	getting a ride on its coattails.  It is up to you and I to convince
	elected representatives such as him of the alternatives they have.
	Alternatives such as supporting pro-space legislation, and becoming
	involved in efforts to lend governmental support to private space
	projects.  Such as arguing in support of non-SDI ventures.  And
	such as being voted out of office.  Vote with care in 1988!

> I think the Earth should be a world of parks, farms and small cities.
	Sounds like a Luddite talking, to me ;-)


				- Lionel D. Hummel


Happy or witty quote? Sorry:		| UUCP:	 ihnp4!uiucuxc!hummel
"And even if we managed to get (to	| ARPA:	 hummel%uiucuxc@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Mars/the Asteroids) when the Pres. 	| CSNET: hummel%uiucuxc@uiuc.csnet
Comm. on Space says it will be techni- 	| BITNET: last resort- CSOPC001@UIUCVMD
cally feasible...the Soviets will be	| VOX: (217)356-5696
waiting to welcome us and to stamp our 	
passports" -G. Harry Stine (Analog, 2/87)

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 22 Feb 87 11:56:28 GMT
To: space@angband.s1.gov
From: 52194052%NMSUVM1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: UFO Coverup Question
 

> Are there any enlightened readers out there who can clarify the debate
> of why governments keep such a tight lid on the UFO phenonmenon?
 
>> Basically, the reason why you think you see a "tight lid" on the "UFO
>> phenomenon" is because there isn't any information to suppress in the
>> first place.  After the leaks of such things as the Iranian arms deal,
>> do you REALLY think that something as spectacular as the military
>> keeping an alien on ice could be kept this quiet this long?
 
                        UFO's (Unidentified Flying Objects)
 
  Late last year prople in New Mexico were treated to an unusual
sight  in the night sky.  Many people observed the bright  comet-
like object as it burned upon re-entry  of the earths atmosphere.
This  object was identified by NORAD  (North American Air Defense
Command) as a Soviet rocket booster.  Again on on monday night of
the next week U.S. citizens across the south reported  an  unusual
sighting.  This  object was not identified by NORAD,  but an  air
traffic  controller in Tennessee said "It was probably a meteor."
Some  reports  claimed  that  the object  was  a  flying  saucer.
Throughout  history  there  have  been  thousands  of  far   more
dramatic observations of UFO's,  and some of the most provocative
have  been right here in New Mexico.  Evidence suggests that some
UFO's are alien spacecraft.
         There  are  some that do not agree with  this particular
analysis on UFO origin.  First, they have examples of intentional
hoaxes  perpetrated  by  UFO  enthusiasts.  One  example  is  the
list of "Astronaut UFO Sightings", a collection of data listed in
the book  "Edge of Reality" by Dr.  J.  Allen Hyneck.  Hyneck has
after more careful research, disavowed the list. Of sixteen items
on  the list,  most have been shown to be cases where  astronauts
were  quoted out of context or cases of out right fraud.  All  of
the items on the list were in some way discredited by James Oberg
who    works   for   NASA   (National   Aeronautics   and   Space
Administration),   in  his  article  "Astronaut  UFO  Sightings.
Second,  anti-UFO-ists say that there is no physical evidence  to
support  the  hypothesis  that UFO's are  alien  vehicles;  since
UFO's  have been studied for an extended period  of  time,  there
should be some physical evidence. Finally they say most sightings
have been fully explained as "normal" occurences such as electro-
magnetic field effects, weather balloons, and the like.
 
     While  it  is logically  valid to hold this  point  of  view
given  the  type  of information considered thus  far,  there  is
information that has been ignored up  until this point.  For over
thirty  years,  government  agencies such as the  FBI,  CIA,  NSA
(National Security Agency) and DIA (Defense Intelligence  agency)
have  actively researched UFO's but  because of national security
considerations not all their findings have been released.  (  One
national newspaper ran the headline:  "If there are no UFO's, Why
All the Secrecy?" ) There have been over of 12,618 reports turned
over  to  the  Air  Force for investigation  with  701  remaining
unexplained.  IF JUST ONE OF THESE REPORTS CONSTITUTES A SIGHTING
OF AN EXTRATERRESTRIAL VEHICLE THE IMPLICATIONS WOULD BE PROFOUND.
Even  skeptics  admit  that  some UFO  sightings are puzzling.
One example of  this  exists  in  a  CIA  document  written by
Hector Quintanella Jr. (the figurehead of Air Force skepticism)
relating to an incident observed by a Socorro police  officer.
 
The document stated:
 
            " There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object
             which left quite an impression on  him.  There  is
             also no question about Zamora's reliability. He is
             a serious officer, a pillar of his church,  and  a
             man well versed in recognizing  airborne  vehicles
             in his area. He is puzzled  by  what  he  saw  and
             frankly, so are we. This is  the  best  documented
             case on  record, and still we have been unable, in
             spite of  thorough   investigation,  to  find  the
             vehicle or other stimulus that  scared  Zamora  to
             the point of panic.*
 
Quintanella was head of Air Force "Project Blue Book" at the time
the  document  was  compiled.   In  another  collection  of  1018
incidents reported by at least two observers,  3.3 per cent  (41)
involved  episodes where humanoids were seen with the vehicle  or
vehicles.  Forty two cases included the observation of a landing.
In addition,  some notable people were recently asked to indicate
where  aliens  would  land and  why.  Nuclear  physicist  Stanton
Friedman  and Bruce Maccabee,  a physicist specializing in  laser
optics, picked New Mexico because of the proximity of White Sands
Proving  Ground and since New Mexico is the location of the first
atomic bomb test site.
 
 
                       * more on this in the book "Clear Intent".
 
 
 
bibliography;
    Clear Intent: Fawcett / Greenwood
    Paranormal Borderlands of Science":  Kendrick Frazier
    Space  Time  Transients and  Unusual  Events":          "
    Persinger / Lafreniere
    Las cruces Sun News ": nov 11 86 1b
    Omni (magazine): may 86
    The Book of Lists":  Wallechinsky / Eallace / Wallace
 
 
                           M I C H A E L        New Mexico State
                                 (AAXION)         University
                                              (the final frontier)
                      e_mail : 52194052@NMSUVM1
                        Phone: (505) 522-0147
 
"viva Las Cruces"

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 87 00:05:56 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question
References: <8702221908.AA10865@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ... Evidence suggests that some UFO's are alien spacecraft.

What evidence?

> ...national newspaper ran the headline:  "If there are no UFO's, Why
> All the Secrecy?" )...

As I've said before, probably to cover up the waste of money in all those
government UFO investigations.

> ...Even  skeptics  admit  that  some UFO  sightings are puzzling.

There is a high correlation between inability to explain a UFO sighting and
the lack of sufficient evidence to make any conclusions at all about what
it was.  "Unexplained" does not mean "unexplainable"; usually it just means
that there are many possible explanations and no way to distinguish between
them because there isn't enough information.

>            " There is no doubt that Lonnie Zamora saw an object
>             which left quite an impression on  him.  There  is
>             also no question about Zamora's reliability. He is
>             a serious officer, a pillar of his church,  and  a
>             man well versed in recognizing  airborne  vehicles
>             in his area...

None of which establishes that he wasn't lying.  There are well-documented
cases where there simply is no reasonable doubt that the witnesses, even
responsible public officials, were lying through their teeth.  In fact,
I dimly recall the Zamora case being one of them, although I'm not sure of
that.  The possibility must *not* be dismissed solely on the assurance that
the sole eyewitness is "reliable".

Even assuming he was telling the truth, Zamora may simply have been mistaken.
Being "well versed in recognizing airborne vehicles" does not equip one to
report reliably on really bizarre atmospheric phenomena, which come in much
greater variety than naive UFOlogists think.  There was at least one major
UFO sighting by airline pilots -- trained observers, surely -- which simply
cannot have been anything other than a major meteorite.  (The clincher is
that the meteorite was big and spectacular and visible in the same part of
the sky at the same time as the "UFO", and the pilots didn't see it.)

> bibliography;

For a more balanced treatment, add Philip Klass's two skeptical books about
UFOs to the list.  Even if you don't agree with all of his explanations, he
does a devastating job of exposing lies, contradictions, and factual errors
(e.g. a case where UFOlogists assure us that a fighter's radar "locked onto"
the UFO, when the radar in question had no lock-on capability -- Klass is an
avionics expert) in the UFO claims.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #156
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07643; Sun, 8 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST
	id AA07643; Sun, 8 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703081103.AA07643@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #157

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 8 Mar 87 03:03:07 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #157

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 157

Today's Topics:
		       Re: UFO Coverup Question
			  Update on Voyager.
			Re: Update on Voyager.
	      NASA Propag (I mean PR) budget, I'll check
		       interesting nasa screwup
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 87 02:35:44 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question

> It's interesting to see a scientific community assuming that some
> phenomenon doesn't exist simply because there's no absolute proof
> that it does...

It's interesting to see the True Believers assuming the existence of
some phenomenon when there is *no* trustworthy evidence for it.

> ... In fact, in cases of UFOs and ESP, the scientific
> community is quite willing to ignore evidence because the evidence
> doesn't support the favored hypothesis.

As Philip Klass has said (approximately):  "I work for the world's leading
aerospace journal.  If it turned out that I had overlooked evidence of a
real extraterrestrial landing because of my preconceptions, the LEAST that
would happen would be that I'd lose my job and my career would be ruined.
On the other hand, if I was the first to report a genuine extraterrestrial
spaceship, I would be world-famous and my name would be in the history books
for the next thousand years.  I have every reason to be open-minded."

> ...  There certainly is evidence that our
> government hides and distorts the facts about UFOs...

Really?  The government that couldn't hide Irangate has hidden and distorted
the facts about UFOs so thoroughly that there has never been unquestionable
evidence of it?  I have my doubts.

> > None of which establishes that he [Zamora] wasn't lying....
> 
> When one has evidence that doesn't fit one's hypothesis, then the
> first reaction is to blame one's equipment.  Of course.  Maybe he
> is telling the truth...

Okay, it's time to kill this one dead.  Consider the following:

- Zamora claimed he heard a loud roar when the UFO landed, and another when
it took off.  He was about 3/4 mile away when it landed.  There was a house
barely 1000 feet from the site.  Its owner and his wife were at home with
windows and doors open, and heard nothing.

- When Zamora reported the incident and called for assistance, he asked
specifically for Sgt. Sam Chavez of the State Police, not for officers
from the local police or the sheriff's office.  He's never said why.

- Zamora reported intense heat and flame on both landing and takeoff.
There was no evidence of this at the site -- pictures taken the following
day show only traces of burning on one bush and one clump of grass.  Small
twigs were undisturbed at the center of the landing site.

- The four "pad-prints" on the site were of very different shapes and
very unevenly spaced, not what one would expect for landing gear.

- Zamora's sketch of the object shows only two legs, although he should
have been able to see at least three from his position.

- Zamora's account of the object's departure has it passing over a major
highway in broad daylight.  No motorist ever reported it.  There is a
secondhand report of *one* motorist seeing it, but the motorist has never
been located and the secondhand report contradicts Zamora's story in
several particulars.

- Socorro (the town) was in an economic slump and badly needed tourist
revenue.  (Indeed, the local merchants rose to the opportunity offered by
the UFO sighting.)  The UFO came down in a very convenient place, between
two major highways.  Furthermore, it landed on property owned by the town's
mayor, who was also the town banker.

> ... Maybe instead of
> dismissing the evidence, we should give it our scientific attention
> with as little preconception as possible...

Doing so in this case leads quickly to the conclusion that the Socorro UFO
was a crude hoax, and Zamora was simply lying.

"It is good to have an open mind, but not at both ends."  One must not
reject valid evidence just because it offends one's preconceptions, but on
the other hand one must not fall into the trap of going to the other
extreme.  If we accept such grossly faulty evidence as the Socorro case
just because it *confirms* our preconceptions, we will never understand
anything.
-- 
"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 87 19:55:20 GMT
From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@ames.arpa  (Russ Cage)
Organization: CRLT , Ann Arbor, MI
Subject: Update on Voyager.
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I recently got the 2/1/87 issue of _The Aviation Consumer_, which
has a wonderful account of the flight of Voyager and some very
thought-provoking information about the aircraft itself.  If
someone has posted this information already, please forgive me,
but my newsfeed was down for two weeks and I missed it.

		Voyager, the aircraft.

The Voyager was never intended to be more than an aircraft capable of
circumglobal flight.  In the quest for range, range and more range,
handling qualities, structural margins (and, quite frankly, safety)
were traded off.  Among other things, the handling qualities were
never meant to be more than "mission adequate".  And they were, barely.

One of Voyager's handling qualities is its porpoise oscillation.  The
wing is very, very flexible.  The two fuel pods form nodes of the
oscillation; thus, when the wingtips are bowed up by a gust, the
aft of the fuselage is pushed down.  This pitches the fuselage up,
twisting the canard so as to increase the nose-up moment of the
aircraft.  When the wings bow down on the opposite side of the
oscillation, the canard twists to push the nose down further.  The
effort needed to damp this oscillation manually is extreme; the
flight could never have been made without the King autopilot.

Voyager has two vertical stabilizers, but only the right one carries
a rudder (the left one was sacrificed to save weight).  When deflected,
the rudder produces drag as well as side force.  Due to this, the
right-rudder authority (force and drag both working to produce a right
turn) is about twice the left-rudder authority (force and drag opposed).
For this reason, and the fact that Voyager is very difficult to recover
from a "steep" bank (more than 25 degrees!), all patterns in Voyager
are flown to the left.

Due to Voyager's long wing, the adverse yaw of aileron application becomes
"adverse roll"; if the aircraft is in a turn, applying opposite aileron
steepens the bank.  Lots of rudder is required to recover.  The autopilot
does not even use the ailerons.

The porpoise oscillation is very evident on takeoff; in the words of
Dick Rutan, it it a "yahoo" (as one shouts on a bucking bronco).

Also, Voyager lacks a starter for the rear engine (when it died, it
had to be restarted with the blast from the front engine), and has no
lightning protection whatsoever.  However, with Voyager's thin structural
margins, the turbulence of a thunderstorm would be deadly in any case.


			The takeoff

Voyager was filled with some 7000 pounds of fuel (400 more than planned).
Total aircraft weight for takeoff was about 9700 pounds, of which 2250
pounds was the aircraft.  Total power was 240 horsepower, or over 40 pounds
of aircraft per horsepower (a Cessna 152 has about 15.5 pounds/HP).  The
added fuel, which went into the canard tanks, created trouble on takeoff.
The flexibility of the aircraft caused the canard, and thus the fuel pods
*and the wing*, to twist downward.  Also, due to the heavy fuel load, the
main gear struts were fully inflated, and Dick held down-stick during the
roll to keep the airplane on the ground before reaching flying speed (the
hobby horse oscillation could result in bending the nose gear and loss of
mission, aircraft and maybe crew).  Because of all this, the wingtips
made their famous two-mile scrape on the runway of Edwards, causing the loss
of the winglets, and the peeling back of a piece of skin fabric which acted
as a drag brake on the right wing for 25,000 miles.

The takeoff took 14,000 of the 15,000 feet of runway at Edwards.  The runway
overrun, which was being used as insurance in case the runway was not
sufficient for takeoff, turned out not to have been usable; it had standing
water.  The landing gear is not stressed for heavy drag.  Had Voyager run
over the end, the fuel that burned for 9 days might well have done do in a
few minutes at the end of the runway.

				The flight

Fuel accounting would plague Voyager all around the world.  First, the front
engine was run a day longer than planned, because of difficulty in maintaining
altitude on the rear engine alone.  Next, Dick flew backwards some hundreds
of miles because of turbulence.  However, the fuel totalizers soon started
showing considerably more fuel burn than planned.  This was soon traced to
the fuel injection on the rear engine.  Its fuel return line, which was
supposed to return fuel to the header tank, also dribbled fuel back into
tanks which were supposed to be empty, which went backwards through a fuel
flow meter.  The flowmeter counts pulses, but cannot determine the direction
of flow.  The performance analysts quickly determined that they had no way
of knowing how much fuel had actually been burned, so Voyager's fuel situation
was a big question mark except for being better than the totalizer said.

Once over Mexico, Voyager had two scares.  The left tip tank, which had never
been used and was supposed to have held 170 pounds of fuel, came up empty.
The fuel had all leaked or siphoned away.  Second, one of the fuel boost
pumps failed, and the rear engine died while trying to draw fuel from the
right canard tank using the engine-driven pump.  Either the pump could not
suck fuel that far, or that tank was empty also, and Voyager was suddenly a
glider, over the ocean, at night.  Dick sweated for 5 minutes while trying
to start the balky front engine; using the prop blast, he was able to restart
the rear engine also.

Several days after landing, the fuel accounting was finally done.  Voyager
landed with 18.3 gallons of fuel on board; 9.2 in the header tank, and the
rest in bits here and there all over, in tanks and lines.  Voyager began with
1200 gallons, and landed with only a few hour's reserve.
---------------------------------------------------------
Well, I hope you enjoyed my rendering of this as much as I enjoyed the
article.  Dick and Jeanna were very, very lucky to pull it off, but they
did it.  This has to be the greatest aviation "first" of recent memory.
-- 
The above opinions and figures are mine; my employer endorses them implicitly.

"They that can give up essential liberty to	Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
gain a little temporary safety, deserve neither	    ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ
liberty nor safety." -- Ben Franklin
(Do not reply to me at CRLT, it loses news and mail regularly.  Use path above.)
NSA food>terrorist DES RSA KGB cocaine cryptography RSA TEMPEST fnord Hail Eris!

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 87 21:21:06 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Organization: S-1 Project, LLNL
Subject: Re: Update on Voyager.
References: <666@crlt.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <666@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes:
>I recently got the 2/1/87 issue of _The Aviation Consumer_, which
>has a wonderful account of the flight of Voyager and some very
>thought-provoking information about the aircraft itself....
>
>				The flight
>
>Fuel accounting would plague Voyager all around the world.  First, the front
>engine was run a day longer than planned, because of difficulty in maintaining
>altitude on the rear engine alone.  Next, Dick flew backwards some hundreds
						     ^^^^^^^^^
>of miles because of turbulence.  

Well, with that rear-mounted engine and the forward-mounted tailfins, I
suppose you _could_ fly Voyager backwards, but I don't really see how
that would help with turbulence.  The notion certainly is
thought-provoking, though -- just imagine the savings in runway
turnaround space if this technology were adapted to commercial
airliners.  And the air force is working on those "forward swept wing"
fighters -- being able to fly them in either direction would certainly
confuse the enemy.  Of course, the pilots would have to remember whether
they were coming or going... :-) :-) :-)

	Jordin Kare	jtk@mordor.UUCP	jtk@mordor.s1.gov





.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Feb 87 21:05:15 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: NASA Propag (I mean PR) budget, I'll check

>Are there any NASA
>types out there who could tell us just what part of the NASA budget goes
>towards propaganda...er, education of the public of the benefits (especially
>the tangible one) of our erstwhile space program?
>
>LT Sheri L Smith, USN
>ltsmith@mitre

Okay, I'll check, see what I can do.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Return-Path: <ted%nmsu.csnet@RELAY.CS.NET>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 87 10:58:20 MST
From: ted%nmsu.csnet@relay.cs.net
To: AIlist%sri-ai.arpa@nmsu.csnet
Subject: interesting nasa screwup
Resent-Date: Wed 18 Feb 87 09:04:33-PST
Resent-From: Ken Laws <Laws@sri-stripe.arpa>
Resent-To: space@angband.s1.gov

Nasa is apparently about to put all of the Voyager Uranus images on
CDROM.  Unfortunately, due to the way the universe (and the government
work) they will only be making 200 copies.  Because of commitments to
make a larger than strictly necessary number of masters, there is
potential for other planetary image sets to become available in the same
group of disks.

Since the mastering is already being paid for, increasing the number of
copies made should be possible at just the marginal cost of making the
disks (~ $5/disk).  Since NASA is only allowed to count the planetary
science community in their market calculations, they will be making a
ridiculously small number of duplicates.  At the prices involved,
though, they should be making a fairly good sized pressing since there
is considerable latent demand for these images in a wide range of areas.

The format is that of the about to be commercially available CD-ROM disk
format.  Microsoft is rumored to have a driver ready for the devices.

The group to contact to pressure to make more of the disks is the
National Space Science Data Center (NSSDC) at Goddard.  They have a net
address that I don't know.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #157
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09657; Mon, 9 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST
	id AA09657; Mon, 9 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703091103.AA09657@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #158

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #158

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 158

Today's Topics:
		       '65 Scientist-Astronauts
			 CDROM and NASA data
			 Anniversary of NACA
	     Announcement of Opportunity (Official NASA)
	       Next 30 years in space (try this again)
		Re: 50 light years (newsgroup survey)
		       Annual payload to LEO??
			   space elevators
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed 18 Feb 87 17:08:13-PST
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sushi.stanford.edu>
Subject: '65 Scientist-Astronauts
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Someone mentioned to me that there was a recent article in Science about
the first group(?s) of scientist astronauts selected in the mid-late
60s, and about how most of their scientific careers fizzled.

Believe it or not, Science does not index by subject.  Has anybody run
into this article?

	John Sotos
	Stanford AI
	SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 00:54:47 GMT
From: andy@shasta.stanford.edu  (Andy Freeman)
Organization: Stanford University
Subject: CDROM and NASA data
References: <8702181839.AA24877@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Is this in a format that "consumers" can use?  If it isn't, are there
plans for those of us who buy pretty pictures?  (Some of my friends are
serious amateurs, 15-18" reflector and all that, but I'm the one who
bought videos of moonbuggies.)  A friend has a Beta tape of plane
pictures.  Given the ability to single-step, that gives him a huge
"collection".  How about it NASA?

What is the US Mail address of the NASA people who have forgotten that
"consumers" love their results.

Andy Freeman
UUCP:  ...!decwrl!shasta!andy forwards to
ARPA:  andy@sushi.stanford.edu
(415) 329-1718/723-3088 home/cubicle

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 87 16:12:18 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (Rick Kolker)
Subject: Anniversary of NACA

On this date in 1915, the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics
(NACA) was established.

NACA was the precursor for NASA.

  Rich Kolker

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 3 Mar 87 16:43:57 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Announcement of Opportunity (Official NASA)

Please forward to your astronomy and planetary sciences departments

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

Path: ames!telemail!hqnewsroom
From: hqnewsroom@telemail (ED CAMPION)
Subject: RELEASE/AO
Date: 3 Mar 87 15:42:00 GMT

Charles Redmond
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.                     March 3, 1987
(Phone: 202/453-1548)


RELEASE: 87-22

ANNOUNCEMENT OF OPPORTUNITY ISSUED FOR SOLAR-TERRESTRIAL MISSIONS


     NASA and the European Space Agency (ESA) issued an international
announcement of opportunity (AO) on March 1, 1987, to solicit scientific
investigations for two missions.  The missions are: CLUSTER, a four
spacecraft set to study basic plasma processes in the Earth's
magnetosphere and the Solar and Heliospheric Observatory (SOHO), a
spacecraft to study solar processes and solar-terrestrial relationships.

     This announcement for the CLUSTER and SOHO missions, known together
as the Solar Terrestrial Science Programme (STSP), solicits
investigations from the U.S., ESA member states and Canada.  Proposals
are due by July 15, 1987.  Selections are expected by the end of the
year.

     In 1984, NASA, ESA and the Japanese Institute for Space and
Astronautical Science (ISAS) agreed to sponsor studies of an
international effort in sun-Earth interactions for the 1990's known as
the International Solar Terrestrial Physics (ISTP) program.  Endorsed by
the ESA Scientific Programme Committee, STSP is an important element of
plans to implement such an effort.  Another key element is embodied in
the NASA Global Geospace Science program recently proposed to the U.S.
Congress in the FY-1988 budget.  The ISAS element, called the GEOTAIL
mission, has been approved by the Japanese government.

     Both NASA and ESA have established high priority science objectives
to address the outstanding scientific problems in solar, heliospheric
and space plasma physics through a unified and coordinated approach.

     Committees of the U.S. National Academy of Science have stressed
these objectives, for example, in the reports "An Implementation Plan
for Priorities in Solar-System Space Physics" and "National
Solar-Terrestrial Research Program."

      Similarly, the ESA Survey Committee identified these objectives
for the Solar Terrestrial Physics cornerstone of the ESA long-term
science plan in the report "Space Science Horizon 2000".

     Persons wishing to receive a copy of the complete AO package from
NASA or ESA must forward their request to either:

Dr. Stanley Shawhan         Dr. V. Manno
NASA Headquarters           ESA Headquarters
Code EPM-20                 8-10 rue Mario-Nikis
AO No. OSSA-1-1987          75738 Paris CEDEX 15
Washington, D.C. 20546      France
Telex:  89530               Telex:  202145


     This release and other NASA information is available 
electronically through ITT Dialcom.  For access to NASA NEWS 
through this system, contact Jim Hawley, ITT Dialcom, Inc. at 
202/488-0550.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 09:56:48 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Next 30 years in space (try this again)


{Nice to see people start to summarize!}

The person who suggest this topic did not summarize, but I can see
I have a much different view, these are only my opinions, so
send flak to me, not the space-digest.

The thing I wish we could spend more money for would be a comprehensive
SETI program.  I think the biggest question we could answer about space
is not how to go live it, but whether we are alone in the Universe or
not.  To learn we are not alone would overshadow any manned-space
effort we could do in this solar system in the forseeable future
including a manned landing on Charon (Pluto's moon).  This would really
have to be a long term effort, and not one which provide immediate spinoff,
but I leave it for everyone on the net to imagine the consequences.
(For those on the Usenet, I can point to the initial discussion on
Carl Sagan's fiction in Contact and the discussion abotu Pi, a digression).
A signal leaving (earth) right now will travel farther than any ship we could
construct in the next hundred years (probably).

I would like to see a greater unmanned program, both in the orbital
and planetary (especially for the science) arena.  Man-rate (people-
rated?) flight systems are an order of magnitude more expensive
than un-manned systems, and there's lots of work to be done.  I know
this argument has progressed on the net before, so I won't say anymore than
it's amusing to see people who work on things like robotics/computers
push for getting people into space (sort of cutting one's own throat
in some ways).

Lastly, I think we will continue to need a manned (person'ed) program
to do those things which electronics can't provide.  We should certainly
explore our solar system (in crewed flight), have space stations, and so
forth.  Many excellent proposals out there.  We should do so, however,
thinking about the consequences of doing so, and not just wantonly
dumping radioactive wastes, say on the poles of Venus, or what ever.
The people who do this exploration will be a special breed.  We will
probably lose a few more, this is evidable, like colonizing the West,
let's hope we don't make some of the same mistakes.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,nike,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 87 14:39:15 GMT
From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Organization: Software & Electronics Resource Center/3M
Subject: Re: 50 light years (newsgroup survey)
References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, <1269@mmm.UUCP>, <4190@utcsri.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <4190@utcsri.UUCP> james@utcsri.UUCP (James P. Rowell) writes:
>In article <1269@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>>In article <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>> >...  Since these Arks would represent
>> >virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing
>> >civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury
>> >activity" for disposing of surplus wealth.
>>
>>This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a
>>civilization considers projects worthwhile.  I and, I'm sure, many
>>others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind
>>when we support space exploration: species survival.
>
>I don't believe that last statement reflects what "many others" think.
>At least I hope not. 

Let's hear from some people in this newsgroup.  Those of you who
support space exploration, what are your main reasons?  Send me mail
and I'll post a summary.

>What threatens our existence? **For now** it seems that we are really
>the only threat to our existence here.

You have named what I feel is the most serious short-term threat.  As
long as humans live on only one planet, it's possible for a single war
to wipe out the entire species.

However, there are other, long-term threats.  The Earth could be hit by
a comet or asteroid.  Sol might flare up, bathing the Earth in
radiation.  A colony ship from another solar system might show up,
carrying weapons that make ours look like toys, and wipe us out so
they can have our planet.  Things like that.

> The kind of money involved
>in building an "Ark" could much more effectively be used to help
>fix our problems here on Earth.

I admit there are more pressing concerns at the moment than
interstellar colonization.  And it would probably be worthwhile to
first start self-supporting colonies elsewhere in our solar system.

>After all, billions of people (and countless other species) stand
>to benifit from the latter expenditure, and only hundreds with an
>"Ark"...

On the other hand, if we have two planets to live on, we can have twice
as many people, yes?  Billions of people (and countless other species)
can live who would otherwise never have lived.  Why should we only
consider benefits to people already alive?  Since you don't believe in
altruism, I point out that a colony ship could carry the genetic
material of billions of people.

Besides, the building of an interstellar ship will advance
science considerably.  That's of benefit to everyone.

> Furthermore if we can't make it work here on Earth what
>makes you think that we can survive on any other planet?

Let us suppose, for a moment, that we can't make it work here on Earth
(not that I believe it).  Does that mean we should give up and die
without a struggle?  Or should we try again somewhere else?
-- 
 /''`\   DISCLAIMER: Ideas should not be        Andre Guirard
([]-[])     held responsible for the		ihnp4!mmm!cipher
 \ o /      people who believe in them.		Ombro de Sro. Ed.
  `-'

------------------------------

From: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa
Date: 25 Feb 87 12:35:00 EST
Subject: Annual payload to LEO??
Reply-To: <bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa>

Does anyone know the annual tonnage put into low earth orbit? Be
generous, assume that it is 1.5 years ago, with the shuttle running as
best it ever has.  Also, does anyone know (both with and without the
Shuttle running) how this breaks down by country? Also, does anyone know
how much is spent to put these payloads up (total cost/year)?

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 87 23:42:21 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: space elevators
References: <149@iconsys.UUCP>, <450@lewey.AIT.COM>,, <2092@venera.isi.edu>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> 	Anybody have any numbers about necessary tensile strength
> and things like that?

My recollection is that it's within the theoretical maximum strength of
materials, but it is beyond the strength of anything actually made so far,
and far beyond the strength of anything made in useful quantities.  This
is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #158
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11711; Tue, 10 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST
	id AA11711; Tue, 10 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703101103.AA11711@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #159

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #159

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 159

Today's Topics:
	   Latest info on 6th Space Development Conference
				dates
			    MIR/Soyuz TM-2
	       Soviets send Progress 28 to Mir station
		     Re: Annual payload to LEO??
			       Phoenix
			 Re: space elevators
			    used missiles
			  Re: used missiles
		     Space elevators on the Moon?
			 Re: space elevators
			 Re: space elevators
	    Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 1987 22:07-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "/usr/amon/Email/Email.space" <Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>
Subject: Latest info on 6th Space Development Conference

		6th Space Development Conference
		Pittsburgh Hilton, March 27-29, 1987

One of the speakers at the NCOS luncheon on Saturday 3/28/87 will be
Alan Ladwig. Mr Ladwig is currently working with Dr. Sally Ride on the
writing of NASA's Space: 1995 report. He will discuss NASA's approach to
implimentation of the NCOS recommendations. Alan is the NASA employee
who appeared on the David Ledderman Show some 15 months ago. He also
worked closely with the Teacher-in-Space program during the selection
process.

One of the two main speakers at the Saturday 3/38/87 Banquet will be Dr.
Robert Forward. His topic will be "We CAN Go To The Stars". Dr. Forward
is a retiring Senior Scientist with Hughes Research Laboratories, a
former consultant to the Air Force, and the author of the novel
"Dragon's Egg", as well as numerous peer reviewed papers on advanced
propulsion concepts that have admittedly less interesting plots.

Several other major speakers remain to be confirmed and will be
announced as they are closed.

If you are reading this on a bulliten board, you may request a
registration form by

	1) calling 412-351-4973 (conference committee)
	2) calling Forbes Travel Service; Nationally at 800-345-2984;
	   locally at 412-521-7300.
	3) US mailing to the 6th Space Development Conference, PO
	   Box 8391, Pgh PA 15218-0391.
	4) If you wish to risk the vagaries of return mail and the
	   busy schedule of a conference chair, you may request a
	   form by Email from amon@h.cs.cmu.edu

Please feel free to repost this to other systems, public private and
commercial. Pass it around to your friends. And keep in mind that time
is running short.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 87 00:17:24 GMT
From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: dates

I'm adding some space-related dates (firsts and lasts) to my calendar
file, and i've noticed that i have some holes in my data.  In particular,
I'm missing the dates for the LAST moon landing, and the first spacecraft
to orbit Venus.

I notice that i don't have any dates for non-american space-related deaths.

If you have any other dates that might be interesting, you might send them
to me.  If there is sufficient interest, i can summarize and post to the
net.


david rickel
{decwrl,cae780!weitek}!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 87 00:58:08 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Organization: InterComeX/Star Net, Denver
Subject: MIR/Soyuz TM-2
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

Has anyone (Henry?) been keeping up with the MIR/Soyuz TM-2 complex?  I
haven't heard anything since the Soyuz launch on 5 Feb.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 6 Mar 87 11:59:01 est
From: glenn@ll-vlsi (Glenn Chapman)
Subject: Soviets send Progress 28 to Mir station

The Soviet Union announced today (Mar 3) that a Progress 28 cargo craft
had been launched to their Mir space station.  The craft contains about
1.5 tonnes of fuel, air, water, supplies and instruments.  Progress 27
was just undocked last week after the current Soyuz TM-2 crew had been
unloaded it.  This means in the last year Mir has been visited by 4
Progress vehicles, two space crews (with the previous set leaving the
station to visit the Salyut 7 station, then returning), and one unmanned
test vehicle (Soyuz TM-1).  I suspect that this current crew will still
be in orbit for the Oct 4th date of the 30th anniversary of Sputnik 1.
It has been announced that they will be visited by an intercosmos crew
containing a Syrian cosmonaut on July 22.  Also the West Germans have
just signed an agreement with the Russians that includes preliminary
preparations for them flying a cosmonaut to Mir.

It certainly appears that the Soviets are not standing still in space.
Meanwhile we have the Congressional Budget Office wanting to kill both
the space station and the replacement orbiter.  Even those that are
supporting the NASA station are talking about a man tended system now to
keep the cost down (they will have to spend 2-3 billion to develop a
safety capsule otherwise, which of course the Russians do not have to
worry about - they already have one).  Just ask yourself this - which
nation is showing itself to be a truly space faring civilization at the
moment?  Hopefully that will change in the near future.

                  Glenn Chapman
                  MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 87 03:31:01 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Annual payload to LEO??
References: <8702260239.AA05104@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Does anyone know the annual tonnage put into low earth orbit? Be
> generous, assume that it is 1.5 years ago, with the shuttle running as
> best it ever has.  Also, does anyone know (both with and without the
> Shuttle running) how this breaks down by country? ...

The Soviets launch about a million pounds a year.  In a good recent year
(1986 wasn't a good year...), I'd guess that the US total might be about
half that, mostly in the shuttle missions just because it's so much heavier
than everything else.  (I assume we don't count the Shuttle orbiter as
tonnage, since it doesn't *stay* in orbit.)  ESA isn't in that league yet,
I don't think, and the other satellite-launching nations are insignificant
by comparison.

The all-time record holder is probably the US in 1969, with four Apollo
missions (at something like 300,000 pounds per Saturn V launch) and lots
of other activity.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 87 09:16:40 GMT
From: elroy!jplpub1!jbrown@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jordan Brown)
Subject: Phoenix

Anybody heard anything about Gary Hudson lately?  Where is he based?

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 87 12:21:40 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: space elevators

> .......  This
>is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier.

 and the Moon is even easier

>Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

	Bob.
	ERCC.

------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 5 Mar 87 19:50 EST
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
Subject:  used missiles

There's talk of some kind of deal with the soviets about limiting Medium
Range Missiles in Europe (and please lets not have any discussion about
whether such a deal would be good or not.)  If this came about, and
there were a hundred army surplus Pershing II missiles available, does
anyone know if they could be used for something useful, like putting
things in orbit?

The questions are:

1) How much weight could one put in LEO or in geosyncrous orbit.

2) If the answer to (1) is too small, could they be bundled somehow.

3) What launch facilities do they need?  Could they be used as is, in
Europe (assuming this wouldn't be politically unfeasible)?  Could they
be launched from any existing sites?

 Mark Purtill at Multics.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 87 04:19:48 GMT
Subject: Re: used missiles
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
Path: oddhack!jon

In article <870306005020.778982@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA> Purtill@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA (Mark Purtill) writes:
>[Referring to potential surplus Pershing IIs]
>1) How much weight could one put in LEO or in geosyncrous orbit.

	The Air Force is supposed to be converting some of the ~50 Titan
ICBMs that are being (have been?) phased out (after one of these
liquid-fueled monsters blew up in the silo) into launchers. Their
payload to LEO is only a few thousand pounds. Since the Pershings are
intermediate-range missiles, I imagine their LEO capability is very low
(probably 0, in fact).
 
    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 87 07:22:31 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60sB)
Subject: Space elevators on the Moon?

In article <301@its63b.ed.ac.uk> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>> .......  This
>>is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier.
>
> and the Moon is even easier

There a few slight problems with a space elevator on the moon.  The
principle one is that a lunar synchronous orbit is about 400,000 Km.
which is the distance from the Earth to the Moon.  This would be a hell
of a long space elevator.  In most directions from the moon a space
elevator would be in a unstable position (orbit) because of the
gravitational effects of the Earth.  Perhaps directly away from the
Earth might be stable.  The moon's libration would probably make this
unstable too.

Two other possible positions would be to put them to the L4 and L5
points.  Again libration may cause problems, but if you put enough
stretch into them, they might work.

Dan Tilque
dant@tekla.tek.com

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 87 18:05:36 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: space elevators

In article <301@its63b.ed.ac.uk> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
 >> .......  This
 >>is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier.
 > and the Moon is even easier

No, it doesn't rotate fast enough to provide enough force to hold it up.
Mars provides low gravity, combined with a moderately fast rotation
rate.  Too bad we aren't there to take advantage of it.

 David Messer - Lynx Data Systems

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 87 05:53:02 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: space elevators

In article <634@viper.UUCP>, dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes:
> In article <301@its63b.ed.ac.uk> bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (Bob Gray) writes:
>  >> .......  This
>  >>is for a space elevator on Earth, mind you -- Mars is easier.
>  >
>  > and the Moon is even easier
> 
> No, it doesn't rotate fast enough to provide enough force to
> hold it up.

	Just extend the space elevator towards the Earth beyond the
point where Earth's gravity is stronger than the Moon's.  Only spin
needed is that of the Moon around the Earth, to keep those apart (now
that would stink if that quit on us, wouldn't it. . .).

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 87 06:15:16 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?


	Setting up a space elevator on the Moon by the analog of the
geosynchronous satellite method would be harder than setting it up
around Earth for a given difficulty of obtaining the materials because
you would have to have your satellite at one of the unstable libration
points (I don't remember the numbers, but they are the one between the
Moon and the Earth and the one on the other side of the Moon from that)
and then remove it, move it considerably further away from the Moon, or
install something heavier than it on the outer end of the elevator to
keep the instability of those libration points from trashing the
elevator.

	On the other hand, setting it up by the wire-towing rocket
method would be easier because the rocket (or mass-driver) has to fight
much less gravity and need not go as far, and does not have to contend
with an atmosphere.

	Coriolis effects would be less of a problem with a Lunar space
elevator because the rotational period is 29.5 days instead of 1 day,
and the elevator is shorter.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #159
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13592; Wed, 11 Mar 87 03:03:22 PST
	id AA13592; Wed, 11 Mar 87 03:03:22 PST
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 87 03:03:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703111103.AA13592@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #160

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 11 Mar 87 03:03:22 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #160

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 160

Today's Topics:
       Josephson junction chip exists (was Re: Want to bet ...)
	    Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?
			   Space Elevators
			   Re: Star Travel
			   Re: Star Travel
			   Re: Star Travel
			   Re: Star Travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon 9 Mar 87 18:33:40-CST
From: Larry Van Sickle <CS.VANSICKLE@r20.utexas.edu>
Subject: Josephson junction chip exists (was Re: Want to bet ...)

> > Then there are Josephson junctions ...
> [it is] very hard to build JJ LSI ... IBM concluded that
> the problem wasn't fixable.

See Electronics, February 19, 1987, page 49 for several articles on a
working Josephson junction signal processing computer.  The machine is
build by Hypres Inc. and cools just a portion of a chip by spraying
liquid helium on it.

Larry Van Sickle
cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu.#Internet
Computer Sciences Department
U of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 87 17:52:21 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?

>   LUCIUS CHIARAVIGLIO: How do you get a space elevator
>   started?...  1.  Launch a very powerful rocket towing a very
>   long wire spun out from a spool on the rocket; the rocket would
>   proceed to a circular geosynchronous orbit larger than the
>   standard geosynchronous orbit, ...  so that things could climb
>   up or be hauled up the cable without pulling the rocket down.
>   2.  Put a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, and have it spin
>   out cables both toward and away from Earth...  

Huh? There seems to be something fishy here.

1) When you use the elevator to lift a payload to orbit, its angular
momentum cannot come from the radial pull of the cable.  Indeed, that is
what the Coriolis force is all about.  The angular momentum will
eventually come entirely from the "small correcting rockets" (either on
the car or on the cable) neede to counterbalance the Coriolis force.
The impulse will be spread out over a longer period (several weeks to
GEO), but would that make a difference in terms of fuel?

2) My limited knowledge of physics tells me that a space elevator would
be in an unstable equilibrium: any small motion towards the Earth (e.g.
if the cable stretches down a little bit) will increase the
gravitational pull.  If the cable were unconstrained, that would make it
turn faster, and the increased centrifugal force would throw it back to
the original height, as happens to any satellite.  However, if the
angular velocity is kept fixed by correcting rockets, the centrifugal
force will DECREASE, and the whole thing will fall back to Earth.  Is
that so?

3) The same observation applies when you start lifting a mass with the
elevator.  Since the pull on the cable got bigger, you must increase the
centrifugal force to keep the elevator up.  That means you need a RADIAL
"correcting rocket" to lift the the elevator a little bit.  Also, before
the cable adjusts to the load, it probably will stretch down a couple of
kilometers.  It seems you will need such rockets everywhere along the
cable.  How much thrust do you need to lift the car and restore the
elevator to its original state?  Why is that less than the thrust you
would need to lift the car without the elevator?

I can believe that a space elevator would be a good way to trade an
existing mass in orbit (e.g., an artificially captured asteroid) with
mass on Earth.  However, if you launch the whole thing from Earth, can
you still make it work?  I.e., can you use it to pull more mass up,
without pulling the elevator down at the same time?

Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decvax!decwrl!stolfi)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 87 19:05:11 GMT
From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Chassin)
Subject: Space Elevators

I may be wrooooooong but I would think that for any usual distance the
weight of the cable itself would be far greater than the way of whatever
your lifting, meaning it would have to be HUGE at the station. Maybe
someone has done this calculation. I'd be curious to see how it turns out.

DPC

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 87 01:20:04 GMT
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com  (Jay Freeman)
Organization: Schlumberger Palo Alto Research - CASLAB
Subject: Re: Star Travel
References: <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

With respect to the usefulness of the Bussard ramjet, one interesting
point is that interstellar matter is highly inhomogeneous.  The
too-low-density bug might better be reinvestigated as "how far is the
nearest high-density region of the interstellar medium?"

No, I don't know either.  About seven years ago, there was some stuff in
the professional astronomy literature that suggested that perhaps the
solar system was not too far from a dense region.  However, I have not
kept track of the issue.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 07:55:09 GMT
From: dayton!viper!dave@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (David Messer)
Organization: Lynx Data Systems, Minneapolis, MN
Subject: Re: Star Travel
References: <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
 >  Back in 1975, I was rummaging
 >around the UC Berkeley engineering library and found an obscure paper by
 >R.W. Bussard, entitled "Galactic Matter and Interstellar Flight",
 >Astronautica Acta, 6, 179-194 (1960).  In this paper, Bussard described
 >the "interstellar ramjet".  . . .
 >  However his idea had two killer bugs that were
 >immediately apparent.  One is, he assumned an interstellar hydrogen
 >density of 1.0E3 particles per cubic centimeter.  The other bug was
 >he assumned **all** of the hydrogen could be burned in a fusion
 >reactor.
 
The first "bug" is a real problem.  Of course, there is always the
possibility of denser clouds of matter that the ship can fly through.

The second "bug" may be have a solution.  Just because "protium" only
undergoes fusion naturally in the core of stars doesn't imply that it is
impossible to do it any other way.  Muon catalyzed fusion is one
possibility.

 >I then performed a calculation myself and determined that the
 >electromagnetic field strengths necessary to attract the hydrogen would
 >cause structural failure of the vehicle (by orders of magnitude) even if
 >it was made out of diamond.
 
Depends on the design.  You don't have to assume that the vehicle is
enveloped by the field.

 >These are the obvious killer bugs for Bussard's idea.
 
Not obvious.  Certainly problems to be solved.

 >Unfortunately we must
 >assign the Bussard Ram Jet to that pile where one will find such other
 >clever ideas like the perpetual motion machine, the FTL drive, and the
 >anti-gravity drive.

Hardly.  There is nothing in THEORY that makes Bussard's idea impossible
-- only engineering problems.  It may well be impractible to do, but
there is nothing (except possibly the low density of hydrogen) that
makes it impossible.

 >It is depressing to see that despite being able
 >to rigorously prove the Bussard Ram Jet is unworkable, ...
 
Many other things have been "rigorously" proven to be unworkable -- such
as flying past the speed of sound.

 >People have been kicking antimatter
 >around for sometime.  I'll let another reader of Space Digest attack
 >this one since it's pretty easy to shoot down.
 
What is wrong with anti-matter?  Certainly if one had a supply of
anti-matter, it would be a very consentrated source of energy.  Since we
know how to make anti-particles, and we can have an almost unlimited
supply of energy (solar-power) to make them with, the problem really is
only in storage; and there are several possible ways to do that.

 >Because of the "Fermi Paradox", I suspect
 >that there are no new "rabbits" in the hat.   The Fermi Paradox is:  "We
 >are on the verge of being able to travel to the stars.  The sun is a
 >common star and the earth is not unusual.

Earth is unusual in at least two ways: it has a huge moon, and it is the
only planet we know that has life on it.  The later may be a circular
argument, but there may be some other factor that we haven't discovered
yet that makes life unusual.

 >The Fermi paradox tells us that speeds of
 >greater than 10 Psol (percent speed of light) are unobtainable for a
 >manned vehicle.

I don't know where you got that figure, but there are other reasons to
think that there are no other intelligent species nearby.  For instance,
we are capable of communicating by radio out to several hundred
light-years and yet we haven't picked up any signals.  Why is this?  It
has nothing to do with the possibility of star-travel.

 >At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a
 >civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star
 
Why is that?  If the species survives it will keep on expanding.

Of course there is the argument that no species ever, or rarely,
survives developing the ability to destroy itself.  If so, let us hope
that we are a rare species.

 David Messer - Lynx Data Systems

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 87 06:27:50 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Ctr., Cambridge, MA
Subject: Re: Star Travel
References: <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov>, <551@viper.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <551@viper.UUCP>, dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes:
[Name of ">  >" person lost]
>  >                                   . . .Also most interstellar hydrogen
>  >is protium which is an isotope that will undergo fusion **only** within
>  >the core of stars through a nuclear catalytic cycle (the so called Bethe
>  >cycle).
	. . .
> The second "bug" may be have a solution.  Just because "protium"
> only undergoes fusion naturally in the core of stars doesn't
> imply that it is impossible to do it any other way.  Muon
> catalyzed fusion is one possibility.

	Unfortunately, research to date has shown that with the exception of
deuterium-tritium mixtures, muon-catalyzed fusion will not work because the
muon tends to get trapped in orbit around the fusion product before it has
catalyzed enough fusions to pay for itself.  Additionally, I think it also
showed that it won't work period for pure hydrogen-1 (makes sense -- helium-2
is unstable, and probably won't decay to deuterium unless the protons are
pulled even closer together than a muon could achieve).  Additionally, muon-
catalyzed fusion requires low temperatures (1500`K is optimum -- above that
the muonic molecule-ions begin to not be able to hold together), and in an
interstellar ramjet the captured hydrogen would certainly be very hot due to
the high speed of the ship; in order to capture it without heating it you
would have to extract its relative kinetic energy, do the fusion, and then
somehow put the extracted kinetic energy back into the exhaust without losing
too much due to various inefficiencies.  The source for all of the information
in this paragraph not directly related to the interstellar ramjet is an
article in the issue of Nature early in the fall that had a picture of bubbles
or bits of styrofoam circulating in air vortices (can't remember the exact
date of the issue, although if someone really wants I suppose I could dig
through all those back issues).

>  >It is depressing to see that despite being able
>  >to rigorously prove the Bussard Ram Jet is unworkable, ...
>  
> Many other things have been "rigorously" proven to be unworkable --
> such as flying past the speed of sound.

	Hear, hear!  So has FTL travel, for that matter. . . .

>  >People have been kicking antimatter
>  >around for sometime.  I'll let another reader of Space Digest attack
>  >this one since it's pretty easy to shoot down.
>  
> What is wrong with anti-matter?  Certainly if one had a supply
> of anti-matter, it would be a very con[c]entrated source of energy.
> Since we know how to make anti-particles, and we can have an
> almost unlimited supply of energy (solar-power) to make them
> with, the problem really is only in storage; and there are
> several possible ways to do that.

	Exactly.  An antimatter/matter reaction system is an excellent
battery.  Of course, if we could find some way to catalyze proton decay or do
something like that we might not even have to settle for a battery. . . .

-- 
	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out
of this system is unreliable).  Please send only to the address given above.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 87 06:10:40 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!bpdickson@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: Star Travel

In article <551@viper.UUCP> dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes:
>In article <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>
> >In actuality, interstellar hydrogen (as Geoffrey correctly
> >pointed out) is only 0.1 particles/cc.
> 
>The first "bug" is a real problem.  Of course, there is always the
>possibility of denser clouds of matter that the ship can fly
>through.

The density of hydrogen is greater very close to stars :-). But
seriously, while passing a star (not too close), one could conceiveably
collect hydrogen for fuel, or even modify the magnetic field so as to
drastically increase the energy output, and convert energy to antimatter
(as previous poster made reference to).

> >... if it was made out of diamond.
This idea appeals to me $-). Also has many nice properties.
 
>Since we know how to make anti-particles, and we can have an
>almost unlimited supply of energy (solar-power) to make them
>with, the problem really is only in storage.

Yeah! Presumably, with the technology for creating the Bussard field,
one could create a very good magnetic bottle for the antimatter (and
keep it far away from the crew :-) and create a magnetic shield for the
crew.  (See some of Larry Nivens stories for related stuff).

By the way, Bussard was smart enough to patent his design. That's why
Niven refers to it as a Bussard ramjet. Keep this in mind if you plan on
building one of your own (no smiley face; they have made alloys which
become superconductors at liquid nitrogen temperatures).

Brian Dickson
(BiPeD)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #160
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16418; Thu, 12 Mar 87 03:03:36 PST
	id AA16418; Thu, 12 Mar 87 03:03:36 PST
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 87 03:03:36 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703121103.AA16418@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #161

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 161

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Where is Gary Hudsen?
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #151
			     Star Travel
	       Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter
	     Re: How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven?
	     Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter
		       Laser Sails, Antimatter
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 1987 01:06-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Where is Gary Hudsen?

	When I talked to him yesterday he was in California :-)

------------------------------

Date:  2 Mar 1987 21:23-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #151

Gary Allen: If you want to feel less depressed about star travel ideas,
please come to our conference and listen to Dr. Forward talk about "We
CAN go to the Stars." Then you can have fun disproving it all. Ought to
keep the star travel topic going for a few months, at least...

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  2 Mar 87 22:27:43 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Star Travel
To: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

I am nowhere near as pessimistic about star travel.  It is true there
are problems with Bussard's ramjet ideas, but that only explains why we
haven't built it already.

It is not true that hydrogen 1 will fuse only in the core of stars.  It
does take  higher pressures and temperatures, but we may be able to
achieve them someday, or avoid the necessity via fusion catalyzed by
muons or monopoles or quantum black holes or something.

Regarding electromagnetic field strengths destroying the starship, it
depends on how they are applied.  Laser beams, for instance, are
electromagnetic fields that are highly directional.  This month's
_Scientific American_ has an article in which laser cooling of
low density gas is described.  It is also mentioned that the gas is
stored with electromagnetic fields, which until recently was thought
impossible for NON-ionized gas, which is what they are using, and which
is what interstellar space is believed to be filled with.  I suspect
that your calculations assumed an omnidirectional electromagnetic field.
Even that would not necessarily wreck the ship.  Fields can be held with
other fields, etc, until you get one that can be held with mere steel.
Sound impossible?  If I knew all the details I wouldn't be discussing
it, I would be building it or flying it.  But your argument sounds about
as valid as arguing that people can never create arbitrary and large
shapes out of steel and titanium because we are small and soft and
intolerant of extreme temperatures and pressures.

Nobody knows the density of interstellar dust grains.  It might be small
enough that we needn't worry.  Or the same fields which put hydrogen
where it is needed might push aside the dust as a side effect.  Or the
dust might go in with the hydrogen and be burned up in the fusion flame.
Or a protective hull might be used, that we don't mind eroding away,
perhaps an iceberg.

Bussard's idea may never be practical.  But it does not belong on the
same pile with perpetual motion and FTL travel, which, unless we are
extremely mistaken about the nature of the universe, are truly
impossible, impossible like adding two odd numbers to get an odd number.
I don't think Bussard ramjets are in that class.

I would like to hear your critique of antimatter, since I don't think it
is "pretty easy to shoot down".

There are plenty of other promising approaches to star travel besides
the Bussard ramjet, without requiring FTL or tachyons or anti-gravity
or negative mass or even monopoles.

The Fermi paradox is not a good argument against the possibility of star
travel.  This was discussed a few month ago on this list, and people
came up with many possible reasons why we haven't been visited.  I won't
describe them here, except to mention that we might be the "elder race"
(SOMEONE has got to do it), and to argue that since nobody has ever
(that we know of) invented star travel that star travel is impossible,
is as silly as making the similar argument, restricted to earth, against
all proposed new inventions and discoveries.  Didn't they tell Columbus
that if there was another continent, someone else would surely have
discovered it by now?  (In fact, someone else HAD, but that's not the
point).

I don't see why non-relativistic space flight precludes colonies more
than 50 light years from home.  Life has been on Earth for 3500 million
years.  If life started elsewhere one percent sooner, or developed one
percent faster, the aliens would be 35 million years ahead of us.  Had
they started non-relativistic colonization in their equivalent of the
21st century - or 91st century for that matter - and had they spread no
faster than our own space probes now leave the solar system, they would
now have colonies thousands of light years from home.

There are good arguments against star travel ever being possible.  I
might be swayed by them if not for the fact that I have read equally
persuasive arguments against travel to the moon and against manned
flight through the air.  Obviously, these arguments had flaws.  But
it often wasn't possible to spot the flaws until shortly before the
"impossible" technology was developed.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 09 Mar 87 09:44:24 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter

In an earlier posting I claimed that there are only two hopes for star
travel, namely:  nuclear fusion (IFR systems), or a Grand Unification
Theory "rabbit out of the hat".  Paul Dietz raised a third possibilty:
Light sails propelled by a laser.  This is an idea Robert Forward has
been promoting.  However I don't think it'll work for two reasons:  1)
The laser light will red-shift as the light sail accelerates away from
the laser.  Since light momentum is inversely proportional to
wavelength, then as the light red-shifts it will be delivering less
momentum to the vehicle.  2)  Beam divergence is dependent on laser rod
width divided by length.  Therefore the light beam from a finite laser
**must** diverge.  All you can do is minimize this divergence.  Your
laser will probably be throwing out terrawatts in order to have any
effect.  Let's assume a laser rod diameter of one meter and a sail
diameter of 10 km.  Assume the light sail is one light year away (Alpha
Centuri is a little over 4 l.y. away).  How long must the laser be to
illuminate only the sail and not empty space?  Answer:  The laser must
be 1.0e9 km long.  The other obvious problems are: How would you
construct such a laser?  Where would you get the energy?  How do you
build the sail?  How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a
light year away?  I'm afraid this idea can be set next to the Bussard
ramscoop as a no-starter. By the way, I really do believe in solar sails
for travel **within** the orbit of Jupiter.  With one solar sail you
could fly back and forth to Mars as many times as you like since it
consumes no fuel.  However solar sails are limited by a dimensionless
number called "lightness number".  This puts a definite upper bound on
payload.  Paul commented briefly on antimatter.  Paul surprized me by
not examining the problem of the high energy gamma rays that are
produced by antimatter reactions.  This is only the number three
problem.  Number one:  How do you make the stuff?  Number two:  How do
you store the stuff?  (remember quantum theory proves that no container
is 100% effective).  The problem with the gammas strikes me as an
absolute show stopper.  Not only will you be required to have tons of
shielding but you'll have to somehow convert this deadly energy into
useful thrust.  On top of that you'll have vigorous photon
disintegration occuring within the thrust chamber.  The gammas will be
literally eating away your starship.  I'm still convinced that nuclear
fusion is the only currently viable means for getting out of the solar
system and for economicly industrializing the solar system.
                                             Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 87 08:36:29 GMT
From: dayton!viper!dave@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven?

In article <8703082041.AA08372@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
 >Suprisingly, this is not the best.  That honor goes to a dark horse --
 >muon catalyzed fusion.  Recent measurements in hot compressed DT 
 >gas show that one negative muon catalyzes about 150 to 170 fusions
 >before it decays.  Each negative muon costs about 5 GeV to produce; at
 >about 20 MeV per fusion (counting heat generated in the lithium blanket)
 >this gives a Q of between .6 and .7.  It will be necessary to reach ~1200
 >fusions/muon to make a pure fusion reactor economical, but even at current

I had an idea about the losses associated with the generatation and
eventual capture of the muon's in muon-catalyzed-fusion.  (As I
understand it, the principle loss with this method is that the muons
eventually are capture by the helium nucleouses which are the product of
the fusion reactions -- thus preventing the muons from participating in
further fusions.)

In any event, wouldn't it be possible to save the anti-muons which are
created along with the usable muons, and inject them back into the
reaction to anhilate those muons?  This would allow recovery of at least
some of the energy that was used in creating the muons.

(If this is a usable idea -- doubtful since physics isn't even remotely
my field -- I give it away freely.  I WANT fusion.)

 David Messer - Lynx Data Systems

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 87 18:17:46 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter

In article <8703090847.AA09338@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
 >In an earlier posting I claimed that there are only two hopes for star
 >travel, namely:  nuclear fusion (IFR systems), or a Grand Unification
 >Theory "rabbit out of the hat".  Paul Dietz raised a third possibilty:
 >Light sails propelled by a laser. . . .
 
You make two assumptions here that may not be valid.  1) That the
light-sail system needs to be useful at light-year distances, and 2)
That it needs to illuminate only the sail.  The first assumtion is
invalid if enough acceleration can be obtained at a closer distance.
The second assumtion is simply invalid; given power to spare (and we
have that with solar-power) you can simply build enough lasers so that
the amount of light falling on the sail remains useful.  This also
handles your objection to the red-shifting of the laser light.

 >The other obvious problems are: How would you
 >construct such a laser?  Where would you get the energy?  How do you
 >build the sail?  How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a
 >light year away?
 
If all the problems were solved, there wouldn't be any need to discuss
it.  If ideas could be dismissed because they have unsolved problems
then we wouldn't get anything done.

 >I'm afraid this idea can be set next to the Bussard
 >I'm still convinced that nuclear
 >fusion is the only currently viable means for getting out of the solar
 >system and for economicly industrializing the solar system.

I am surprised that you feel this way -- after all, there are
problems with fusion as well.

 David Messer - Lynx Data Systems

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 9 Mar 87 18:17 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Laser Sails, Antimatter

Response to Gary Allen:

> The laser light will red-shift as the light sail accelerates away from
> the laser.  Since light momentum is inversely proportional to
> wavelength, then as the light red-shifts it will be delivering less
> momentum to the vehicle.

But more energy.  A photon reflected off the sail is red shifted twice,
so it ends up with only (1-b)/(1+b) of its original energy, b = v/c, v =
speed of the sail.  The fraction of energy transfered to the vehicle is
2b/(1+b), which approaches 1 as v --> c (assuming all photons are
reflected at 180 degrees; photons reflected at slightly lower angles in
the sail's frame of reference get abberated forward in the laser's frame
of reference, as does radiated waste heat).

Thrust does go down.  This is a consequence of the fact that it takes
more energy to accelerate a fast moving object than a slow moving one.
However, since thrust is typically limited by sail heating, we can
increase laser power as b increases.  If the sail is always kept at its
maximum temperature, beam power in the sail's frame of reference will be
constant, so thrust will be constant (assuming sail reflectivity is
independent of frequency; I think (?) reflectivity typically increases
with increasing wavelength.)

>  Beam divergence is dependent on laser rod
> width divided by length. . . .

Gary's beam divergence analysis is totally wrong (I suggest he apply the
same reasoning to radar antennas).  Gary's 1 meter aperture would suffer
extreme diffraction spreading.  The transmitter will likely use a phased
array of smaller lasers.  The lasers beams might be put in phase by
using a remote reference laser placed perhaps 1000 AU downrange from the
transmitter.  It transmits a reference beam that is phase conjugated and
amplified.  This is similar to the scheme proposed for aiming microwaves
from a powersat.  The sail is perhaps 300 km wide, as is the laser
array.  With a wavelength of .3 microns, the beam can in principle be
focused out to about eight light years.

>  The other obvious problems are: How would you
> construct such a laser?  Where would you get the energy?  How do you
> build the sail?  How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a
> light year away?  I'm afraid this idea can be set next to the Bussard
> ramscoop as a no-starter.

These are difficult problems, but they are not obviously impossible.
Certainly they are not in the same league as the problems with the
original Bussard ramjet, where theoretically impossible material
strengths and nuclear reactions are required.

Tracking can be done by flying the vehicle on a preplanned course with
active self guidance (tiltable sections in the sail provide
maneuvering).  This only requires that the beam not change direction
suddenly, not that it track a distant target.  Energy can be supplied by
many very large solar powersats, or by something better if it is
developed.  This requires a large investment, but no rabbit tricks.

Other problems I mention for sake of honesty: mechanical coupling of
thrust from the sail to the vehicle, stiffening the sail, destruction of
sail components by sputtering, deflection of the beam by the gravity of
planets in near-solar space, security (that laser could do major damage
anywhere in the solar system if used as a weapon) and, of course,
deceleration at the end.  The last probably imposes the strictest upper
limit on speed, although for long trips one might coast most of the way
at high speed then slow down gradually by deploying a thin mesh plasma
brake.  Travelling to Alpha Centauri, it may be possible to slow down in
Alpha C's plasma tail, since the interstellar wind is coming from
Centaurus and the plasma tail should be pointing nearly in our
direction.

Gary also commented on antimatter:

> Paul commented briefly on antimatter.  Paul surprized me by
> not examining the problem of the high energy gamma rays that are
> produced by antimatter reactions.

Clearly, these can be stopped by shielding.  This imposes a limit on the
power density of the engine, since waste heat will have to be expelled,
but imposes no crippling limit on exhaust velocity (if one is willing to
tolerate low thrust).  Gary may not realize that most of the energy
produced in antimatter annihilation comes off as charged particles
(pions mostly) or neutrinos, with only a fraction as gamma rays from
neutral pion decay and positron annihilation.

>  This is only the number three
> problem.  Number one:  How do you make the stuff?  Number two:  How do
> you store the stuff?  (remember quantum theory proves that no container
> is 100% effective).

Antimatter is made in accelerators, by bombarding targets with energetic
protons.  Much cleverness is needed to collect, sort and cool the
antiprotons that are produced, but this is only (!) an engineering
problem.  Efficiencies of up to .1% have been talked about (this is far
above current efficiencies, but current antiproton factories are not
designed with very high efficiency in mind; an efficient factory would
use a superconducting linac rather than a synchrotron to produce the
primary beam, and would capture many more of the antiprotons).  Whether
these factories will have exorbinant capital costs is not clear.

How do we store antimatter?  Neutralize the antiprotons with positrons
and collect the atoms to form solid antihydrogen.  Suspend and move the
antihydrogen by its diamagnetism (all this in microgravity anyway).
Very good vacuum and low temperatures are required, but I don't see why
(perhaps bulky) containment chambers cannot be designed.  Gary's final
comment aside, 100% effective confinement is not needed -- only
99.99...% effective confinement.  How many nines we need will tell us
how hard the task will be.  For a starship, antilithium hydride is
probably needed to reduce tank mass.

>   The problem with the gammas strikes me as an
> absolute show stopper.  Not only will you be required to have tons of
> shielding but you'll have to somehow convert this deadly energy into
> useful thrust. 

(And I suppose the radiation from a fusion rocket is not "deadly"?)
Energy from photons escapes to space or gets radiated as waste heat.
One uses the charged particles produced to heat larger quantities of
normal matter, which is expelled as a plasma.  The hard part is getting
the antimatter to react fast enough before it gets blown out the nozzle.

> On top of that you'll have vigorous photon
> disintegration occuring within the thrust chamber.  The gammas will be
> literally eating away your starship.

Photons will cause some transmutation in the reaction chamber, but with
low aspect ratio shields the rate of such reactions should be much lower
than the rate of fuel consumption.  Carry several changes of shielding
mass, if necessary; the mass wouldn't be that great.

I personally feel light sails are more feasible than antimatter rockets
(if only because they are much more efficient, when antimatter
production efficiencies are included).  Neither concept can be judged to
be obviously impossible at this point.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #161
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19208; Fri, 13 Mar 87 03:03:23 PST
	id AA19208; Fri, 13 Mar 87 03:03:23 PST
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 03:03:23 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703131103.AA19208@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #162

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 162

Today's Topics:
			     Space Travel
	     Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter
		 Some comments on anti-matter storage
			     Star Drives
	       UFOs and other Unproven Fictious Objects
	     Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter
			   Re: Star Travel
	   Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 87 18:33:43 GMT
From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Chassin)
Subject: Space Travel

I've been watching the discussion about space travel and the Fermi
Paradox for a while now, and I would like to make some points.

I see a serious lack of 'scientific method' here. Many people have
been basing arguments solely on plausibility. This is ridiculous
reasoning, and I think it achieves nothing. I would and do reject
any line of reason which concludes: 'and this seems plausible'.
It seems to me like science has become counter-cultural and has to
turn to belief for a basis. This rings strangely like the Weimar
period in German physics. We must reason based on evidence gathered
in the past years. I believe there is plenty of evidence to back both
sides of the argument, making it unnecessary to rely on plausibility.

Please let's be more rigorous, and forget the rhetorics... the content
is what's really important.


David P. Chassin

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 87 03:46:58 GMT
From: cbatt!gatech!hubcap!beede@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Beede)
Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter

in article <8703090847.AA09338@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET says:
> . . . .  2)  Beam divergence is dependent on laser rod
> width divided by length.  Therefore the light beam from a finite laser
> **must** diverge. . . . .
> . . . .  Let's assume a laser rod diameter of one meter and a sail
> diameter of 10 km.  Assume the light sail is one light year away (Alpha
> Centuri is a little over 4 l.y. away).  How long must the laser be to
> illuminate only the sail and not empty space?  Answer:  The laser must
> be 1.0e9 km long.  . . .

I am not a physics type, but is there a fundamental reason that we
need to use a single large rod?  E.g., a bundle of .1mm rods 1e5km in
length (long, but not any billion K) would have a length to width ratio
equal to that in the example.  Surely the engineers could overcome a
minor difficulty such as stiffening such a beastie {-:, and keeping
it oriented.

Mike Beede		   UUCP: . . . ! gatech!hubcap!beede

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 12:29:19 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Some comments on anti-matter storage

In an earlier posting I attacked Paul Dietz's idea of a laser
propelled light sail by going through a beam dispersion analysis based
on a single rod laser.  Paul correctly pointed out that this analysis
was wrong since the laser light would come from a phased array of lasers
and not from a single rod.  However Paul then went on to say that this
array could be focused to 8 light years (which I find very hard to
believe).  Electrical engineers out there in ARPA-Land a question for
you:  Is such a tight beam possible?  Since Paul has fair-and-squarely
shot me down on my single rod analysis I shall counter-attack in another
area.  Paul claimed that anti-hydrogen could be stored in a vacuum
container by being suspended through paramagnetism.  I will not address
the question of heating and melting of the anti-hydrogen by magnetic
eddy currents (though this is a problem).  Instead I'll show that this
is impossible due to vacuum constraints.  The best vacuum known is
in interstellar space which is 0.1 particles per cubic centimeter.  The
interplanetary vacuum is 1000 particle/cc.  Low Earth orbit vacuum
at 120 km is 1.0E11 particles/cc.  The best current artifical vacuum
is at about 1.0E10 particles per cc.  Let us assume that through the
marvels of technology an artificial vacuum of 1000 particles/cc is
possible (a seven orders of magnitude improvement).  One **might**
achieve such a vaccum inside a diamond container heated to several
thousand degrees and then cooled to near zero degrees kelvin.  One could
take this container to interstellar space, open-and-close it and then
bring it back to Earth (I don't think it's possible to artifically pump
it down). The 1000 particles/cc would represent a free molecular carbon
gas. Now let us place a tiny dust mote of frozen anti-hydrogen into this
container and suspend it in the center.  Let the anti-hydrogen have a
surface area of 1.0E-11 square meters.  Assume that the carbon gas is at
1 degree Kelvin (in truth it will be much hotter).  The thermal velocity
of the gas will be 1 meter/sec.  From this we calculate that 1.0e-3
particles/sec will impact the anti-hydrogen delivering 1.0e-5 ergs/sec.
Assume that most of the heat is absorbed in the anti-hydrogen.  The only
means of dumping the heat is through black body radiation.  Assume that
the hydrogen is a perfect black body (a generous assumption).  By
Stefan's law the hydrogen must have a temperature of greater than 50
degrees kelvin in order to reject the accumulating heat from the
matter/anti-matter reactions.  The boiling point for hydrogen is 21
degrees kelvin.  Of course the paramagnetism will have been lost
when the anti-hydrogen melted.  We observe that a thermal runaway will
occur in this problem.  The black body radiation must impinge on the
walls of the vacuum container which will liberate even more carbon.
Also there will be outgassing of the anti-hydrogen which will heat the
walls of the container and liberate even more gaseous carbon.  In
summary the idea doesn't work because a perfect vacuum in a closed
container is impossible.  Possible fixes for this problem would be
to make a hunk of anti-aluminum and suspend that in the center (it is
also paramagnetic and has a much higher melting point).  How do you
make anti-aluminum?  Answer:  I don't have a clue.  Another fix is
to suspend the antimatter in front of the spacecraft and insist
that the spacecraft doesn't leave interstellar space.  However this
seems rather silly to have a spaceship that can't leave interstellar
space.  Apologies to Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, but it looks like
antimatter storage doesn't work.
                                    Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 09:11:29 PST
From: ota@galileo.s1.gov
Cc: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net
Cc: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu, ota@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Star Drives

I'm a bit surprised that neither Paul Dietz nor Gary Allen appear to
have read Robert Forward's work on either anitmatter drives or
lightsails.  I must agree with Dale Amon that you read his work.  I have
two old papers on this subject, but I have seen a recent Air Force study
that Forward wrote on antimatter and "The Flight of the Dragonfly"
covers the lightsail idea and is also more recent.

I'll summarize some of the interesting tidbits from these old papers.

Robert L. Forward, "Antimatter Propulsion", Hughes Research Laboratories -
    Malibu, Research Report 549, November 1981.

The main trick with avoiding gammas is to have the magnetic nozzle do
most of it work before the charged pions decay.  You have 70 nsec of
time to do this which means about 21 centimeters of space.

The technique for cooling and storing the neutral antihydrogen is to use
what Forward calls "resonant radiation cooling and capture".  This is
discussed in the March 87 SciAm.

Forward, "Roundtrip Interstellar Travel using Laser-Pushed Lightsails",
    Hughes Research Laboratories - Malibu, Research Report 550, January 1982.

The basic idea here is to put the laser near the sun, perhaps pumped
directly with solar radiation.  The diameter of the actual laser is not
critical.  This laser could use a laser from the lightsail as a guide
beam for tracking and distortion correction.  A similar scheme is being
investigated for the SDI using phase conjugation to correct for
atmospheric distortion.

The laser beam is directed to a final transmitting lens between the
orbit of Saturn and Uranus.  This lens is a Fresnel zone plate which
alternates zones of vacuum (index 1) and plastic (index ~ 1.5).  This
lens has a diameter of 1000km and masses 560,000 tons, assuming a
wavelength of 1um.  This combination has a spot size of 98km at 4.3 ly.

To accomplish the deacceleration at the other end the lightsail is cut
1/3 of the way out from the center to leave two sails.  The inner one
has an area of 1/10 and deaccelerates in the light reflected by outer
part.  The outer ring has 9/10 the original area and continues
accelecerating.  Because of the ratio of areas and masses the inner sail
deaccelerates at 10 times the rate that the outer reflector accelerates.
The two stage system only works one-way.  A three stage system would
allow a round trip mission.

Anyway, this is a very brief summary.  You are encouraged to go out and
check the original material.  "The Flight of the Dragonfly" has a
technical appendix and should be available in most bookstores.

	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 21:56:42 PST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: UFOs and other Unproven Fictious Objects

<HS> Date: 3 Mar 87 02:35:44 GMT
<HS> From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question

> It's interesting to see a scientific community assuming that some
> phenomenon doesn't exist simply because there's no absolute proof
> that it does...

<HS> It's interesting to see the True Believers assuming the existence of
<HS> some phenomenon when there is *no* trustworthy evidence for it.

I second that reply, and want to add to it: There are innumerable
random ideas people come up with. Mathematicians come up with abstract
groups and fields etc. Physicists come up with guage theories etc.
Science fiction writers come up with totally off-the-wall ideas.
Theologians come up with some pretty off-the-wall ideas too. In the
absense of evidence, there is nothing to select among these ideas.
Either we act like they are all just ideas, until we get evidence that
one of them may be true in the physical world, or we act like they are
all true until they are one by one refuted. So the choice is whether
to spend lots of energy worrying about angels dancing on heads of
pins, kharma, Conway's LIFE automaton, all the groups of order 64,
little green men from Mars, faster-than-light travel, time travel,
wormholes, ... as if they were all equally real and all equally
important to know about lest we be defeated by some enemy which has
spent more energy investing in practical development of those facts of
the Universe? Or whether to dismiss them all as just ideas, not
crucially important unless and until we get some solid evidence that
one of them is real.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 87 22:44:35 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter

> The laser light will red-shift as the light sail accelerates away from
> the laser...

This demonstrates that lightsails have problems when velocities start to
get up to a substantial fraction of the speed of light.  True, but there
is a lot that can be done at velocities where the losses are modest.

> ...  2)  Beam divergence is dependent on laser rod
> width divided by length.  Therefore the light beam from a finite laser
> **must** diverge.  All you can do is minimize this divergence...

As Forward has pointed out, you use a lens.  (In any case the issue is
complicated because you probably use multiple lasers.)  His calculations
were for a Fresnel zone plate made out of -- as I recall it -- quarter-
wavelength plastic and vacuum.  It's 1000 km across and spins slowly to
retain its shape.  It will focus most of the beam energy onto a 1000-km
sail out to about 40 light-years.  All errors are inversely proportional
to the focal length, which is monstrous, so the lens does not need to hold
its shape with high precision.

> ... Where would you get the energy?

Presumably solar energy.  Mercury is valuable territory.

> How do you build the sail?

Presumably robotic construction, it will be too big and too flimsy to use
human labor efficiently.  If you postulate self-reproducing machinery, in
particular, a 1000-km sail is trivial.

> How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a
> light year away?...

You don't.  All you do is keep the beam pointed in pretty much the right
direction, with maybe an occasional correction.  The spacecraft moves to
stay in the beam, not vice-versa.  The key problem is not sail tracking
but pointing stability.

> ... the problem of the high energy gamma rays that are
> produced by antimatter reactions...

Troublesome but solvable, probably.  The engine itself will need a pretty
heavy-duty cooling system.  The crew quarters will quite simply need
shielding.  A combination of a long ship and shadow shielding can get the
mass down to where it's manageable.  I've seen a properly-shielded proposal
for an antimatter-powered ship capable of 90+% of the speed of light, and
the shielding problems of more modest vessels pale beside that one.

> ... Number one:  How do you make the stuff?

To get enough for in-solar-system work and the beginnings of development
for interstellar spacecraft, a factory with the size (and power demand)
of the Hanford uranium-enrichment complex will do.  For serious interstellar
work, you probably want large, specialized power satellites in solar orbit.
It sure would help if somebody could come up with a really efficient way
of making antimatter, but the ways we've got will do in a pinch.  It just
needs a pretty large-scale effort.  (Again, self-replicating machinery would
make an enormous difference.)

> Number two:  How do
> you store the stuff?  (remember quantum theory proves that no container
> is 100% effective)...

Quantum theory turns up other interesting things, too.  There has been a
suggestion that at really low temperatures -- like 0.0001 K -- antimatter
could be handled with normal matter, because the wave functions don't
overlap enough to produce a reaction.  I'm not enough of a physicist to
check that one.  The studies funded by outfits like the USAF have concluded
that storing the stuff is not an insuperable problem; low temperatures,
hard vacuum, and handling by magnetic or electric fields will suffice.

> The problem with the gammas strikes me as an
> absolute show stopper.  Not only will you be required to have tons of
> shielding but you'll have to somehow convert this deadly energy into
> useful thrust...

The gammas are sheer waste, nothing can be done about them.  But in case
you're not aware of it, the proton-antiproton reaction does *not* yield
gammas immediately.  A large fraction of the energy is temporarily in the
form of charged particles, which a magnetic nozzle can handle.  Please
read some of the work that has been done before denouncing it as impossible.
-- 
"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 87 21:34:45 GMT
From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Subject: Re: Star Travel
References: <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702161535.AA16581@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a
> civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star (by
> galactic scales this is a tiny distance).

You`re going to have to help me with this one.  Why 50 light years?
After all, a generation ship going 1% of light would cross the galaxy
in 4 million years.  The universe is about 10 billion years old so
this seems like a workable speed.  I assume you've factored in something
you haven`t been explicit about.
-- 
"More Astronomy                Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
 Less Sodomy"                  {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
  - from a poster seen         ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    at an airport              University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 11:34:07 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
 
   In a previous posting I made the assertion that one would not expect
an interstellar civilization to expand beyond 50 light years radius from
its home star.  This caused some readers to ask the obvious question,
"Why?"  Unfortunately the argument supporting this assertion is complex.
 
   The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster than
ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive.  I'm
assumning that the only way one could get men to another star would be
through a nuclear fusion propelled "Ark" which was about the size of an
L-5 type colony, and required over a hundred years to complete one
voyage.  Such a vehicle would probably cost over a trillion dollars to
make and could be constructed or serviced only by a large and vigourous
**interplanetary** civilization.  Since these Arks would represent
virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing
civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury
activity" for disposing of surplus wealth (like the Egyptians building
the Great Pyramid or the Athenians building the Parthenon).  It is
doubtful that any single civilization could justify building more than
three of these ships.
 
   There are many stars in the galaxy.  Within a twenty light year
radius around the sun there are 88 stars.  However stars of spectal
type K5V up to M stars are unable to support life, ref:  Journal
of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 39, No. 9, pg. 416.  This
leaves only six stars that **might** support life.  Chances are even
if they do have life, the planet might be an ocean planet, or a
dinosaur planet, or with terrestrial incompatible life, i.e. left
handed helix versus right handed helix protein molecules.  Based on
this we may optimistically assume a sun-like star density of 1.8e-4
stars/cubic light year.  For a 50 light year radius this means 94
stars, that **could** have "earths" which **might** have life which
**maybe** interesting.
 
  Here comes the punch line:  Interstellar expansion is a process
limited by laws-of-scale.  If a healthy interplanetary civilization
is only capable of making three Arks then only civilizations on the
frontier of the interstellar expansion will be in a position to produce
Arks.  The stars within the volume of the interstellar expansion will
already be several centuries old and have depleted their interstellar
capacity.  The volume of a sphere grows as a cube of the radius, but
the surface only grows as a square.  Therefore the surface-to-volume
ratio of the interstellar expansion will diminish with radius.  If
we assume that each hop from star to star takes a century and it takes
another century before another hop is possible then it will be 800
years before humans are 50 light years away.  However within 800 years
the inner home worlds will have changed totally.  The typical life
span for a nation or empire is about 500 years. If you have a frontier
thickness of 1 light year then there will be about 6 frontier stars to
service 94 interior home systems.  The trillion dollar cost will cause
much controversy on where to send the Ark.   It will become more and
more tempting to send the Ark **back** to the ancient home worlds than
to send it outwards to some world that probably is a dead loss.  With 94
known stars to choose from, it is much more likely that the cost of your
Ark will be justified by going *in* than by going out.  It is this basic
scaling law, coupled with the slowness and extreme cost of interstellar
travel that will limit outward expansion.  Of course this whole
argument is false **if** you can travel fast enough that relativistic
time dialation is possible.  Then the "Fermi Paradox" really is a
paradox.                     Gary Allen

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #162
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21473; Sat, 14 Mar 87 03:02:54 PST
	id AA21473; Sat, 14 Mar 87 03:02:54 PST
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 03:02:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703141102.AA21473@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #163

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 03:02:54 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #163

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 163

Today's Topics:
	 Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
	 Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
	 Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 15:19:10 GMT
From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I don't want to beat this to death, but I think this argument is rather
unlikely.
In article <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
    First a section which sounds plausible about the expense involved in
    building hundred year ships.  Then a claim that this limits the total
    number of ships built per system to an arbitrary number i.e. 3. 
    I find this possible but unconvincing.
    Then a not unreasonable argument which concludes:
> For a 50 light year radius this means 94
> stars, that **could** have "earths" which **might** have life which
> **maybe** interesting.

Of course, if you can build interstellar ships then you don't need
life on a planet to refuel the ship and restock its supplies of vital
gases and minerals.

> If
> we assume that each hop from star to star takes a century and it takes
> another century before another hop is possible then it will be 800
> years before humans are 50 light years away.  However within 800 years
> the inner home worlds will have changed totally...
> If you have a frontier
> thickness of 1 light year then there will be about 6 frontier stars to
> service 94 interior home systems.  The trillion dollar cost will cause
> much controversy on where to send the Ark.   It will become more and
> more tempting to send the Ark **back** to the ancient home worlds than
> to send it outwards to some world that probably is a dead loss.

I don't believe this at all.  Given the unlikely nature of *any* direct
payoff to interstellar travel (as opposed to communication) with a
system peopled or not this decision seems completely irrational to me.
Also the "frontier" thickness seems wrong.  The width of the frontier
will always be comparable to the separation between habitable systems.

"More Astronomy                Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
 Less Sodomy"                  {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
  - from a poster seen         ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    at an airport              University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 15:37:25 GMT
From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Organization: Software & Electronics Resource Center/3M
Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


In article <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
 >   The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster than
 >ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive.  I'm
 >assumning that the only way one could get men to another star would be
 >through a nuclear fusion propelled "Ark" which was about the size of an
 >L-5 type colony, and required over a hundred years to complete one
 >voyage.

There's one more assumption you're making, which appears unjustified.
You assume that the Ark ships can't be re-used.  The cost of refitting
and launching an existing vessel is surely much less than the cost of
constructing a new one.

 >...  Since these Arks would represent
 >virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing
 >civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury
 >activity" for disposing of surplus wealth (like the Egyptians building
 >the Great Pyramid or the Athenians building the Parthenon).  It is
 >doubtful that any single civilization could justify building more than
 >three of these ships.

This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a
civilization considers projects worthwhile.  I and, I'm sure, many
others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind
when we support space exploration: species survival.

 >...  If
 >we assume that each hop from star to star takes a century and it takes
 >another century before another hop is possible then it will be 800
 >years before humans are 50 light years away.  However within 800 years
 >the inner home worlds will have changed totally.  The typical life
 >span for a nation or empire is about 500 years...   It will become more and
 >more tempting to send the Ark **back** to the ancient home worlds than
 >to send it outwards to some world that probably is a dead loss.  With 94
 >known stars to choose from, it is much more likely that the cost of your
 >Ark will be justified by going *in* than by going out...

Sending the Ark to an inhabited world _is_ a dead loss.  And
uninhabited worlds are likely to be uninhabitable, so that would be a
dead loss too.  Consider that the only catastrophe likely to destroy an
entire interplanetary culture is a nova.  Consider that should all life
on some world be destroyed by some catastrophe, the other inhabitants
of that system can reconstruct and recolonize much faster than people
can come from another system to do it.
-- 
 /''`\   DISCLAIMER: Ideas should not be        Andre Guirard
([]-[])     held responsible for the		ihnp4!mmm!cipher
 \ o /      people who believe in them.		Ombro de Sro. Ed.
  `-'

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 87 05:08:04 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Ctr., Cambridge, MA
Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


	When calculating how far somebody would be likely to get with a given
star travel technology, don't forget that aliens are not humans, and may have
quite a number of differences with respect to us that could make very long
term projects considerably more attractive to them.  Lack of aggression and
much longer life-spans are possible differences; more worrisomely, if they're
like us, maybe they have to keep moving out because they eventually trash
every planet they land on, by nuclear war or other irreparable (within tens of
thousands of years) ecological damage, or maybe they have this religion that
tells them they have this manifest destiny to move out to other stars no
matter what the cost -- yecch either way (but neither is necessarily the
case). 

	As for the technology, remember that technologies more advanced than
ours are possible.

	As for the Fermi paradox, it is based on others being likely to have
developed star travel if such is possible.  Well, maybe someone has and just
hasn't shown up here, or maybe they have but have been concealed (-: say,
just where have all the religious fanatics on Earth been coming from,
anyway? :-) -- but also remember, somebody has to do it first. . . .

-- 
	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out
of this system is unreliable).  Please send only to the address given above.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #163
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23743; Sun, 15 Mar 87 03:02:53 PST
	id AA23743; Sun, 15 Mar 87 03:02:53 PST
Date: Sun, 15 Mar 87 03:02:53 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703151102.AA23743@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #164

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 164

Today's Topics:
			     Starships, 2
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 20 Feb 87 09:05:15 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
To: space-incoming@angband.s1.gov
Subject:      Starships, 2
 
Timetables

One of the most important factors about a starship is how long it will
take to get there.

Many analyses tacitly assume that a starship will keep accelerating
until it gets halfway to its destination, then turn around and
decelerate the remainder of the way.  While this is a possible way to
operate, the portion of the thrust just before turnaround (and just
after) is pretty much wasted, and gains you very little in terms of
shortening the trip time.  It is much more efficient to stop
accelerating well before midpoint, and coast.

Table 1 shows timetables for one-gee acceleration (the equations from
which these tables were derived are given in appendix 2).  The first
column is the length of time the engines thrust at one gee in the ship's
frame of reference, assuming that the ship started with zero speed.  The
next column shows how long this is to outside observers.  When the ship
starts moving at an appreciable fraction of c, more time passes in the
"stationary" frame than the ship's frame of reference.  The third and
fourth columns show how fast the ship is moving at the end of the period
of thrust.  Velocity in the stationary frame is distance traveled per
unit rest frame time.  Velocity in the "ship" frame is what is known as
"proper velocity": the distance traveled per unit ship time.  Within a
year, this easily surpasses the speed of light.  The time dilation
factor---"gamma"---shows how much the time in the ship is slowed down
compared to rest frame time due to relativity.  This starts getting
significant for acceleration times over about six months.  For most of
the nearby stars, at most a few years of (ship time) acceleration will
suffice.  You can go a thousand light years, visiting about ten million
stars, with fourteen years ship time of acceleration (seven years
accelerating, seven decellerating).  For those of you with even more
distant visions, you can travel the twenty thousand light years to the
center of the galaxy in only 21 years ship time, and the two million
light years to the Andromeda galaxy in 30 (much less, of course, if you
don't stop.)

    Table 1: Distances and Velocities at One Gee
    Ship  Earth  Velocity   Velocity     D    Dilation
    Time  Time   (E frame)  (S frame)         factor
    (yrs) (yrs)    (/c)       (/c)     (LY)
    ______________________________________________________
    0.1   0.10   0.103      0.10       0.01   1.01
    0.2   0.20   0.203      0.21       0.02   1.02
    0.3   0.30   0.300      0.31       0.05   1.05
    0.4   0.41   0.390      0.42       0.08   1.09
    0.5   0.52   0.474      0.54       0.13   1.14
    1.0   1.19   0.774      1.22       0.56   1.58
    1.5   2.17   0.913      2.24       1.41   2.45
    2.0   3.75   0.968      3.86       2.90   3.99
    2.5   6.34   0.988      6.53       5.44   6.60
    3.0   10.65  0.996      10.97      9.72   11.01
    4.0   29.88  0.999      30.77      28.92  30.79
    5.0   84     (1)        86         83     86


What would a Starship be Like?

The ship will require a closed environment which can sustain life for
years, without use of natural sunlight.  Mass will be at a premium.
Everything will have to be as light as possible In order to shield the
passenger compartment from radiation from the engines, the ship may be
made on the "tether" principle, with the engines in front (with exhausts
aiming very slightly off-axis), pulling the crew compartment on a
several kilometer long tether.  In this configuration, a very small
shield partway along the tether can shield a large area of crew
compartment.

Dangers

Meteor Danger:  This is trivial.  1930's SF to the contrary, space isn't
full of meteoroids.  However, if you did happen to hit even a small rock
while travelling at 90 percent of the speed of light, the results would
be spectacular.

Interstellar dust: the spaces between the stars do contain small
amounts of very fine dust.  (The word "dust" is misleading, since
the particles are actually much smaller than ordinary dust
particles, typically 200-2000 angstroms across.)  This dust is very
sparse---on the average, one particle per million cubic meters in
the galactic disk, according to Zeilik.  However, even this small
amount of dust means that a starship will hit a million dust grains
per square centimeter for each light year of travel.  Fortunately,
most of the dust is concentrated in dust clouds (which should be
avoided at all costs by the typical starship pilot!)  It's not clear
how much of a problem the remaining dust will be.  A starship will
need some sort of a dust shield to prevent the dust, impacting at
hypersonic velocities, from eroding away the surface; this may need
to be little more than a thin `parasol' of aluminum foil a couple of
hundred angstroms thick, which will vaporize the dust on impact.

Radiation.  Interstellar hydrogen will also impact the ship.  At high
velocities, this will be rather like a barrage of low-energy radiation
(or not so low energy, if the ship reaches a high percentage of the
speed of light).  The dust shield will effectively screen most of these
hydrogen impacts if it is sufficiently far in front of the crew
compartment.  More important, high energy cosmic rays which are blocked
by the Earth's atmosphere and magnetic field will strike the ship and
its inhabitants unless it is shielded.  For reasons of mass, this would
probably have to be done by use of a magnetic field (created by large
superconducting magnets) rather than by a material shield.
Alternatively, if medical science is advanced enough, the crew could
simply accept the radiation dose and the resultant higher cancer rates
of the ship.

The impact of both dust and interstellar hydrogen can be minimized by
making the ship, as much as possible, in an extremely long and slender
pencil-like shape, to minimuze the frontal area.  For fusion ships, the
fuel supply will probably be the frontmost part of the ship, since it is
least liable to damage.  Alternatively, the fuel may be stored in shells
around the crew compartment, in order to use it as a partial shield
against cosmic rays.

The time scales of these voyages---typically years---will make the
interpersonal interactions on the ship very important, and another
possible source of danger.  The crew will be packed together in
extremely close living quarters, and will be subjected to long periods
of time with nothing to do (relating to the trip, anyway).  For most
cases, the trip will be one-way.  Chosing the crew will be a very
important element in the success of the journey.


    Worked out-examples:  Here to alpha-Centauri (4.3 LY); here to
epsilon-indi (11.2 LY)

  Fusion:

Imperfect D-He3 fusion: The mass ratios are all between the times on the
charts, so we interpolate and estimate where necessary.  A mass ratio of
300 allows the ship to thrust at one g for between .3 and .4 years.
Allowing half of this for acceleration and half for deceleration at the
target, that's .15 to .2 years each.  In the ship's frame, the ship
reaches about 0.18c.  The distance travelled during acceleration and
deceleration is under .02 LY each, which is almost negligible compared
to how far the target is.  The trip to alpha-c will take (4.3LY/0.18c),
or about 24 years.  The trip to epsilon-indi takes (11.2/.18), or 63
years.  A mass ratio of three thousand gives almost 0.5 years of thrust,
0.25 each starting and stopping.  Velocity reaches 0.25 c, d during
acceleration is again negligible, so we get to Alpha C in about 17 years
plus the half year of thrust, and to Epsilon Indi in 45 years.

Perfect H-H fusion: Mass ratio 300 allows the ship to thrust at one g
for almost .7 years, which is .35 speeding up and .35 to slow down.  The
ship travels .14 LY during thrust, and reaches a maximum speed of .35 c.
Again the distance travelled under thrust is neglible.  To alpha C takes
about (4.3/.35), or 12 years, the trip to epsilon indi takes roughly
(11.2/.35), or 32 years.  If we increase the mass ratio to 3000, we can
get nearly a full year of thrust, 0.5 years each accelerating and
decelerating.  Distance traveled during thrust is .13 LY and maximum
velocity is .54 c, so the total trip takes 8 years ship time to Alpha C,
and 21 to Epsilon Erindani

  Antiproton Annhilation:

A mass ratio of 300 would allow an antiproton annihilation starship to
thrust for over 3.6 years, exactly enough to thrust the entire trip to
A-centauri: accelerate for 1.8 years, travelling 2.2 LY, at which point
the ship has reached a velocity (ship frame) of 2.94 c.  Decelerate for
same; total trip time, 3.6 years.  For the trip to e-indi, we need to
coast an additional (11.2-4.3) = 6.9 LY at 2.94 c, or 2.3 years, for a
total trip time of 5.9 years.  If we decrease thrust time to 3 years(1.5
accelerating and 1.5 decelerating), leaving a slight coast period on the
trip to a-centauri, the mass ratio decreases dramatically, from 300 down
to 90.  The ship travels 2.7 LY during thrust and reaches a speed of
2.13 c.  This leaves (4.2-2.7) = 1.6 LY of coast, which takes .75 years
for a total trip time of 3.75 years.  The last little bit of thrust
before turnaround costs a lot of mass ratio, but decreases the trip time
by very little.  Lowering the thrust times to 1 year each decreases the
mass ratio to 20, and gives us 1.1 Ly during thrust, a peak speed of
1.18 C, and a trip time of 2+(4.3-1.1)/1.18 = 4.7 years.  That savings
may not sound like much, but keep in mind that even for a tiny
ship---say, five tons, which was the mass of the Apollo capsule---the
fuel saved (compared with 3 years of thrust)is 175 tons of antimatter


   Appendix 2: Equations from Relativity

For those of you who want to do your own calculations, or want to
calculate what happens for ships that travel at accelerations other than
one gee, I will present the most useful formulae here, without
attempting to derive them.  For derivations and fuller explanation, see
the references or consult any of the many excellent textbooks on special
relativity.

Note: all velocities ("v") here are expressed as a fraction of the speed
of light; accelerations a are measured in lightspeeds per year (for
accelerations in gravities, use 1 g=1.034 c/yr)

Time Dilation

Time inside a moving spacecraft is slower than time measured by a
stationary observer by a factor gamma, where gamma=1/sqrt[1-v**2] This
effect is known as relativistic time dilation.  Note that this factor
gamma is very close to one for velocities which are small compared to
the speed of light.

Acceleration

If the acceleration inside the ship is a, the acceleration measured by a
stationary observer is
  a{earth}=a/{gamma**3}

So if a ship accelerates at what the crew inside inside the ship
perceive as a constant acceleration, Earthbound observers will see the
acceleration as decreasing dramatically as the speed approaches
lightspeed.

Proper Velocity

Proper velocity (which I refer to as $v_{ship,$ the distance traveled
per unit ship time) is related to the commonly defined velocity (v, the
distance traveled per unit outside time) by:
  v{ship}= gamma*v(outside)

Note that v{ship} can exceed c, and does so when v exceeds 0.71 c.

Distance Traveled during Acceleration

If the ship accelerates for a time t (in ship time), at the and of that
time it has traveled a distance
  d=[cosh(at)-1]/a

Final Speed after Acceleration
and reached a speed (earth frame)
  v=tanh(at)
(the proper speed is gamma times this)

Time in Earth Frame
meanwhile, in the stationary frame, a time has gone by
  t(earth)= [sinh(at)]/a

Specific Impulse

If a rocket engine has an exhaust velocity v(exhaust), the specific
impulse is defined as Isp=v(exhaust)/g where g is the acceleration of
gravity.  For I(sp) in years and v expressed in fraction of c,
Isp=v(exhaust).  If we define energy efficiency E as the fraction of the
rest mass of the fuel converted into energy, and assume that the
reaction products all exit the engine with the same velocity, then the
exhaust velocity is v(exhaust)=sqrt(2E-E**2).  For total conversion of
matter into energy, the exhaust velocity is 1, ie., the speed of light,
and thus the specific impulse is 1 year.  If only a fraction of the
propellant mass contrubutes to thrust, the effective exhaust velocity
must be multiplied by this fraction.

Mass Ratio

The mass ratio, Mf/Mi, is the ratio of the mass of the rocket with fuel
to mass of the vehicle without fuel.  If the rocket thrusts with
constant acceleration a, for a time t, with a specific impulse Isp, the
mass ratio is
  (Mf/Mi)=exp(at/Isp)

This equation is relativistically correct when t is the time measured in
the ship frame.  The more commonly used version of the rocket equation,
V=V(exhaust) * log(Mf/Mi), is not, because in relativity v is not equal
to at.  The equation at= V(exhaust) * log(Mf/Mi) is still correct.

Finally, the proper velocity of the ship is:
  V(ship)=a(ship)*t(earth).

For small distances, d=1/{2 a t**2} .  (note that for small distances,
t(earth)is about equal to t(ship))

For large distances, d=t(earth)-1.  As always the hyperbolic functions
are defined: sinh(x)=(EXP(x)- EXP(-x))/2 , cosh(x)=( EXP(x)+EXP(-x) )/2,
and tanh(x)=sinh(x)/cosh(x).

Appendix 3: Where to Go

Stars are classified by their spectrum, which is an index of how hot
they are.  The classification, from hottest to coldest, is
O-B-A-F-G-K-M, which has been immortalized by countless astronomy
students with the mnemonic "Oh, Be A Fine Guy*, Kiss Me" (to which is
occasionally added a final line "Right Now Sweetheart", to account for
the (usually cool) peculiar spectrum stars R, N, and S).  (*or Girl,
depending on your preferences.)  Within this letter sequence, stellar
spectra have numbers; 1 being the hottest and 9 the coolest.  The sun is
a type G2 main sequence star.  The hot, bright stars, types O, B, and A,
are relatively rare, but they burn so hot and fast that it is unlikely
that they would have planets that would have had time to evolve life
anyway.  The cool dwarf stars, later K and M types, are so cool that
most astronomers believe that any planet close enough to be warm enough
for liquid water would probably be tidally locked into always facing one
side to the star.  Likely destinations would be best found among the
main sequence stars of late F, G, and early K types---in short, stars
much like the sun.

The following list shows some selected stars.
  G type:
    Sigma Draconis, 18.2 LY
    Delta Pavonis, 19.2 LY
    82 Eridani, 20.9 LY
    Beta Hydri, 21.3 LY
    Zeta Tucanae, 23.3 LY

  K type
    Epsilon Eridani 10.7
    61 Cygni (nb: binary) 11.2 LY
    Epsilon Indi 11.4 LY
    Tau Ceti 11.9 LY (flare star?)
    70 Ophiuchi (binary) 16.4 LY
    Eta Cassiopeiae (Binary, F) 18 LY
    36 Ophiuchi (Trinary) 18.2 LY

Selected References

More complete references are given in the bibliography by E.F.
Mallove et. al.,
    {Journal of the British Interplanetary Society vol. 33, p 201
    (1980), with supplements in vol.  36, p 311 (1983) and vol. 37, p.
    502 (1984)
"Antiproton Annihilation Propulsion", Journal of Propulsion and
    Power, 1:5, 1985, p. 370
R. Forward, "Feasability of Interstellar Travel: a Review", Acta
    Astronautica, 14, 1986, p. 243.
Anderson and Greenwood, "Relativistic Rocket Flight with Constant
    Acceleration", AIAA Journal Vol. 7 No. 2, Feb. 1969.
Freeman Dyson, "Interstellar Transport", Physics Today, Oct., 1968.
R. M. Powers, The Coattails of God, Warner Books, 1981
Gordon Woodcock, "To the Stars!", Analog, CII:6, June 1983, p. 38.
R.W. Bussard, "Galactic Matter and Interstellar Travel", Acta
    Astronautica Vol 6, No. 4, 1960
NASA Conference Publication CP-2345 (1984)
Stephen Dole, Habitable Planets For Man, Second Edition, Elsever, NY 1970.
Poul Anderson, Tau Zero (note: Anderson uses an unusual notation; what
    he calls "tau" is more commonly refered to as 1/gamma.)
Allan H. Bates, "The Nearest Stars", Observer's Handbook 1984,
    Royal Astronomical Society Canada
Analog, "Project JEDI", 1986
Bruce N. Cassenti, "A Comparison of Interstellar Propulsion Methods",
    Journal of the British Interplanetary Society.
L.R. Shepard, "Interstellar Flight",
    Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, Vol. 11, Feb. 1952,
    reprinted in Realities of Space Travel, Garden City Press, London 1957.
British Interplanetary Society, Project Daedalus, (A.R. Martin, ed.),
    supplement to the Journal of the British Interplanetary Society, 1978.
Michael Zeilik, Astronomy: The Evolving Universe, Third Edition,
    Harper and Row, NY, 1982.
 

    Table 2: Mass Ratios as a function of acceleration duration (at one
    G) for Perfect fusion, imperfect fusion (50% eff D-He3), and
    antiproton annihilation propulsion

    Time  Perf.    Imperf   Antiproton
    (yrs) H-H      D-He3    Annih
    ___________________________________________
    0.1   5.2      2.4      1.17
    0.2   26.5     5.6      1.36
    0.3   136.7    13.1     1.59
    0.4   704.4    31.0     1.86
    0.5   3629.0   73.1     2.17
    1.0   1.3E07   5.3E03   4.7
    1.5   4.8E10   3.9E05   10.3
    2.0   1.7E14   2.9E07   22
    2.5   6.3E17   2.1E09   49
    3.0   2.3E21   1.5E11   105
    4.0   3.0E28   8.2E14   498
    5.0   4.0E35   4.4E18   2354
 

    Table 3: ISOLATED TYPE G MAIN SEQUENCE STARS
    WITHIN 50 LIGHT YEARS OF THE SUN
    List compiled by GL using data from Gliese Catalog 1969
    List includes all stars of main sequence types F8 through G9;
    members of multiple star systems excluded.

Glie. Name            Spectral   Distance    Lum.  Mass  Comments
No.                   type       (LY)(error) (Suns)(Suns)
____________________________________________________________________
17    Zeta Tucanae    G2V         26 (1)     0.86  0.96
67    DM+41 328       G2V         42 (3)     1.14  1.03
71    Tau Ceti        G8Vp        13 (0)     0.43  0.80
92    Delta Triang.   G0Ve        37 (3)     1.00  1.00  spect. bin. (10 days) )
97    Kappa Fornacis  G1V         47 (5)     1.20  1.05
124   Iota Persei     G4V         42 (3)     2.70  1.30
136   Zeta(1) Retic.  G2V         41 (4)     0.64  0.89  Com. mot. w/138
137   Kappa Centauri  G5Ve        34 (2)     0.84  0.96
138   Zeta(2) Retic.  G1V         41 (4)     0.85  0.96  Com. mot. w/136
139   82 Eridani      G5V         22 (1)     0.64  0.89  e Eridani
177   58 Eridani      G1          47 (4)     0.90  0.97  DM-17 954
189   Zeta Doradus    F8V         48 (5)     1.91  1.18
214   DM-14 1126      G5          45 (7)     0.14  0.60
222   Chi(1) Orionis  G0V         36 (2)     1.41  1.09  Ursa Major group
231   Alpha Mensae    G5V         31 (2)     0.58  0.87
302   DM-12 2449      G8V         46 (3)     0.53  0.85
327   DM- 4 2490      G3          43 (3)     0.46  0.81
395   36 Ursa Maj. A  F8V         44 (3)     1.39  1.09  DM+56 1459 w
407   47 Ursa Maj.    G0V         49 (5)     1.45  1.10  DM+41 2147
434   61 Ursa Maj.    G8Ve        33 (2)     0.50  0.83  DM+35 2270
449   Beta Virginis   F8V         36 (2)     3.02  1.34
475   Beta Canum Ven. G0V         33 (2)     1.37  1.09
501.2 DM-37 8437      G3          41 (6)     1.20  1.05  dist uncertain
502   Beta Comae Bern.G0V         30 (2)     1.14  1.03
503.1 55 Virginis     G6          41 (-)      -     -     DM-19 3651;
						   r mag and dist. uncert
504   59 Virginis     G0V         47 (4)     1.15  1.04  DM+10 2531
506   61 Virginis     G6V         30 (2)     0.74  0.93  DM-17 3813
534.1 DM-54 5466      G8V         45 (5)     0.52  0.84  companion
598   Lambda Serpen.  G0V         39 (2)     1.58  1.13
611   DM+39 2947      G8V         45 (3)     0.28  0.72
624   Zeta Tri. Aust. G0V         39 (4)     1.10  1.02 Spect. Binary n
668.1 DM- 5 4426      G9V         45 (4)     0.36  0.77
691   Mu Arae         G5V         41 (4)     0.91  0.98
773.5 DM-23 15935     G7          43 (9)     0.48  0.82
780   Delta Pavonis   G8V         21 (1)     1.04  1.01  or G5IV G5IV-V or G5V
827   Gamma Pavonis   F8V         31 (2)     1.28  1.07

 
        Copyright 1987 by Geoffrey A. Landis, all rights reserved.
 
--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                      EDU: ucbvax!jade!BROWNVM.ST401385@jade.Berkeley.Edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #164
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25358; Mon, 16 Mar 87 03:03:17 PST
	id AA25358; Mon, 16 Mar 87 03:03:17 PST
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 87 03:03:17 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703161103.AA25358@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #165

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 16 Mar 87 03:03:17 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #165

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 165

Today's Topics:
			      Space Arks
	 Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
	 Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
			   Re: Star Travel
	 Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
			   Re: Star Travel
	       Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50
			   Re: Star Travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 87 14:07:09 GMT
From: sei.cmu.edu!firth@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Robert Firth)
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, SEI, Pgh, Pa
Subject: Space Arks
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

If space arks are to us what pyramids were to the Egyptians, a quick
check of the number of pyramids the Egyptians built (over 100) and the
time they kept building them (over 2000 years) makes me at least VERY
optimistic about interstellar colonisation!

Someone care to post how many Parthenon-scale temples the Greeks built?

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 87 15:19:32 GMT
From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Organization: U. Texas, Astronomy, Austin, TX
Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, <1185@husc2.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1185@husc2.UUCP>, chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes:
> 
> 	As for the Fermi paradox, it is based on others being likely to have
> developed star travel if such is possible...
> but also remember, somebody has to do it first. . . .
> 
Fermi favored the idea that we are the first, which is at least
an attractive and flattering resolution.  A friend of mine shared
a paranoid hypothesis with me which is probably the *least* attractive
resolution I  have ever heard.

Suppose some percentage, possibly quite small, of all intelligent species
are rabidly xenophobic and do their level best to destroy other species
on contact.  If that's your objective then you gain a considerable
advantage from the finite speed of light (a newcomer sees you before
you see him).  What fraction of all intelligent races need to be like
this before all the intelligent species in the universe are divided into 
three categories: the nervous, who do not broadcast, the murderous,
who do not broadcast, and the victims, who do?  Moreover, how long
does the average member of the third category survive?

-- 
"More Astronomy                Ethan Vishniac, Dept of Astronomy
 Less Sodomy"                  {charm,ut-sally,ut-ngp,noao}!utastro!ethan
  - from a poster seen         ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU
    at an airport              University of Texas

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 87 03:42:09 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!utcsri!james@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (James P. Rowell)
Organization: CSRI, University of Toronto
Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, <1269@mmm.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1269@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>
>In article <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> >...  Since these Arks would represent
> >virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing
> >civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury
> >activity" for disposing of surplus wealth.
>
>This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a
>civilization considers projects worthwhile.  I and, I'm sure, many
>others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind
>when we support space exploration: species survival.

I don't believe that last statement reflects what "many others" think.
At least I hope not. 

What threatens our existence? **For now** it seems that we are really
the only threat to our existence here. The kind of money involved
in building an "Ark" could much more effectively be used to help
fix our problems here on Earth.

After all, billions of people (and countless other species) stand
to benifit from the latter expenditure, and only hundreds with an
"Ark". Furthermore if we can't make it work here on Earth what
makes you think that we can surive on any other planet? I would
say that the reason we support Space exploration is definitely
not: species survival.

----
James Philip Rowell		University of Toronto
{ihnp4	utzoo	decwrl	uw-beaver}!utcsri!james

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 87 04:01:00 GMT
From: mcewan@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Star Travel
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


>  I see only two hopes for
> star travel:  One is through nuclear fusion to nonrelativistic
> velocities.  The other is through some new "rabbit out of the hat" via a
> new unified field theory.  Because of the "Fermi Paradox", I suspect
> that there are no new "rabbits" in the hat.   The Fermi Paradox is:  "We
> are on the verge of being able to travel to the stars.  The sun is a
> common star and the earth is not unusual.  Therefore life in the galaxy
> must be common.  If we can travel to the stars then the bug eyed
> monsters must be able to do it also.  However there are no bug eyed
> monsters, ergo the paradox."

We don't know how many earth-like planets there are, how common life is,
what the probability of a life-bearing planet developing intelligent
life is, how likely an intelligent species is to develop the necessary
technology, or how likely an intelligent species with the technology
will want to colonize the stars.

>  The Fermi paradox tells us that speeds of
> greater than 10 Psol (percent speed of light) are unobtainable for a
> manned vehicle.

I think a statement like this is somewhat like a cave man declaring that
crossing an ocean is impossible. Just because we don't have the
technology doesn't mean it can't be developed. The fact that we don't
observe and ETs doesn't prove anything.

>  At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a
> civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star ...

Why not? If the race can get to one other star and establish a
civilization at the same technological level as the home planet, what's
to stop them from expanding indefinately? Do the people in the colonies
50 LY away say "We *could* send out our own ships, but we're afraid to
get any farther from the home star"?

>                                Gary Allen

		Scott McEwan
		{ihnp4,pur-ee}!uiucdcs!mcewan

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 87 23:45:46 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
References: <8702182058.AA03452@angband.s1.gov>, <1185@husc2.UUCP>,, <1631@utastro.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Suppose some percentage, possibly quite small, of all intelligent species
> are rabidly xenophobic...  What fraction of all intelligent races need to
> be like this before all the intelligent species in the universe are divided
> into  three categories: the nervous, who do not broadcast, the murderous,
> who do not broadcast, and the victims, who do?  ...

If one of the nasties gets good enough to build self-reproducing planet-
sterilizers -- not impossible, we are *almost* capable of building such
a thing ourselves -- it only takes one.

This is not a new idea, by the way.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 87 00:21:00 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Star Travel
References: <16581@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The Fermi paradox can be explained under many sets of assumptions,
therefore it cannot be used to choose between these sets.

Consider an extremely optimistic set  of  assumptions:  there  is
such  a  thing as "progress", and it is self-accelerating, quasi-
exponential.  A  typical  civilization  keeps  changing  for  the
"better",  every  day,  in  every  way,  faster and faster. A few
thousand years in the future, then, make as much difference as  a
million  years  in  the past. However, the initial points in time
when life or reason arise may differ by billions of years,  and
so the stages of development at which different civilizations are
now must be staggered widely. Since our star is so  ordinary,  we
can expect to be somewhere in the middle of the distribution.

Those that are behind us, we may ignore; but those that are ahead
of  us,  tend  to  be *way* ahead of us. Remember the exponential
assumption: a million years ahead may  be worth  a  billion  years
behind.  We  are  to  these  guys as *protozoa* are to us. Then how
would we observe their presence? What to look for? -- They  are
simply  incomprehensible  to us. They may not move in the same
space or do any of the things  we  associate  civilization  with.
They  may  have transcended the difference we draw between civil-
ized and uncivilized life forms, or sentient and  non-sentient,
and even between life and dead matter.

I am not saying this is *true* - just one of  many  possible  in-
terpretations of the Fermi Paradox. It merely disproves the argu-
ment from the absence of BEM in the zoo to the possible speed
of spacecraft.

			Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 87 18:57:00 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50
References: <3452@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


[james@utcsri.UUCP ]
>In article <1269@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>> [...]I and, I'm sure, many
>>others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind
>>when we support space exploration: species survival.

>I don't believe that last statement reflects what "many others" think.
>At least I hope not. 

Count me with the "many others".

>What threatens our existence? **For now** it seems that we are really
>the only threat to our existence here. 

Not the *only* but the most obvious threat. A virus might  appear
naturally  to  wipe  us out. But we are more likely to breed that
virus ourselves. So,  if  we  are  the  danger,  let's  disperse!
That's what they do with *other* dangerous explosives - keep them
separately, in small quantities.

>The kind of money involved in building an "Ark" could  much  more
>effectively be used to help fix our problems here on Earth.

As if that were possible! "Fix" all the problems of  a  civiliza-
tion  growing more complex, more fragile, more tightly-knit every
day, on a planet growing ever smaller? The only such "fix" is to-
tal annihilation.

*All* civilizations die. The reason history has continued  so  far
is  that  there  were  many of them, and they passed the torch to
each other - but were sufficiently insulated  not  to  drag  each
other  into  the destruction. Now there is only one civilization;
from New York to Tokyo there are the same kinds of  vehicles  and
communication  media and ideas, with slight variations. A nuclear
war is just the most discussed but hardly the  most  probable  of
possible  global holocausts; if it is not the one, it will be the
other.

Now, there's a chance to  have  a  plurality  of  civilizations
again,  insulated  from each other again by the blessed speed-of-
light barrier, hidden from each other in the immensity of space.

>After all, billions of people (and countless other species) stand
>to benifit from the latter expenditure, and only hundreds with an
>"Ark". 

Neither people nor species live forever; an Ark would  perpetuate
life  and reason. In 20 generations, it won't matter whether your
children have left in the Ark or mine - the  genes  will  mix  so
(and  will  be modified artificially) that the descendants of the
survivors will be about equally related to all of us.

As for other species - dispersal in space would give the life
on Earth (all closely related) a chance to perpetuate
and diversify itself in the universe.

>Furthermore if we can't make it work here on Earth what makes you
>think that we can surive on any other planet?

We *can't* - not forever, not on any *one* planet. Let us  there-
fore  make use of statistics and keep the birth rate of civiliza-
tions greater than the death rate!

>I would say that the reason we support Space exploration  is  de-
>finitely not: species survival.

It is the strongest reason by far, from  where  I  stand;  but  I
agree  that even other reasons are sufficient - social experimen-
tation, for example. There are *many* sufficient reasons.

			Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 2 Mar 87 14:23:41 PST
From: Brad Spear <bilbo.spear@locus.ucla.edu>
Subject:        Re: Star Travel

In the interest of alternate viewpoints, I have to disagree with Gary
Allen's statement that the only means for interstellar travel are
long-duration ships at non-relativistic velocities.  He mentions the
possibility of some as yet undiscovered result from unified theory
research, but that this is unlikely, due to something called the "Fermi
Paradox" (I hadn't heard of it before).  The "Fermi Paradox", as stated
by Mr. Allen is:

    We are on the verge of being able to travel to the stars.  The sun
    is a common star and the earth is not unusual.  Therefore life in
    the galaxy must be common.  If we can travel to the stars then the
    bug eyed monsters must be able to do it also.  However there are no
    bug eyed monsters, ergo the paradox.

In geologic time, we are on the verge, in human time, perhaps we aren't
so close.  And although Sol is verifiably a common star, we as yet have
no evidence that Earth and the solar system are not unusual.  I
personally believe that they are relatively common, but there is no hard
evidence for it.  As far as bug-eyed monsters, who says we are not
currently the most advanced civilization in the galaxy (someone has to
be first), or that others have come and gone long ago, or that there are
some out there, that simply don't want us to know about them?  Whatever,
this isn't much of a paradox, and I see no reason to take it seriously.
Perhaps it wasn't.  In that case, (in a whiney voice) "never mind".

Also, I personally like the "Star Trek" antimatter propulsion idea,
perhaps because it seems so "neat".  Since I'm not a physicist, I don't
know the physics behind it, by in the letter to which I'm replying, it
was stated as being easy to "shoot down" (heh-heh, Klingons have been
trying that for 20 years :-)).  Perhaps the Bussard ramjet is provably
unworkable, but does antimatter necessarily follow suit?  I seem to
recall that the bumblebee couldn't fly, until certain previously known
"truths" were found to be in error.  And that was dealing with Newtonian
physics.  Antimatter deals with something that is still in it's infancy;
perhaps some known "truths" are not as "true" as they seem.  The
conditions involved are so far beyond normal, everyday common sense,
that it's still mostly theory.  Who's to say that some modern Einstein
won't find the key?  It seems pretty likely.

As far as either of these theories (or any other for that matter), being
used or ignored in SF stories or professional journals, well, SF is
expected to do the impossible, it's part of the thrill of the genre.  In
professional journals, the technologies still find use, either as
teaching tools, or as experimental platforms to study the physics
involved.  It makes no difference if the idea, as stated, works or not.
What is important is the ideas it can set in the minds of the people
seeing it. That is, after all, where any hope of space travel will come
from.

It is a grave (literally) mistake to believe that the current knowledge
of the sciences involved are infallible.  Earth has seen human
technology beyond the wheel and inclined plane for several centuries,
and relativistic physics for less than one.  We feel fairly comfortable
with technology now, although mistakes are still made.  How can one
expect physics to be perfect?

Brad Spear

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #165
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28461; Tue, 17 Mar 87 03:03:14 PST
	id AA28461; Tue, 17 Mar 87 03:03:14 PST
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 87 03:03:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703171103.AA28461@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #166

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 87 03:03:14 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #166

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 166

Today's Topics:
			 SN1897A - a summary
	   condensed space news from Dec 1 and Dec 8 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 87 03:38:59 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: SN1897A - a summary

I thought people would be interested in a summary of an informal
colloquium given here at the Center for Astrophysics last Thursday
(3/12), which attempted to summarize the current knowledge of the SN. 

The talk was given by Robert Kirshner, the local SN expert and the
IUE target-of-opportunity observer for supernovas. As you might expect,
he's been immersed in the subject since the discovery.

Discovery was Feb 24.3 UT (all times are UT, BTW), by Ian Shelton,
University of Toronto, working at Las Campanas in Chile. His plate of the
LMC (3 hrs, starting at 24.06) showed a bright star, and he wondered why he
didn't guide on it!  Oscar Duhalde, the Chilean night observer also
remarked that the LMC seemed different - then they realized something
unusual was happening.

Some hours later, Albert Jones, an amateur astronomer, independently
discovered the SN from New Zealand, and alerted the Auckland Observatory,
who also then called the Anglo-Australian Observatory.

The LMC is about 50 Kpc (50,000 parsecs, where 1 parsec ~3.26 light
years) away, giving a distance modulus of 18.5. The SN at magnitude V 4.5
is the brightest since that of 1835 in M31, and the nearest since Kepler's
SN of 1604. 

The best astrometry of the SN gives 
   R.A. =   5h 35m 49.95s +/-0.039,
   Dec. = -69 deg. 17' 57.9" +/-0.27

From prediscovery plates, there are three stars nearly at that position:
Sanduleak -69 202 within .1 arc-sec, type B3 I (a blue supergiant), 12th
magnitude, and a fainter star 3" to the NE, said to be bluer. The 3rd star
is seen as an elongation of the S-69 202 star to the SW, and is much
fainter still. I'll try to draw a picture:

           star 2 --> *




S-69 202 = star 1 -->        *
           star 3 -->          *

(note that east is to the left.) Actually, stars 1&3 are joined. Star 3
is hardly seen even on the long exposure prediscovery plates. Which one
was the SN? Well, the far-UV spectrum as seen from IUE was dropping
right from the discovery. The flux at 1800 A went down by a factor of
100 in the first two days. After it subsided somewhat, two blue star
spectra at least one of which is a B3 at the position of S-69 202, and
the other 3" to the NE are now seen.

Thus, the Sanduleak star was not the SN. The best candidate is that faint
star overlapping it 0.1" away. This would, by the way, be about 600 AU
(for comparison, about 25 times the radius of our solar system)
separation at the LMC distance. This poses a problem for studies down the
line, since the 12th magnitude star will make it nearly impossible to see
the dwindling SN remnant, once it get to about 15th mag.  As Bob Kirshner
said: "I wish someone would blow it up!".  A problem for Space Telescope,
which has higher spatial resolution.

Timelines: lots of prediscovery plates of the LMC were taken. Because of
S-69 202, 12th magnitude was the upper limit of the SN up to Feb 23.1 UT.
Albert Jones scanned the area with binoculars at Feb 23.39, and did not see
it. He is sure he would have if it were brighter than mag 7.5.  A
pre-discovery plate taken at 23.443 showed it at 6th magnitude, and on the
discovery plate at about 24.1, it was about 4.5 mag. Thus, the SN went from
below 12th to 6th mag in 3 hours (assuming collapse at 23.316, from below).

Neutrinos: The Japanese group (can't remember the exact name) recorded 11,
two from the direction of the LMC, and the Irvine, Michigan, Brookhaven
(IMB) group in Ohio reported 8 neutrinos, both groups at 23.316.  The Mt.
Blanc French-Soviet collaboration report of 5 neutrinos at 23.12 remains
unconfirmed. Those 5 were very near its energy detection limit, while the
IMB group reportedly had never seen such a strong signal.

Thus Feb. 23.316 marks the time of core collapse. The duration of the event
(seconds) indicates a neutron star was formed, as opposed to a black hole
(milliseconds). The spread of neutrino energies puts an upper limit to the
hypothetical neutrino mass at some tens of eV. This limit has already been
established, so nothing new there.

UV observations - The IUE satellite has been observing the SN about 75% of
the time since discovery. (Our atmospheric ozone blocks the far UV, of
course, "...but we're doing something about that..." - Bob Kirshner :-) )
As stated above, the UV was dropping fast right after discovery, down by a
factor of 100 in the first 2 days. This is to be expected, as the UV comes
from the stellar surface, heated by the shock waves from the core collapse,
and then cooling rapidly. The interstellar absorption lines observed at the
velocity of the LMC as well as our galaxy prove that the SN is in or behind
the LMC.  It is extremely unlikely to be from an undiscovered galaxy behind
the LMC. 

The SN's UV spectrum is very different from any type II previously seen. It
looks much more like a type I, in fact. Type II's are thought to be core
collapses of massive stars, while type I's are thermonuclear runaway when a
white dwarf accretes matter from its red giant companion. The type II
should have a lot of circumstellar matter (high stellar winds, old age
leading to an extended atmosphere), hence the hydrogen lines usually seen.
Bob's working hypothesis is that the progenitor was a relatively compact
object without a lot of circumstellar matter. This poses problems with what
is usually thought about SN progenitors, but is consistent with some of the
optical, x-ray, and radio characteristics (below). Lots of modeling to be
tried, here. 

Optical observations - The obvious thing here is that the SN didn't get as
bright as expected (4.5 versus 1.0). The fine error sensor on the IUE has
been used as a V-band (more or less) photometer. By this instrument, the SN
was at 5.0 at first observation, brightened to 4.5 over the next two days,
and stayed there for a week or so. A slow slide to 4.6 for a week or so was
followed by a return to mag. 4.5, where it remains today. These changes are
actually a reflection of changes in the SN color, which have been extremely
rapid.  At discovery, the B-V mag was 0.0 (like an A0 star), and reddened
rapidly to B-V = 1.0 (redder than a K star, as I recall) 10 days later.
Other type II's have taken 4 to 5 times longer to change this much. Bob
says this is consistent with a relatively compact progenitor with little
circumstellar matter. The maximum brightness may have been lower because of
the same factors causing the rapid evolution. 

The first observations showed P-cygni profiles in H alpha, beta, and gamma,
at about -17,000, -14,000, and -12,000 km/sec, respectively. P-cygni
profiles, which show a blue-shifted absorption with emission to the red
side, are typical of expanding gas shells illuminated by a hot interior
source. The different velocities arise because the different lines `see' to
different depths in the expanding photosphere. As the system evolves, the
outer parts become more transparent, and we see to greater depths, where
the expansion is now slower. Thus, the velocities have declined since
discovery, to about -12,000 km/sec in H alpha. The outermost gas is still
moving at 17,000 km/sec, but we don't see that part any more. (At
17,000km/sec, I calculate that shell to be >400 AU (about 5x the solar
system) in diameter by now!)

The photosphere, i.e. the visible surface, is also expanding, although not
quite as fast. By translating the B-V colors into a black-body temperature
and luminosity curve, then comparing to the observed visual magnitude, a
size can be derived. On Feb. 25th, less than two days after ignition, this
was 1.5 AU (between Earth's and Mars' orbits), while about 10 days later,
March 7th, it was 10 AU, or Saturn's orbit. The photosphere is now (March
13th) computed to be 30 AU in radius, or the radius of Neptune's orbit! The
rate of increase is slowing, although still impressive. 

X-ray, radio - Not seen at all in x-ray, and only weakly in the radio. This
is consistent with a lack of circumstellar matter, since these photons are
thought to arise from interactions of the shock wave with circumstellar
material. 

THE FUTURE, or questions of interest:

1) Nucleosynthesis 
   - study heavy metal abundances in the later optical spectra.
   - test light curve variations against possible radioactive decay power
     sources, such as radioactive nickel.
   - study the gamma ray emission (a direct look at nuclear processes)
     after the shell becomes transparent to them.

2) Explosion dynamics
   - the neutrino pulses & energy spectrum should test theories of the
     collapse to a neutron star.
   - UV & optical line shapes will provide density profiles of the blast.
   - direct angular diameter measurements will help tie down some shell
     characteristics.

3) Stellar remnant
   - will we see a pulsar in the radio or x-ray? Its characteristics?
   - IR studies of possible interstellar dust heating, other shock wave
     interactions. 

4) Distance scale
   - optical velocities over time, coupled with the photospheric expansion
     will provide a direct calibration to the LMC.

-- 

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu
      BITNET:  wyatt@cfa2

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 00:34:37 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: condensed space news from Dec 1 and Dec 8 AW&ST

[I have reluctantly concluded that there's no way I'm ever going to get
caught up if I maintain the same level of detailed reporting.  It just
takes too long and I'm too short of time.  So I'm going to be reporting
very tersely until I catch up on some of the backlog.  You'll also have
to live mostly without my nasty editorials until then, for the same
reason.]

Dec 1:

Subsurface core samples from some of the Apollo missions are just now
being opened after years in storage.

New British space plan includes funding for international cooperation
outside ESA, for greater flexibility.

1/20-scale Ariane 5 model to be test-fired to evaluate heat and noise
effects during launch.

USSR completes early pad tests of its space shuttle, mounted piggyback
on the Soviet heavy expendable.  First launch of the big expendable,
unmanned, probably 1987.  First launch of shuttle probably 1988.

NASA looking into a second-generation "Shuttle 2", given that current
fleet will not last forever and the Aerospace Plane is far away.
Conceptual studies might start next year, leading to first flight maybe
circa 2000.  [Remember when it took eight years to reach the moon?
Sigh.  -- HS] Goals include single-stage-to-orbit, although two-stage
schemes are being studied.  New technologies would include dual fuels,
lightweight engines, advanced composites, advanced lightweight
subsystems, and a massive reduction in ground support overhead.  One
direction being looked at is a smaller vehicle, on the grounds that
heavy expendables will be used for getting big payloads up and there
will be little call for bringing heavy payloads down.

[Micro-editorial: why not a Shuttle 1.5, applying some of these
technologies in the existing design?  Lower risk and more immediate
benefits.  Not as much money for the contractors or as big a
bureaucratic empire within NASA, though, so it won't happen.  -- HS]

Grigg-Skjellerup flyby for Giotto added to ESA planning for possible new
space-science projects.  One concern is that this depends on checking
out Giotto's camera, and it's not clear where the money for the
reactivation (Giotto is currently in quiet-cruise mode) and checkout
will come from.  German proposal to use Giotto for radio-sounding of the
Sun's corona (when Giotto passes behind the Sun next winter) is also
strapped for startup cash.

JPL and international team use antenna on TDRS in VLBI experiment,
linking to ground-based radio telescopes.  Feasibility test for proposed
radio- astronomy satellite, "Quasat".  This required knowing TDRS
position to 20-30 cm along line of site and 1 m along other axes, with
1-mm resolution on changes in position.  Further calibration should
bring all axes down to about 5 cm, comparable to ground-based VLBI.
More TDRS VLBI tests are planned, limited by TDRS's inability to point
its antenna farther than 30 degrees away from Earth.

NASA-ESA space station talks sounding a bit more friendly.

Ariane third stage explodes in orbit, producing spray of debris.  This
was from the Spot 1 launch a year ago.  Arianespace has been asked to
investigate and remedy the problem; Delta second stages did this for
some years and made a major contribution to the space-debris problem
until the design was fixed.  Other Ariane third stages may have
exploded, in fact; this one was noticed because it was in polar orbit,
while most Ariane third stages are in equatorial orbits where radar
coverage is thin.  Suggestive pieces of debris have been observed.

DoD Air Defence Initiative urges early launch of Teal Ruby infrared
tracking test satellite, originally scheduled for first Vandenberg
shuttle launch.  Teal Ruby is difficult to fit onto an expendable
booster, and an orbit passing over arctic regions with broken ice was
considered important to provide a worst-case background for tracking
tests, so a shuttle launch from Vandenberg was really preferred.  Not
clear what will be done.

Scout launches polar beacon and auroral research satellite from
Vandenberg.

Atlantis returns to VAB after pad tests.

NASA chooses shuttle/IUS to launch Galileo, Ulysses, and Magellan, while
retaining an option to launch one on a Titan 4.

Orbital Sciences signs contract with NASA to provide a Transfer Orbit
Stage for Mars Observer.

Hughes claims comsats are cheaper than transatlantic fiber cables,
looking at actual costs rather than prices charged.

Turnabout: Bell Labs develops fiber link to permit locating satellite
Earth station antenna several km away from its electronics.

"If the commercial development of space dies in the wake of the
Challenger loss, it will not be the accident that killed it but rather
the inability of NASA and other government leaders to promptly establish
policy that will reassure investors in and supporters of commercial
applications that their activity has an important, long-term place in
the US space program."

Dec 8:

Guest editorial from Carl Sagan pushing international manned Mars
mission.

Soviet launch rate in 1986 noticeably lower than in earlier years,
probably due to longer-lived spysats mostly.

NASA has not yet decided whether to impose a $10M penalty on Morton
Thiokol's SRB contract as a result of 51L.  [!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!  -- HS]

New DoD space policy supports military role for manned spaceflight,
notably including orbital servicing and refuelling.  Also strong support
for heavy expendable.

SDI studies unusual booster combinations for specialized test vehicles,
in reaction to cuts in Scout procurement funding.  Earlier plans to use
a Scout as a tracking target for an orbiting satellite would have
required building a second Scout pad at Wallops, since it would require
launching two Scouts (satellite and target) about a day apart.

NASA launches classified assessment of Soviet space program and its
capabilities.

Germany finishes construction of test stand for Ariane 5 main engines.

Soviets offer commercial leases of Gorizont geostationary comsats,
launch by Proton to orbital position of customer's choice.

Soviets continue to push commercial Proton launches.  Soviet chart lists
97 Proton launches since 1970, 7 of them failures.  Technical details on
Proton supplied; nothing remarkable.  Typical price for comsat launch
$24M, launch 18-24 months after contract signed.  [Low price, short
notice.]

Details of Ariane third-stage modifications for resumption of service in
1987.  Launch will probably slip a month or two from the last tentative
date (late Feb.).  Estimated Ariane launches in 1987 down from 7 to 6.
Exact launch order under review; Intelsat (which lost a comsat on the
last launch) would like priority.

3M and NASA close to agreement on 10-year agreement providing 3M with
flight opportunities for materials-processing research.  Fletcher's hold
order on such negotiations has been relaxed for some agreements that
were near completion.

Ten ESA nations formally commit to preparatory stage of Hermes.  The
major holdouts are England, Holland, and Canada [yes, Canada is an
associate member of ESA], all expected to join soon.  France is talking
to the USSR about making Hermes compatible with Mir.  ESA is studying a
proposal to launch a 1/3-scale Hermes model for reentry testing.

6th Fleet Satellite Communication sat launched 4 Dec on Atlas-Centaur.
This is the launch originally scheduled for last May.  Two more
FltSatComs are the last definite Atlas-Centaur customers.

Inmarsat agrees to provide free capacity to Geostar Corp. for test and
demo work.

Joe Engle (X-15 pilot, STS-2 and 51I commander) retires from NASA and
USAF.

International Civil Aviation Organization to recommend to ITU that
mobile satellite users on land be excluded from the aeronautical
satellite band.  This would shoot down the US mobile-satellite proposal
for sharing the band until aviation traffic grows to need it all.

Comsat Corp develops optimized station-keeping technique for comsats,
possibly doubling on-orbit lifetime.  Some tracking ability is needed in
ground stations, limiting applicability.

"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #166
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02618; Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
	id AA02618; Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703181103.AA02618@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #167

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #167

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 167

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Fermi paradox
			  Re: Fermi paradox
			   Re: Star Travel
			  Re: Fermi paradox
			  Re: Fermi paradox
	 environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet
			   Re: Star Travel
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
			  Cometary volatiles
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 87 18:06:19 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox

In article <870304131313.020@nmfecc.arpa>, 
ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA writes:
> 
>      I think that I have an answer for the Fermi paradox.
> [...] naturally want to explore all of the stars in their own neighborhood
> before wandering far afield.  
>      If the monsters are sending out "Arks", as Gary Allen says,
> then they are few in number and the likelihood of one coming close to
> earth is very small.  So the monsters may be on their way, probably
> by a combination of colonization and exploration.  ...

The Fermi Paradox arises even within the Milky Way Galaxy!  If even one
colonizing civilization originates, it can spread through the entire
Galaxy in a time of order 30 million years.  (This represents a net
expansion rate of 1/1000 of the speed of light.  I won't quibble about
factors of 3 or even 10.)  This time is much less than the age of the
solar system (5 billion years) or the age of the Galaxy (~10 billion
years).  Given that "they" have had plenty of time to get here, "Where
are they?" is the Fermi Paradox.

David Brin exhaustively discussed possible answers to the Fermi Paradox
in a 1985 issue of Analog.  The categories I remember include:

1) No colonizing civilizations have arisen in our Galaxy.  (We could be
the first if we don't blow it.)

2) Natural forces or their own activities have killed off all previous
colonizing civilizations.

3) Unrecognized factors make colonization impossible after all.

Read Brin's article; it gives a lot more information and ideas.

Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 87 18:06:28 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox

In my earlier posting, 471@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU>, I left out a fourth
category of explanation for the Fermi paradox:

> 1) No colonizing civilizations have arisen in our Galaxy.  (We could ...
> 2) Natural forces or their own activities have killed off all ...
> 3) Unrecognized factors make colonization impossible after all.

4) Nearby space has been colonized, but for some reason we aren't aware
of it.

I think these categories logically include all possible explanations,
but I'd be delighted to be corrected if anyone can come up with another
one.

Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 7 Mar 87 09:50 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Re: Star Travel

Gary Allen said:

>   It is depressing to see that despite being able
> to rigorously prove the Bussard Ram Jet is unworkable, one will
> never the less find science fiction novels based upon this idea, (i.e.
> Larry Niven's novels) and articles written about it in professional
> journals, i.e. BIS and AIAA.  Alot of people haven't gotten the word
> that this idea simply doesn't work.

I notice that Niven in his latest book ("Footfall", with Pournelle) uses
a variant of the ramjet in which energy is supplied by onboard fuel.
The advantage of this scheme is that protium doesn't have to be fused,
and need not be compressed to high densities (perhaps it would not have
to be compressed at all, if some kind of very large thin mesh
accelerating system were used).

>   People have been kicking antimatter
> around for sometime.  I'll let another reader of Space Digest attack
> this one since it's pretty easy to shoot down. 

Oh?  There are certainly handling problems, extremely good vacuum is
needed to prevent runaway warming of solid antihydrogen pellets, making
the stuff is very inefficienct (.1%, at best), and the reaction chamber
design is a challenge, but I didn't think there were any fundamental
show stoppers.

I should note that if antihydrogen is difficult to store in a starship,
(meaning: the mass of the containment system is large compared to the
mass of the fuel) we could conceivably manufacture antilithium.  The key
step here is making antineutrons by stopping positive pions in
antihydrogen, followed by carefully planned fusion reactions.

Antimatter has an enourmous pricetag, so one wouldn't use it unless one
wanted to travel relativistically and light sails or some other trick
were not usable.

>  I see only two hopes for
> star travel:  One is through nuclear fusion to nonrelativistic
> velocities.  The other is through some new "rabbit out of the hat" via a
> new unified field theory.

What about light sails?  Certainly pointing accuracy is a big challenge.
Does sail erosion kill this?  Given that we can see the stars, I
wouldn't expect the sail to be shredded too quickly.

>  At nonrelativistic speeds one would **not** expect a
> civilization to expand beyond 50 light years from its home star (by
> galactic scales this is a tiny distance).

Gary is making the dubious assumption that all colonization flights must
originate from the system in which the civilization first developed.
Why cannot colonies grow until they are of comparable size, then
themselves send out ships?  In 10 light year steps at .1 c with 10,000
year layovers, the galaxy can be colonized in about 100 million years.
Note that 10,000 year layovers is very conservative: if a civilization
grows from 100 to 1 trillion members in that time, the doubling time is
300 years.

> we may conclude that only through enormous nuclear
> fusioned propelled "Arks" can a species travel to the stars.  I strongly
> suspect that only a fairly large and healthy interplanetary civilization
> could foot the bill for an Ark and even then for only two or three
> Arks.

I also suspect a large interplanetary civilization is needed, but said
civilization (if the resources available in our system are any
indication) will likely contain trillions of inhabitants.  The material
and energy resources available to such a civilization are more than
enough to build many arks.  Would they?  Unanswerable (and I do *not*
want to start arguing about the motivations of hypothetical aliens), but
our country spends O($10 billion) per year on space, so a civilization
10,000x larger with technology 100x more productive might spend the
equivalent of 1E16 dollars per year on starships (at current energy
prices and .1% efficiency, that would buy about a ton of antimatter per
year).

------------------------------

Date: 7 Mar 87 17:00:28 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox

Steve Willner proposes four explanations for the Fermi paradox:

>   1) No colonizing civilizations have arisen in our Galaxy.  
>
>   2) Natural forces or their own activities have killed off all
>   previous colonizing civilizations.  
>   
>   3) Unrecognized factors make colonization impossible after all.  
>   
>   4) Nearby space has been colonized, but for some reason we
>   aren't aware of it.  
>   
>   ...  anyone can come up with another one.  

Here is another explanation:

5) By the time a civilization becomes sufficiently advanced to colonize
space, it necessarily loses the interest to do so, because

  5a) it discovers that happiness can be pursued more effectively by
  direct brain stimulation; or 
  
  5b) it discovers that conquering space is a rather stupid idea.
  
(Er, hm, maybe you will say it is included in 1) or 2) or 3) above.
Mumble.)

The more I think about them, the more these explanations sound
plausible.  I already tried to explain my reasons on net.space a few
months ago, apparently without much success.  Let me try again:


5a) Consider how much time and energy Terrans already spend to
    pursue purely "artificial" pleasures/satisfactions: TV, movies,
    electronic games, novels, spectator sports, food
    flavors/colors/sweeteners, alchool, drugs, pornography, etc.
    etc.  Unhappiness about one's environment is increasingly being
    "cured" by tinkering with the brain (with drugs, psychoanalysis,
    TM, or whatever) rather than straightening the environment.
    As the technology of these things advances, as their cost
    decreases, and as they become more alluring, they will surely
    consume an ever increasing fraction of mankind's resources.  

    Right now space fans get a bit more bang for their buck from
    Lucasfilm than form NASA.  Although NASA has been trying to catch
    up :-), the gap will only grow bigger.  The day Lucasfilm will
    offer week-long personalized interactive 3-D movies with total
    sensory stimulation featuring Luke and Spok and ET and C3PO for
    under $10, who will care anymore for REAL (=dull, difficult,
    expensive, slow, uncertain, dangerous, tiresome, painful, etc.)
    space exploration?  


5b) A few centuries ago, when farming was much more labor-intensive
    and wars were fought by soldiers, population growth was the obvious
    goal of nations and individuals alike.  Persons born in those times
    would be unable to imagine a scenario where people go to great
    lengths to avoid children, rich nations have negative population
    growth, and poor nations try their best to follow the same path.  

    Many other ideas have similarly been changed from obvious winners
    into equally obvious losers, by technological progress and a better
    understanding of economy and politics.  Slavery has been replaced
    by salaried labor.  Cannibalism, dueling, and religious sacrifice
    are out of fashion.  Racial segregation is disappearing.
    Expansionist nations seem to have found it easier to manage an
    empire through puppet governments and economic devices, rather than
    outright invasion and territorial annexation.  

    In the light of those examples, it seems quite possible that at
    some point in the future we will discover that unbounded
    colonization of space is a dumb idea, for reasons that we just
    cannot see at present.  If that is true, every intelligent
    civilization will sooner or later reach the same conclusion
    (or learn it from its nearest neighbors).  
  
Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decvax!decwrl!stolfi)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 87 05:43:35 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox

In article <870304131313.020@nmfecc.arpa>, ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@NMFECC.ARPA
writes:
> 
>      I think that I have an answer for the Fermi paradox.
> Suppose that the universe is young, having originated in a big bang.
> Older civilizations tend to be further from the point of origin,
> and are more spread out than younger civilizations.

	The universe does not have a point of origin within the space in
which we live (just as the point of origin of expansion of a balloon is
not on the balloon).

	If by point of origin you meant the point of origin of the
civilization in question (you meant "Older civilizations tend to be
further from *their* point of origin, . . .") then it makes sense.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 87 18:52:23 GMT
From: decvax!necntc!cullvax!drw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dale Worley)
Subject: environmentalists, space, and getting off the planet

daniel@thumper.UUCP (Daniel W. Nachbar) writes:
> Other postings suggest that we can escape current political
> insanity by fleeing into space much as our ancestors of the
> 1600's fled across Earth's vast oceans.

And it worked for over 200 years!  If we can get to the next
inhabitable planet, there's open land for 100,000 lightyears.

Dale
-- 
Dale Worley		Cullinet Software
UUCP: ...!seismo!harvard!mit-eddie!cullvax!drw
ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 87 18:16:36 GMT
From: amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Howard A. Landman)
Subject: Re: Star Travel

In article <551@viper.UUCP> dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes:
>I don't know where you got that figure, but there are other
>reasons to think that there are no other intelligent species
>nearby.  For instance, we are capable of communicating by
>radio out to several hundred light-years and yet we haven't
>picked up any signals.  Why is this?  It has nothing to do
>with the possibility of star-travel.

Ah, but it has *EVERYTHING* to do with the possibilities of Cable TV!
Broadcasting is such a waste of energy and bandwidth; advanced civilizations
are almost certainly very efficient in their energy usage.  Would *YOU*
want to communicate with someone many light years away who was using the
interstellar equivalent of smoke signals?
-- 

	Howard A. Landman
	...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 87 04:59:36 GMT
From: ulysses!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Karn)
Organization: Home for Burned-out Hackers
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
References: <3725@milano.UUCP>, <7650@utzoo.UUCP>, <12995@cca.CCA.COM>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Actually gold is a wonder metal.  It is more conductive than copper...

Untrue. Silver is electrically the most conductive element, with copper a
close second and then gold.  Source: CRC handbook.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 00:49:46 GMT
Subject: Cometary volatiles
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Organization : California Institute of Technology
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
Path: oddhack!jon

	Yesterday in the Caltech planetary science seminar, an
interesting source of volatiles (water, methane, etc.) was proposed,
which I thought sci.space readers might be interested in. The seminar
subject was ``extinct comets''. The speaker suggested that one way
comets become extinct is to gradually build up a dusty 'crust' which
prevents further heating and loss of volatiles during perihelion passes.

	It occured to me that some of these extinct comets will be
captured into the inner Solar System, where they could provide an source
of hydrogen (very rare except on Earth and the gas giants) as well as
C,H,N compounds of various sorts, all of which would be of great use in
space industrialization. Since ~10-15% of Earth-crossing asteroids are
believed to be of cometary origin, there may be a very cheap source of
volatiles - even better than the carbonaceous chondrites - accessible
with low-energy orbits.

	Along similar lines, in one of the classes I'm in, I found out
today that there are at least three Earth-crossers of significant size
which are primarily metallic (as revealed by spectral and radar
observations).  This is as opposed to the stony S-type asteroids, which
make up the majority of Earth-crossers and are probably much less
attractive sources of useful raw materials.

	[ In case anyone is wondering what a CS grad student is doing
taking planetary science courses, I'll tell you: Having the time of my
life! ]

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 23:58:52 GMT
From: decvax!cca!g-rh@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Richard Harter)
Organization: Computer Corp. of America, Cambridge, MA
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
References: <7650@utzoo.UUCP>, <12995@cca.CCA.COM>, <270@ka9q.bellcore.com>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

	Color me embarrassed (that's that the delicate shade of pink
that Black Hill's gold has.)  Rule out cheap gold for wiring.  However
gold is, nonetheless, a metal with remarkable properties.

Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #167
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05398; Thu, 19 Mar 87 03:03:16 PST
	id AA05398; Thu, 19 Mar 87 03:03:16 PST
Date: Thu, 19 Mar 87 03:03:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703191103.AA05398@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #168

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 168

Today's Topics:
		 There's gold in them thar aasteroids
		    Dowsing for water on the Moon
[bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa: Re: All this pay-off-the-National-Debt stuff]
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
	     Re: All this pay-off-the-National-Debt stuff
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
			Space program funding
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 22 Feb 87 08:54 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  There's gold in them thar aasteroids
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.s1.gov"


A 5km asteroid contains > 4000 tons of gold?  Sounds great, but that
comes out to an average concentration of only several parts in 10**8.
Even low grade terrestrial ores are orders of magnitude more concentrated
than that.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 87 23:39:02 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Subject: Dowsing for water on the Moon
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

For some time it has been suspected that water ice is present on the Moon.
If this is true, it would greatly improve the possibilities for a fuel
station and even a colony on the Moon.  A low-cost mission has been planned
to explore the polar regions of the Moon for surface and sub-surface water.
It's called the Lunar Polar Obiter, and it detects water with a gamma-ray
spectrometer.  This instrument detects the re-radiation of gamma rays from
objects that are exposed to cosmic radiation from space.  By careful design
of the spectrometer, even tiny amounts of volatiles can be detected:

		Material	Concentration
		--------	-------------
		Water		    0.7%
		Hydrogen	    0.08%	(minimum detection
		Oxygen		    0.5%	 concentrations)
		Carbon		    1.0%

Since gamma rays can penetrate solid objects, water could be detected up to
half a meter below the surface.  Radar can also penetrate dry surface rock
to reveal liquid water, which may have happened on an Apollo flight.  It
can not easily differentiate water ice from Lunar regolith, but radar is
reflected by liquid water.  Strong reflections were seen in the Mare
Crismium and Mare Serenitatis between 200 and 1000 meters below the
surface, although there may be other explanations for this data.

The Lunar Polar Orbiter would cost $40-50 million dollars excluding launch
costs, taking advantage of existing spacecraft designs and instruments.

This was gleaned from the latest issue of the Space Studies Institute Update.
For a complete copy, contact them at P.O. Box 82, Princeton, NJ 08540.  A
$25 donation will enable them to send you the bi-monthly newsletter.

The next newsletter should contain more information about the mission.
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 87 12:33:00 EST
From: <bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa>
Subject: [bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa: Re: All this pay-off-the-National-Debt stuff]

Ok, has it escaped your attention that the elemental content of 10-20
cubic miles of seawater will also pay off the National Debt?? So what??
My point is that we don't need to hear simplistic arguments about the
mineral content of asteroids. That line of argument leaves out all the
important practical considerations. Also, without doing a single number,
I suspect that the energy needed to move these big rocks is the same or
more than the energy needed to extract the elemental content of
seawater. And we have LOTS of water.

Please note: This is not intended to be a practical suggestion, just a
commentary on how seriously we should take these "value of an asteroid"
messages.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 87 17:50:16 GMT
From: well!msudoc!crlt!russ@LLL-LCC.ARPA  (Russ Cage)
Organization: CRLT , Ann Arbor, MI
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
References: <877@ihlpm.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <877@ihlpm.UUCP>, dcn@ihlpm.UUCP writes:
>[much deleted]
>Of course, the startup costs for a venture of this magnitude is formidable,
>but maybe they would make a profit on the second or third asteroid?  Any
>estimates?

I seem to recall a figure around $20-30 billion for such a venture.
Lots and lots of shuttle-derived hardware (HLLV's using shuttle SSME's,
dumb payload rockets made from SRB's) would have been used.  You could
pay back your costs with the gold from the asteroid and have all the
iron, cobalt, nickel, platinum-group metals, and the "worthless"
silicate rock to live well for the next 50 years.

	Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 87 21:20:11 GMT
From: pyramid!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!johnmill@decwrl.dec.com  (John Miller)
Organization: Multimate International, E. Hartford, CT
Subject: Re: All this pay-off-the-National-Debt stuff
References: <8702260239.AA05100@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


In article <8702260239.AA05100@angband.s1.gov> <bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa> writes:


>				     Also, without doing a single number,
>I suspect that the energy needed to move these big rocks is the same or
>more than the energy needed to extract the elemental content of
>seawater.

Nah.

It isn't total energy that counts, its return on investment.

Once we really get into deep space, there is no great problem moving vast
amounts of mass around -- provided they have no atmosphere and we have
patience enough.  An ion engine attached to an asteriod, powered by the sun
and providing only a couple of pounds of thrust, could eventually move it
into an orbit just missing the Earth.  The hard part would be changing that
orbit into one which was geocentric; once that was done the same few pounds
of thrust could circularize the thing.

"Eventually" might be a couple of decades for a useful-sized asteroid, but
it really could have a teriffic return on investment.

A similar small thrust could give a massive asteroid on a collision course
with Earth enough of a nudge to make it miss.  Of course those bastards with
the scrambled eggs on their caps* will instantly realize that the same
principles can be applied to make a small asteroid hit the country of their
choice ...

Did you realize that there is net energy to be gained in moving rock from
Luna to Earth?  You have to supply energy to get the rock out of Luna's
gravity well, but you get that energy back and a lot more getting down to
the surface of Earth.  There have been ideas published showing ways to get
back some of this energy.  Use your imagination.

There is also net energy to be gained going from an asteroidial orbit to an
Earth orbit, but I guess that it is less apt to be utilized.

Solar sail could be substituted for ion engines in the above, and I'm sure
others can come up with other ways of doing things.  The important point is
that for many applications in deep space you don't need the massive thrusters
we've come to associate with space travel, thus you don't need anywhere near
the capital investment you might think.

				--johnmill

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 87 18:07:57 GMT
From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@AMES.ARPA  (Russ Cage)
Organization: CRLT , Ann Arbor, MI
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
References: <877@ihlpm.UUCP>, <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, news@cit-vax.UUCP writes:
> From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
> 
> 	I think we need to be a little more sophisticated than arguments
> like this; there's no particular shortage of iron, nickel, cobalt etc.
> in the Earth's crust either.

Really?  Iron is in good supply (so long as you're willing to mine ores
which are less and less iron-rich, and move that much more rock in the
process), but nickel, cobalt, gold and the platinum group metals are
tough to find in the quantities we can use.

> The same problem exists as with asteroids,
> however - it costs more to get than it's `worth'.

A projected cost of $20 billion to recover resources valued at over
$1 trillion is too much?  Sounds like a damn good return on investment
to me.

> [...] (so you have a 5km asteroid in LEO - how do propose to land it in
> a useful fashion?), [...]

Try packaging raw ingots of metal in some silicate slag made from the
rocky portion of the asteroid, and dropping them someplace.  You scrape
the fragments up later.  Hundred-pound lots, properly packaged and
aimed, would lose most of their kinetic energy to air friction before
landing.  If the alloy is ferromagnetic, you can dump them into any
convenient body of water and then "mine" them with magnetic trawlers
to take them to the refining and fabrication facilities.  Around Michigan,
we have several nice, big lakes which would do just fine.  Nevada has
some decent deserts.  The whole world has oceans galore.

Come, now.  Let's have some well thought out objections, not these
things which are so easily dismissed.  If there are *real* problems
with the concept, I'd like to know about them.  However, this sort of
thing doesn't rate the net.bandwidth that it takes.

	Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.

------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 1 Mar 87 14:41 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@angband.s1.gov, uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@utah-gr.arpa
Subject:  Re: Future of U.S. space program
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.s1.gov",IN%"uplherc!nrc-ut!iconsys!mmm@utah-gr.arpa"

Mark Muhlestein wrote:
>In article <934@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>, gsmith@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) writes:
>>   Well, since you asked: the resources are not here, but floating out in
>> the inconceivable vastness of the universe you talked of. They are not
>> developed, and not easy to develop. Your complaint sounds more like outright
>> idiocy than naivety to me, since this is all so painfully obvious I really
>> wonder why I am bothering.
>
>You appear to have missed the point I was trying to make.  Of course it's
>true that the resources are not developed, and are not easy to develop.
>The real question is:  given the benefits to humanity of a "breakout" into
>space, are we ("we the people") making the appropriate effort to utilize
>space resources?  And if not, why?

I think you missed the point: that the benefits largely don't exist, except
as illusions presented by space advocates whose support for space is largely
irrational and quasi-religious.

The idea of extracting iron from asteroids, for example, is grade-A idiocy,
given the current cost of iron, and the fact that current iron reserves on
earth amount to some 100 gigatons (!), and certainly much more than no one
has bothered to find yet because there's no reason to (US iron consumption is
about 100 megatons per year).

The same is true of other resources.  We aren't using anything that can't
be substituted for, recycled or conserved.  Costs of retrieving
space materials are outrageous, while terrestrial sources have huge
overcapacities.  Population growth is slowing down.

I think we are making the appropriate effort to utilize space resources:
some limited preliminary work is being done on He-3, lunar oxygen and
perhaps some space use of lunar composites, and other obviously uneconomical
and premature proposals have been placed on the back burner until the
day when it might be economical to spend time thinking about them again.
Until then, we'd be much better off keeping the economy strong and growing
and fostering broadbased technological advances here on earth so that when
and if it does become economical to move into space in a big way we'll have
the resources to back it up.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 87 22:38:13 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Organization: California Institute of Technology
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
References: <877@ihlpm.UUCP>, <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, <665@crlt.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <665@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes:
>In article <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, news@cit-vax.UUCP writes:
>> From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
>> 
>> 	I think we need to be a little more sophisticated than arguments
>> like this; there's no particular shortage of iron, nickel, cobalt etc.
>> in the Earth's crust either.
>
>Really?  Iron is in good supply (so long as you're willing to mine ores
>which are less and less iron-rich, and move that much more rock in the
>process), but nickel, cobalt, gold and the platinum group metals are
>tough to find in the quantities we can use.

	Yeah, really. What do you think asteroids are, solid iron ingots
or some such? The majority of asteroids are primarily silaceous or
carbonaceous chondritic composition - neither particularly valuable
on Earth. There are a few which appear from radar observations to be
primarily metallic, but we need more data instead of wishful thinking
before launching a multi-billion $ program to snarf asteroids.

>A projected cost of $20 billion to recover resources valued at over
>$1 trillion is too much?  Sounds like a damn good return on investment
>to me.

	Perhaps you should inject a note of reality into these projections.
To recover asteroidal resources on Earth, we have to develop:

	- Robotic prospectors to identify possibly usable asteroids
	- Person-rated deep-space systems good for several years &/|
	  Autonomous robots (to install the recovery system)
	- Some sort of recovery mechanism - solar sails, ion drives,
	  mass drivers, whatever.
	- A mechanism to separate worthwhile fractions of the asteroid
	- A mechanism to return said fractions to Earth's surface in
	  a plausible fashion. I do not consider dropping 100 lb 
	  chunks of asteroid near inhabited areas to fit this qualifier,
	  technical considerations entirely aside. One miss could result
	  in lawsuits for more than the entire venture is worth.

	This has to be done at a cost competitive with mining raw ores
on Earth and delivering them to primary manufacturers. Furthermore, it
has to be done on a scale large enough to recover investment costs 
reasonably quickly.

	I very much doubt we can do this for $20G, now or anytime in
the near (30 years, say) future. Something as simple as the Space
Station is going to cost almost that much. I'm also sceptical of this
$1 trillion figure. Maybe a 5 km asteroid is ``worth'' that amount in
some sense, but I can equally well say that a large enough area of
the seabed is worth billion$ and billion$. Worth has little to do with
money in the bank.

>Come, now.  Let's have some well thought out objections, not these
>things which are so easily dismissed.  If there are *real* problems
>with the concept, I'd like to know about them.  However, this sort of
>thing doesn't rate the net.bandwidth that it takes.

	Ah, the good old ``I don't like your argument so I'm going
to trivialize it'' approach. Come, now. Let's treat each other as
intelligent people. These ARE *real* problems. Save the accusations
of wasted net bandwidth for the Velikovskians.

	Back in the 70's, the pro-space people were proclaiming space
as a panacea for resource and energy problems. We don't hear much about
putting up dozens of Solar Power Satellites anymore - largely because
there IS NO CLEAR ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE to doing so, and a great deal of
unquantified risk, both physical and economic, involved. The same applies 
to recovering asteroidal materials for use on Earth. Resources found in
space are going to be required and used. In space. On a time scale of
decades.

	If recovering asteroids is really so OBVIOUSLY profitable (50x
return on investment), I'm sure some (Japanese?) consortium will do so. 
$20G is not too much more than the Alaska pipeline cost. Funny how 
nobody is showing signs of forming such a consortium.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  2 Mar 87 22:38:36 EST
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Space program funding
To: ltsmith@MITRE.ARPA
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

>From: LT.Sheri.L.Smith@mitre.arpa, USN <ltsmith@mitre.arpa>

>That narrowminded, dimwitted, diehard man-belongs-on-earth-or-God-wouldn't-
>have-put-us-here 20% should be the focus of a dedicated educational effort
>on the part of NASA and other space related groups. ...

As one of the 20% who feel that NASA spending should be reduced, I have
to respond to this.

I do not believe that "man-belongs-on-earth-or...", I simply don't
believe that government should be playing the role it is.

I *DO* believe in man's future in space, but I don't believe that this
justifies taking money from people against their will.

Robert Maas and I have been discussing this subject, and I will be glad
to forward all our messages to anyone who is interested.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #168
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08677; Fri, 20 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST
	id AA08677; Fri, 20 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST
Date: Fri, 20 Mar 87 03:03:41 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703201103.AA08677@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #169

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 169

Today's Topics:
			   Asteroid Mining
		Re: Can *you* use a pocket calculator?
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
       Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?
	       Re: Paying off the national debt with s
		   Re: Yttrium, Lanthanum, Thorium
			Shuttle external tank
		      Re: Shuttle external tank
			Space Station Concept
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 Mar 87 11:48 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Asteroid Mining

    One of the drawbacks of asteroid mining may be lack of
differentiation. Even if precious / valuable materials are in those
rocks, they ( I think ) probably will be evenly spread throughout.
Asteroids, like the moon, lack the geothermic fluxes that cause ores to
form in concentration.

    If this is a problem, we could try the following solution :
Construct a BIG focusing mirror. Aim it at an asteroid till the asteroid
was very melted. Then aim at another asteroid while the first cools.
When the second asteroid is melted, and the first cooled, start the
cycle over. Repeat this a few times and you have a zone-refined asteroid
: strip-mine it like peeling an onion with each layer having different
materials concentrated in it.

    Note I did two asteroids ( or more, depending on heat-up to cool
down rate ratios ) at a time. Also, small rocks would work faster than
real big ones, but might not differentiate as well.

    I'm not claiming anything about profit or loss, just technical idea.
Comments on either are O.K.
				    Dennis O'Connor

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 87 17:40:19 GMT
From: pyramid!prls!philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!johnmill@decwrl.dec.com  (John Miller)
Subject: Re: Can *you* use a pocket calculator?


In article <8702281341.AA10576@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET.UUCP writes:
>I wish all these people talking about asteroids as great sources of
>gold, and how that would affect semiconductor technology, etc., would
>simply calculate the fractional density of gold in the asteroid.

You are making the assumption that such gold would be homogeniously
distributed -- and my guess is that by and large your assumption is
correct.

But of course no one tries to mine gold on Earth where it exists at
merely average distribution.  Until we go and take a look we won't be
able to say that there are no asteriods where gold is sequestered,
possibly even to the extent where an asteroid is nothing but one big
nugget ...

On the other hand, there is plenty of evidence that iron, nickle, and
cobalt exist in extremely rich concentrations in some asteroids.  I
would expect to see profitable return on investment from iron asteriods
before any rare or exotic materials.

Platinum (and related metals) could be an exception.  Think about the
recent bruhaha about the the possibly-asteroid-derived high percentage
of platinum in the sedimentary layer marking the extinction of the
dinosaurs.

				--johnmill

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 87 23:58:37 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?

> 	This has to be done at a cost competitive with mining raw ores
> on Earth and delivering them to primary manufacturers. Furthermore, it
> has to be done on a scale large enough to recover investment costs 
> reasonably quickly.

As various people have pointed out, by far the easiest and simplest
market for asteroidal resources -- the one that might well fund the
development of the infrastructure needed for others -- is supplying raw
asteroidal rock as armor for military satellites in Earth orbit.  No
refining or purification is needed and the required prospecting is
minimal; any old rock will do.  What's more, the competition is
launching the stuff from Earth at horrendous cost.  I have been told
that this is potentially a multi-billion-dollar market.

(For those who object to "militarizing space", note that most everyone
agrees that making satellites less vulnerable to attack would make the
world a safer place -- important and easily-destroyed satellites are
already a serious destabilizing influence.)

> 	I very much doubt we can do this for $20G, now or anytime in
> the near (30 years, say) future. Something as simple as the Space
> Station is going to cost almost that much...

I fully agree that NASA couldn't do it for $20G.  That is not the same
as saying that it couldn't be done for $20G.  There is no reason why the
Space Station has to cost anywhere near that much.  (A venomous
editorial on this subject will show up in one of my AW&ST summaries
sometime soon.)  If you doubt this, consider what NASA's budget would be
to attempt a round-the-world flight.  Burt Rutan did it for under $2M;
NASA couldn't even get the Phase A studies done at that price.

On another topic...

> 	Back in the 70's, the pro-space people were proclaiming space
> as a panacea for resource and energy problems. We don't hear much about
> putting up dozens of Solar Power Satellites anymore - largely because
> there IS NO CLEAR ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE to doing so...

You are probably thinking of the report that spent hundreds of pages
concluding that Earth-launched powersats weren't economical and then
dismissed use of extraterrestrial materials in two paragraphs.  As I
recall, somebody got the authors themselves to admit that their
treatment of extraterrestrial materials was totally inadequate and their
conclusions were valid only for Earth-launched systems.  Unfortunately,
this little admission didn't attract one-hundredth as much attention as
the original report.

> 	If recovering asteroids is really so OBVIOUSLY profitable (50x
> return on investment), I'm sure some (Japanese?) consortium will do so. 
> $20G is not too much more than the Alaska pipeline cost. Funny how 
> nobody is showing signs of forming such a consortium.

Wait until Japan has its own commercial launch capability, not
controlled by the US.  Or, for that matter, until the US has a
commercial launch capability not controlled by the government.  (Japan
will probably be first, since there is no sign that the US government
will permit commercial launch firms to operate without interference.)
Then there will be commercial interest in such things.

"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 4 Mar 87 18:59:51 GMT
From: news@csvax.caltech.edu  (Usenet netnews)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?

In article <7736@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>As various people have pointed out, by far the easiest and simplest market
>for asteroidal resources -- the one that might well fund the development of
>the infrastructure needed for others -- is supplying raw asteroidal rock as
>armor for military satellites in Earth orbit.  

	Do me the favor of reading ALL of my posting before responding.
As I said at the end: Space resources will be used. IN SPACE. But whomever
I was responding to wanted to bring asteroidal resources back to Earth to
solve (non-existent) shortages. This is utter nonsense.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 87 14:44:05 GMT
From: cbosgd!gwe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (George Erhart)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with space resources !?

In article <665@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes:
>In article <1723@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, news@cit-vax.UUCP writes:
>
>Really?  Iron is in good supply (so long as you're willing to mine ores
>which are less and less iron-rich, and move that much more rock in the
>process), but nickel, cobalt, gold and the platinum group metals are
>tough to find in the quantities we can use.

One should remember that it's not just how much, but where. The US can
get plenty of iron, aluminum, copper, and some nickel (the latter from
Canada), but we have little or no domestic sources for chromium, cobalt,
manganese, titanium, ...

>> The same problem exists as with asteroids,
>> however - it costs more to get than it's `worth'.
>
>A projected cost of $20 billion to recover resources valued at over
>$1 trillion is too much?  Sounds like a damn good return on investment
>to me.

Where did these numbers come from ? I've not heard them before.

Don't asteroids come in the same three basic types as meteoroids; that
is, stoney, metallic (iron-nickel), and composite (?) ? If so, then we
would want to go for the latter two types; iron-nickel asteroids would
be wonderful, as there would be no need to refine or smelt the ore.

>> [...] (so you have a 5km asteroid in LEO - how do propose to land it in
>> a useful fashion?), [...]
>
>Try packaging raw ingots of metal in some silicate slag made from the
>rocky portion of the asteroid, and dropping them someplace.  You scrape
>the fragments up later.  Hundred-pound lots, properly packaged and
>aimed, would lose most of their kinetic energy to air friction before
>landing.  If the alloy is ferromagnetic, you can dump them into any
>convenient body of water and then "mine" them with magnetic trawlers
>to take them to the refining and fabrication facilities.  Around Michigan,
>we have several nice, big lakes which would do just fine.  Nevada has
>some decent deserts.  The whole world has oceans galore.
>
>Come, now.  Let's have some well thought out objections, not these
>things which are so easily dismissed.  If there are *real* problems
>with the concept, I'd like to know about them.  However, this sort of
>thing doesn't rate the net.bandwidth that it takes.

How 'bout this : I've read lots of talk about dropping things from
orbit.  I also remember that when Skylab crashed, nobody could
accurately predict it's "flight plan" because of atmospheric skip. Maybe
that was because of the involuntary nature of the decay; but just how
accurately can we drop an unguided rock from orbit ?

Even if that accuracy is high, there are still problems. Nobody is going
to want the drop zone near their homes; no Congressman will allow it in
his constituency. Okay, you can probably get away with Lake Michigan;
now you have to clear the drop zone of fishing boats, etc, whenever a
package is due.  Then, you need your magnetic (or whatever) grabber to
retrieve the metal.  Finally, you need to transport your catch to a mill
to turn it into something useful.

I'm just about positive you couldn't make any money from iron this way.
Finished steel products (strip, sheet, bar, etc.) average about 25 cents
per pound. Space-iron would have to be remelted, cast into ingots, and
rolled to achieve this state. In "raw" form it is comparable to steel
scrap (which would be remelted and added to virgin iron before ingot
casting). This currently goes for about 5 cents per pound. Do you think
you could mine, package, and retrieve a hundred-pound chunk of
space-iron for $5 ?

You'd have a better chance with nickel; the current price for primary
nickel is $1.62 per pound. Of course, the nickel in these asteroids is
already alloyed with iron. It would be better to market the alloy (so no
refining is necessary) or to sell ferro-nickel for melt stock.  Common
iron-nickel alloys include Permalloys (soft magnetic alloys) (a small
market), austenitic stainless steels (if there's chromium [at $4.62/lb]
in asteroids, then space-production of stainless might have a prayer),
and the superalloys used for jet engine components, etc. Superalloys
also require aluminum, chromium, and just about every other metal known
to man :-/ , and need some rather fancy processing (like vacuum refining
!)  which would make them another potential winner in space.

(all prices ripped off from _Iron_Age_Manufacturing_Management_,
V230,No.2, Feb '87, pp 58-59)

Of course, none of this really matters if the end product is to be USED
in space; anything would be cheaper than lifting steel into orbit. I
just don't think you'll be able to bring them back to earth
economically.

	Bill Thacker    	cbatt!cbosgd!gwe

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 87 23:48:00 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!iucs!jec@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Indiana University CSCI, Bloomington
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s
References: <877@ihlpm.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


	Lets not forget that market forces will still exist and dumping that
much iron on the market will probably drop the price of iron.  Might not be
as profitable as you might think.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Mar 87 17:11:53 GMT
From: decvax!cca!lmi-angel!wsr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Alison Chaiken)
Subject: Re: Yttrium, Lanthanum, Thorium

Actually one of the world's major merchants of rare-earth metals is the
Alfa Company.  I don't really know if sci.* readers would want to invest
in Alfa, though: they are wholly owned by Morton Thiokol, which is not
our favorite company nowadays!

Alison Chaiken	{harvard|decvax!cca|mit-eddie}!lmi-angel!wsr

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 87 18:44:04 GMT
From: cbatt!osu-eddie!bgsuvax!drich@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Daniel Rich)
Subject: Shuttle external tank

  I recently read a new science fiction short story by David Brin ("Tank
Farm Dynamo" if anyone is interested), in which he presents the idea of
a space station made up of used shuttle external tanks.  Does anyone on
the net know if this would be at all practical?  Would the extra weight
of the tank use up too much shuttle propellant to make this possible?
It seems that the ammount of material (not to mention the extra fuel
left over) in the external tank would make this a valid idea!
  Brin does mention in his afterward that this idea has been discussed,
but that it never met with much approval.  Admittedly, I am not in the
space field (although I do wish I had some connection with it) and may
not know what I am talking about, but I just thought I would let others
know about this idea.

	- Dan Rich
	CSNET:	drich@research1.bgsu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 87 01:57:26 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Re: Shuttle external tank

in article <711@bgsuvax.UUCP>, drich@bgsuvax.UUCP (Daniel Rich) says:
>   I recently read a new science fiction short story by David Brin
> ("Tank Farm Dynamo" if anyone is interested), in which he presents the
> idea of a space station made up of used shuttle external tanks.  Does
> anyone on the net know if this would be at all practical?  Would the
> extra weight of the tank use up too much shuttle propellant to make
> this possible?

Actually, if you take the tank into orbit you GAIN a little payload on
the shuttle.  This is because the tank almost goes into orbit anyhow and
the shuttle must do some fancy manuvering to avoid hitting the tank
after separation.

There have been several studies on using External Tanks, with many
positive findings.  One problem that has not been solved, so far as I
know, is stock- piling the tanks between launch and use.  Since they
would normally be left in low orbit they would come down, in
unpredictable locations, fairly shortly.

A few uses for ET's in orbit: sports center, movie set, storage, space
station, cut them up for shielding.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 87 02:25:08 GMT
From: al@ames-aurora.arpa  (Al Globus)
Subject: Space Station Concept

NASA's space station has recently suffered its first major cost overrun
- from $8 billion to $12-16 billion depending on who you believe.  The
phase B contract explicitly stated that the Space Station was to be
designed to cost, i.e., will cost $8 billion.  Thus, the cost over-run
represents a major failure on the part of of the phase B effort
(requirements and preliminary design, just completing) to meet
requirements.

I have a proposal.  Instead of building one very large station that must
accomadate all users, build small, replicable stations.  One for each
discipline.  This has several fundimental advantages:

1.  Since each discipline has its own station, conflicting requirements
are avoided; along with significant analysis and design costs in
resolving them.

2.  Since there are several station, a major accident on one does not
destroy the manned space program ala Challenger.

3.  With luck, the cost of a single station will be within the means of
large corporations or smaller countries thereby increasing orbital
penetration (please excuse pun) at no cost to the American taxpayer.

4.  The first station might be within the $8 billion bogey.

5.  Each station is integrated on the ground.  Upgrades are done by
building new stations.  This appraoch is much easier than the on-orbit
upgrades currently baselined.

In this concept Marshal Space Flight Center builds a station for life
science research that can be duplicated for materials processing, etc.
Johnson Space Center builds a 'RV' vehicle that is home for the crew and
can be moved from one station to another.  Thus, each applications
station can be visited by the RV periodically.  Ultimately, additional
RV stations can be built.

RV, as in recreational vehicle

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #169
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11230; Sat, 21 Mar 87 03:03:13 PST
	id AA11230; Sat, 21 Mar 87 03:03:13 PST
Date: Sat, 21 Mar 87 03:03:13 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703211103.AA11230@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #170

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 170

Today's Topics:
    An Emergency Re-entry System for Astronauts in Low Earth Orbit
		      Re: Shuttle external tank
       Environmentalists/space industrialization (long message)
      Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy.
    Re: Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Mar 87 22:50:45 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: An Emergency Re-entry System for Astronauts in Low Earth Orbit

In response to the discussions about parachuting from orbit, I will
summarize a study found in the American Astronautical Society Science &
Technology Series, Volume 37 on Space Rescue and Safety from 1974.

	An Emergency Astronaut Re-entry Parachute System

	   James J. Murray, U.S. Army Research Office
	Fred R. DeJarnette, North Caroline State University

This paper describes a method of emergency re-entry for astronauts that
are marooned in a malfunctioning spacecraft or space station in low
Earth orbit.  Given a special space suit, parachute, rocket motor and
life support system, an astronaut can leave the spacecraft and re-enter
the Earth's atmosphere.  The two major obstacles to overcome are
deceleration and aerodynamic heating.  The rocket motor is used to
decelerate the astronaut to begin re-entry on a tolerable trajectory
where air drag on the parachute will bring them back down to Earth.  The
suit and life support keeps them alive for the two hours or so it takes
to re-enter.  The maximum deceleration is about 8 g's, and the maximum
temperature peaks at about 1500 degrees Fahrenheit (an Apollo- type
capsule experiences up to 3500 degree temperatures during re-entry).
The time of maximum deceleration is only two minutes long, when the
stress rises from 2 g's, up to a peak of 8 and back down to 2.

A small rocket motor with 13 pounds of propellant could decelerate the
astronaut with the escape package, totaling about 400 pounds.  The legs
of the Gemini EVA suit could withstand 1300 degrees, and the Apollo suit
provides up to four hours of life support, and it is assumed that a suit
could be developed that would survive the re-entry.  A parachute of
about 70 feet in diameter that will deploy in a rarefied atmosphere,
withstand 1500 degree heat and maintain stabilility is required.
Deployment can be handled by spring-loaded ribs, and although high
temperature resistance material is required, the maximum loading is only
1 pound per square foot.  A high-speed parachute called the `hyperflo',
consisting of a flat ribbon grid roof and a conical solid skirt,
withstood 1000 degrees using silicone- coated glass fiber cloth.
Non-porous parachutes were found to exhibit dynamic instabilities, but
the ribbon grid design significantly reduced this behavior.

In conclusion, this system provides an inexpensive means of re-entry
without depending on a spacecraft or re-entry capsule.

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 87 00:15:01 GMT
From: pyramid!oliveb!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@decwrl.dec.com  (Howard A. Landman)
Subject: Re: Shuttle external tank

In a normal flight, the shuttle actually turns *DOWNWARD* for a brief
period just before releasing the external tank.  I believe that this is
in order to make sure it lands in the unpopulated ocean.  At any rate,
the fuel used in this maneuver is more than enough to boost the tank to
LEO; that is, it costs more fuel to dump the tank than to take it into
orbit.  There were several articles on this in L5 News a year or two
back.

The problem is, if you put the tank into LEO it will slowly decay and
eventually come down like Skylab.  So, NASA doesn't want to put them up
there until they know what they're going to do with them!  It's a sad
waste of resources, but until we can commit the necessary effort to
boost the tanks even higher (periodically or once and for all), they'll
continue wasting fuel to drop the tanks in the water.

Sigh.  Those tanks are *BIG* inside, many times larger than anything
else we've ever lived in in space.  Imagine the possibilities!
Football, soccer, and ultimate frisbee! :^o Gymnastics (what's
"balancing"?). :^o Kathy Sullivan leading aerobics in zero-G! :^) --

	Howard A. Landman
	...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard

------------------------------

Date: Tue 10 Mar 87 01:26:18-PST
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Environmentalists/space industrialization (long message)

    What confuses me is why "environmentalists" like Greenpeace should
    be involved with SDI.

Those that believe that SDI destabilizes existing arms agreements and
peace efforts are concerned that a breakdown of those efforts might
lead to nuclear war and the concomitant environmental side-effects.
The potential magnitude of those side-effects makes the issue hard for
anyone concerned with the protection of the environment to ignore.

I don't believe I've read anything yet in any Greenpeace publication
that discusses opposition to SDI per se, though it would not surprise
me at all to learn that the leadership is opposed to it.

    Greenpeace is not a pacifist group [...]

Actually, the Greenpeace quarterly usually contains one or two essays
exploring the problems of effecting change without violence.  Recent
articles compared the Quaker notion of "bearing witness" with the
Greenpeace efforts to monitor compliance with international whaling
agreements and with the effort to monitor nationalistic abuses of
the Antarctic continent.

    My impression is that they were mainly into whales, cute baby seals,
    and nuclear tests.

Greenpeace acts as an umbrella for a number of efforts not well reported
by the national press.  They have their own funding efforts and
leadership and do not necessarily agree with each other on every issue;
certainly not on the relative importance of the issues.

    I used to be a member of the Sierra Club.  The Sierra Club's big thing
    (at least under John Muir) was the preservation of wilderness.  This
    is a very noble cause and one that I still believe in.  However they
    got all wrapped up with the No-Nukes issue to the detriment of the
    far more important wilderness preservation tasks, (at which point I
    bailed out).

I quit the Sierra Club when they started organizing a PAC for every local
Democratic Party candidate who even hinted that he might throw them a bone.
I don't think it's fair to hold their leadership (who, I agree, have lost
their way) against environmentalists in general, though.

    Will they seize upon the (unfortunate) SDI dominance of the space
    program as an excuse to oppose the space program?

I don't think many environmentalists are looking for an excuse to oppose
the space program.  I believe that those who oppose SDI would oppose
it with equal conviction if it were deployed (somehow) on the ground.

    I think any **honest** environmentalist or person concerned with
    wilderness preservation has to also be an advocate for space
    industrialization.

I am an environmentalist and an advocate of space industrialization, but
the motivations are entirely different.  Because two things are desirable
doesn't mean they are necessarily related.  Don't you find it annoying
when certain people regard women as an ethnic minority simply because
they favor the advancement of both?

    With the industrialization of space, the Earth can be excluded from
    all polluting commercial activity.

Unfortunately, people don't give up polluting activities just because it
is possible.  Consider the tons of nasty toxic pollution produced in the
processing of titanium to make toothpaste white (a purely cosmetic
gesture unrelated to cleaning teeth).  It's already possible to exclude
that activity from earth by fiat, but it's not happening.  People won't
accept non-white toothpaste.  Building a titanium plant in space as an
alternative source and then outlawing earthly production might solve the
problem another way, but not nearly so easily or directly as by
outlawing its cosmetic use in the first place.  If we can't get
consumers to accept this sort of small change in their lifestyles today,
how can we expect them to accept the much more sweeping changes you
propose for tomorrow?

    I think the Earth should be a world of parks, farms and small cities.
    The bulk of the human population with all of its environmentally
    destructive (though wealth producing) activities should be moved
    off-planet.

You'd have to move more than 100 million people off-planet each year
just to break even, though, at today's breeding rates.  If you know how
to get people to breed less, you can solve the basic problems without
the additional mechanism of moving people off-planet.

    The main commercial activity of the Earth should be as a tourist resort
    for the rest of the human race which is living in space.

If people think the Earth is a nice place to be, I don't think you'll be
able to get them to leave it.  Could you get everyone in California to
move to New York City, claiming that it will make California an even
better place to vacation?
  --Christopher V.A. Schmidt

------------------------------

Date:     Tuesday, 10 March 1987 1110-EST
From: DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET (R. David Murray)
Subject:  Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy.

      When I first became aware of the space activist movement back in
high school (about twelve years ago) it was a commonplace that one of
the advantages of space colonization was the movement of the polluting
industries out into space, leaving Earth a parkland.  It still is a
commonplace, as is evidenced by the discussion of garbage in space.

      For all of the intervening years, I accepted this commonplace
without question.  It was not until just this year that I was given
cause to look at it from a fresh viewpoint.  It didn't take much, it
just took someone questioning it.  I suppose that the reason my change
in opinion occured so readily was that subconciously I had been mulling
over the problem for years.

      I think I can pinpoint the event that started me doubting.  It was
a silly little thing, a public service spot on T.V.  The spot showed the
cartoon version of the Enterprise and crew floating through space just
as usual.  Then they came upon a navigational hazard, which turned out
to be a space junkyard.  The characters said various stock lines about
how littering and pollution was a terrible thing.

      Now, following the commonplace I had been sold on earlier, I said
to myself: 'How silly.  Everybody knows there is plenty of room out
there.  There would be no garbage problem.  Why, any amount of trash
would just dissapear in the vastness of space.'  But underneath, I think
it bothered me.  Something was not quite right.

      A couple months ago I reiterated the commonplace to a friend, who
is a space supporter but not a space enthusiast.  She said to me 'But
why?  Why should we put the pollution in orbit?  Why not take the
opportunity to do it right, and not generate any pollution?'  My
immediate reply was because it would be costly, and industries aren't
going to want to do it in space any more than they do on Earth.  But it
started me thinking.

      It occurs to me that Environmentalism is more than a desire to
preserve the enviroment of Earth.  It is a state of mind and a way of
interacting with the world around you.  Instead of simply taking things
from the environment willy-nilly and dumping what is left over back, you
find a way to accomplish you goal with as little net disturbence to the
environment as possible.

      A discussion of why the environmentalist attitude is applicable to
space could get very long and involved.  Consider the following
examples:

      On of the things that I have learned in my years of reading SF is
that in space, everything is a valuable resource.  You cannot afford to
throw anything away, you never know when you are going to need it again.
(For reaction mass, if nothing else; but that may be a kind of
pollution.)  I think it would be to our distinct advantage to find a way
to trap and store any waste products.  We will probably want them later.
(And let's not dump them in a crater on the moon unless we generate them
on the moon: even its shallow well costs something to get out of.)

      Is trash in space a problem?  You bet.  A study has been done (I'm
sorry, it was mentioned in a lecture and I did not get the reference) that
predicts that we will, within the next decade, have to start cleaning up in
orbit or our satalites are going to die.  There is enough garbage up there
that things will get broken by running into debrie.  And once they do, they
will be more debrie, with that much more chance something else will die.
(It gets a lot worse if someone starts exercising a satalite killer, which
would generate more dispersed debrie.)

      Are Environmentalists a natural constituency of the space
movement?  I think not.  I think you will find Enironmentalists who are
space enthusiasts, ones who are indifferent, and ones who are against,
in just about the same proportions as in the rest of the population.
Space is not an answer to environmental problems.  It is a source of
environmental concerns all its own.  We will know we have truly arived
in the age of space colonization when environmentalists lobby, not about
the affects of the space program on Earth, but about its affects on
space.  Those affects generate different concerns, but they are no less
concerns.

      Environmentalism is a state of mind.  It applies to space just as
much as it applies to Earth.  If we could convince the Environmentalists
that we were concerned about *both* environments, we might get their
support as a group.  Otherwise, we will get only those who are
interested in space colonization for other reasons.

      My feeling is that space is an environment (it is, you know) that
calls for a careful husbanding of resources.  It is a place where one
must try to do the most one can with as little as possible, as long as
the job gets done.  If it doesn't, you're dead.  I don't think we can
afford to throw *anything* away.  And I don't think we should if we
could.  It seems to me that it is always better to coexist harmoniously
with one's environment, whatever it is, than to abuse it.  In the *long*
run, as we are discovering here on Earth, it is cheaper.

      I think the Environmentalist state of mind, as I expressed it
above, is a valuble one.  I think we should take the opportunity of the
new start that space is providing us and apply the lessons we have
learned on Earth.  Keep in mind, the price for littering in space may
well be the ultimate one.

                                   -- R. David Murray
                                      University of Pennsylvania

P.S.: If people send me answers to the following questions, I will
summarize for the group:

   1) Do you consider yourself a space enthusiast(*)?
   2) Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
   3) Do you think we should be concerned about pollution in space?

(*) If you don't, why are you reading this discussion group?

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 21:18:07 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject:  Re: Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy.
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Keep in mind, the price for littering in space may well be the ultimate one.
>
>                                   -- R. David Murray
>                                      University of Pennsylvania
>
>P.S.:  If people send me answers to the following questions, I will summarize
>for the group:
>
>   1) Do you consider yourself a space enthusiast(*)?
>   2) Do you consider yourself an environmentalist?
>   3) Do you think we should be concerned about pollution in space?
>

I think it should also be reminded the problem is not always one of
contamination (Al Globius al@ames-aurora.arpa) has pointed out the space
suit problem with floating junk.  We have problems like parking orbits
for communications satellite.

No, space should not just wantonly become a dumping ground and people in
higher places know that and rejected it a long time ago (just are there
are tons of proposals for expended Shuttle Fuel tanks [but that's
another junk story]).

Just to add to your survey (summary).  No to 1), I just work there ;-).
2) I am a life member of the Sierra Club. 3) Yes.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #170
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15161; Sun, 22 Mar 87 03:05:31 PST
	id AA15161; Sun, 22 Mar 87 03:05:31 PST
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 87 03:05:31 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703221105.AA15161@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #171

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 171

Today's Topics:
Freon & the Ozone layer (was Re: What are symptoms of UV over-exposure?)
		       Re: UFO Coverup Question
			     UFO evidence
	    Re: Next 30 years.. person'ed, crewed, manned
		  50 light years (newsgroup survey)
		     Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 10:04:11 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Freon & the Ozone layer (was Re: What are symptoms of UV over-exposure?)

In article <414@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes:
>Last night on NBC Nightly News, there was a report of a recent
>Congressional scientific hearing on the destruction of earth's OZONE
>layer.

>The scientists providing the data and testimony, had spent the past few
>years in the Arctic performing the experiments for their findings.
>What did they find?

	That they were in the wrong hemisphere. The ozone hole has been
observed in ANTarctica. A lot of the data was taken from satellites,
also - I saw a fascinating time-lapse movie of ozone concentration over
the pole showing the hole getting (for the most part) bigger and more
pronounced over the observing period (started around 1980).

>Well, over the past eight years they have found a ~7.2 % decrease in
>the earth's ozone layer at the Arctic Circle, and the loss of ozone
>seems to be spreading furhter, and the ozone concentration is weakening
>also.  They blame this on countries still producing consumer used
>aerosols products (e.g. hair sprays & spray deoderants) that have
>CHLOROFLOROCARBONS (CFCs) as one of their prime ingredients (e.g.
>countries in Europe).

	Last term in one of my planetary science classes, one of the
professors here who specializes in planetary atmospheres discussed the
CFC issue and manmade atmospheric perturbations in general. I'll
summarize a bit of what he said (I knew those class notes would come in
handy someday...)  For starters, here are measured concentrations of
some atmospheric gases:

		Concentration

Date	CO2	CH4	N2O	CFCl3 (Freon 11)	CF2Cl2 (Freon 12)
	x10^-6	x10^-6	x10^-6	x10^-9			x10^-9

1850	270	1.0	.282	-			-
1900	290	1.17	.284	-			-
1958	315	1.40	.293	.01			.03
1970	325	1.51	.297	.07			.13
1985	346	1.79	.305	.24			.40

	CO2 increase is largely through manmade activities (thank the
Industrial Revolution); increasing concentration from 300 to 600 ppm is
expected to lead to a mean global temperature rise of ~2.5 degrees C,
other things being equal and ignoring a potential negative feedback
mechanism wherein increased temperature -> increased cloud cover ->
increased planetary albedo -> lower temperature. CH4 and N2O are largely
biological in origin. The two Freons are the evil CFCs referred to
above.

	The mechanism whereby CFCs destroy ozone is a catalytic
cycle with chlorine as the catalyst:

	CFCl3 + photon -> CFCl2 + Cl

	Cl + O3 -> ClO + O2
	ClO + O -> Cl + O2
	-------------------
	O3 + O -> 2 O2

	The reason such low concentrations of CFCs can have significant
effects on ozone is that each Cl atom gets reused ~1000 times before
being removed by some other reaction. He suggests as a rule of thumb
that a 1 ppb increase in CFC concentration leads to a 1% decrease in the
column abundance of ozone (O3 molecules in a vertical column from ground
level up).  One estimate is that total CFC (and other chlorine source)
concentration will rise from 2 to ~10 ppb over the next century, with a
corresponding decrease of ~10% in the ozone column density.
Unfortunately, most of the ozone is being removed at high altitudes
where it's blocking out UV. Since the lifetime of CFCs in the atmosphere
is believed to be on the order of 100 years, we can't get rid of the
problem by just ceasing to produce them now.

	There are a number of theories as to why the depletion is
greater over the poles. One is chemical, that ice freezes out
atmosphereic HNO3, a chlorine antagonist. Another is dynamical, that a
O3-rich polar air vortex is sucking up O3-poor air to altitudes where
it's observed by satellite (i.e. the column density over the poles would
not be much different than anywhere else, just distributed differently
in altitude).

	Of course, this doesn't answer your medical questions, but I
think the issue of man's effect on the biosphere is interesting in
general.  Please direct followups to sci.space or sci.med as appropriate
depending on the nature of replies.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 14:49:39 GMT
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
Path: oddhack!jon

In article <8703101910.AA12537@angband.s1.gov> DAVID@PENNDRLS.BITNET (R. David Murray) writes:
>Subject:  Space garbage and the Environmentalists as a constituancy.
>
>      Environmentalism is a state of mind.  It applies to space just as
>much as it applies to Earth.  If we could convince the
>Environmentalists that we were concerned about *both* environments, we
>might get their support as a group.  Otherwise, we will get only those
>who are interested in space colonization for other reasons.

	Environmentalists are not all going to support space; but people
who actually LIVE in space are going to have to be environmentalists. An
O'Neill colony will have to be kept pristine because pollution can screw
up such a small ecosystem far faster than here. Space may be infinite
but people will be living in small, finite parts of it. Which is not to
say that I see anything wrong with LARGE scale operations in space, just
that we should think about how to do it with as little excess effort
(read garbage) as possible.

	As far as junk in orbit goes, I wonder how many more SDI tests
like the recent Delta (involving active homing on and destruction of a
target vehicle) it will take before it's not safe to fly manned
spacecraft in LEO.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 5 Mar 87 18:19:19 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question

> > It's interesting to see a scientific community assuming that some
> > phenomenon doesn't exist simply because there's no absolute proof
> > that it does...
> 
> > > None of which establishes that he [Zamora] wasn't lying....
> > 
> > When one has evidence that doesn't fit one's hypothesis, then the
> > first reaction is to blame one's equipment.  Of course.  Maybe he
> > is telling the truth...
> 
> Okay, it's time to kill this one dead.  Consider the following:
> 
> - Zamora claimed he heard a loud roar when the UFO landed, and another when
> it took off.  He was about 3/4 mile away when it landed.  There was a house
> barely 1000 feet from the site.  Its owner and his wife were at home with
> windows and doors open, and heard nothing.

>  . . . etc . . .

Wrong, Mr. (Dr.?) Spencer, on every count!

You obviously have not read anything but Klass' account of the Zamora
incident, and thus have failed to read other information about the case.
In a book called (poorly titled!) SOCORRO SAUCER IN A PENTAGON PANTRY
(or something very close to that), each of Klass' points you enumerated
is destroyed.  I would call this selective reading and find it hard to
believe a scientist would only read one side of a controversial subject.

I lived only 100 miles south of Socorro (working at White Sands Missile
Range) when this event occurred.  Believe me, nothing could save
Socorro's economy!  By the time this happened, I was interested in UFOs,
a member of APRO, but I figured the USAF and Dr. Hynek could handle it,
so I never even bothered to travel the 100 miles.

Klass' allegations that there were no other witnesses is a lie; his
allegations of economic reasons is a fraud.  On the other hand, his
record is very poor in debunking UFOs for the most part, anyhow, so one
more try at destroying the life of an innocent observer is to be
expected.  Why try to find contradictory information if you have already
concluded that the victims are culprits?

In 1978, I met Dr. Hynek (again; first in 1960) and he was still
convinced Zamora saw some kind of real object.  In 1975, I chanced to
meet the man who was commanding general at Kirtland AFB during the
investigation, and he told me that his officers were convinced there was
some kind of landing of something that left traces.  The landing trace
data correlates with hundreds of other landing reports, so nothing
unusual there.

Other evidence is contained in the previously mentioned book.  So, read
the other evidence some time before you spout off PSICOPs latest drivel,
would you?

(I wonder what Klass would have called two of us co-op students who
photographed an object at WSMR in the early 1960s, an ovoidal blob that
we measured going at least 5000 mph [determined from our field of view,
a known target in the same frame, etc.].  No doubt that as men in our
early 20s, he'd have called us unreliable, denied that the film existed,
probably accused us of chewing some of the strange weeds that grow in
Jornada del Muerto...)

--Arlan Andrews (ex desert rat)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Mar 87 18:44:16 GMT
From: shawn@eddie.mit.edu  (Shawn F. Mckay)
Subject: UFO evidence


Ok, so having adpoted this as a hobby, where would people recomend I
start looking, for information, both on-line and printed, who, if
anyone is researching it, (i.e. USAF? NASA?, No one?)..

I have no bias in either direction, but I am unwilling to disbeleive,
or beleive, based on heresay, so where to look?

			Thanks in advance,
			  -- Shawn

------------------------------

Date: 26 Feb 87 02:49:06 GMT
From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu  (Chris Sylvain)
Organization: University of Maryland, College Park
Subject: Re: Next 30 years.. person'ed, crewed, manned
References: <8702231756.AA13693@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702231756.AA13693@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
> ...
>I would like to see a greater unmanned program, both in the orbital
>and planetary (especially for the science) arena.  Man-rate (people-
>rated?) flight systems are an order of magnitude more expensive
>than un-manned systems, and there's lots of work to be done.
> ...
>I think we will continue to need a manned (person'ed) program
>to do those things which electronics can't provide.  We should certainly
>explore our solar system (in crewed flight), have space stations, and so
>forth.
> ...
>--eugene miya

In the special issue of The Planetary Report dated March/April 1985, Dr.
Sagan invited the Society's members to suggest alternatives to "manned".
236 members responded, with many applauding the effort to be sensitive
on the subject, and many stating that it was too trivial to bother with.
Humor, trivia, scorn and many constructive suggestions typified the
responses [ sounds like recent "net history" ]. The most popular choice
was "staffed", chosen 29 times, with "live" right behind with 28.
"Astronaut", "inhabited", "piloted", "occupied", and "personned" were
all suggested more than 10 times each. 29 people said: Leave it alone,
"manned" is perfectly acceptable. Some specific responses mentioned in
the follow-up article in the January/February 1986 issue:
  An Iowa City policeman said his force had solved the problem by
changing "manned vehicles" to "occupied vehicles". Several people noted
that they had put in days of work on the subject, and cited their
research. One comment was: "From an extraterrestrial point of view, the
difference between Sally Ride and Neil Armstrong doesn't seem worth
worrying about." Another person quoted Shakespeare, "What's in a name?
That which we call a rose/By any other name would smell as sweet," and
then added, "As to the future we reap with our technology, may it be as
sweet as the Bard's proverbial rose."
  The words chosen by the Society's Board of Directors were:

accompanied	ambisextrous	animated	anthropic	attended
beset		bionic		corporeal	creatured	droogied
hominized	hybrid		missionary	organic		peopled
personned	piloted		prosopal	starred		tended
wamo

"droogied" is from Russian for "friend"
"prosopal" is Greek for "personned"
"wamo" is "woman or man operated"

Popular use will determine the new, correct term.
(I personally prefer "tended".)

reprinted, paraphrased, rearranged, and otherwise rewritten without permission.

   ARPA: cgs@umd5.UMD.EDU     BITNET: cgs%umd5@umd2
   UUCP: ..!seismo!umd5.umd.edu!cgs

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 9 Mar 87 18:13:13 EST
From: weltyc@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty)
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Cc: 
In-Reply-To: (Andre Guirard's message of 25 Feb 87 14:39:15 GMT
Subject: 50 light years (newsgroup survey)


	OK, you wanted to hear from people on the list, you got it.
When pressed, I can rarely think of reasons why I personally support
space exploration/colonization/etc. so strongly.  When given time I
can coem up with reasons that sound very altruistic (more food,
energy, eggs in one basket), but they aren't really why I am so
interested.  
	Why was Columbus interested in sailing west?  Why did Louis
and Clarke explore the Louisiana Purchase, why did any explorer ever
go exploring?  It is very appealing to some people, and I count myself
as one of those people.  Exploring what is literally the unknown has
always fascinated me tremendously.  Sure, there are REAL humaninstic
and monetary benefits from various space and exploratory missions, but
that's just icing on the cake.  I believe that Columbus et al felt the
same way - there was money involved, yes, but they probably would have
done it for free.  ANyone who thinks "there are enough problems here
to spend our money on" is just someone who doesn't believe in
exploration. They should be thankful that the more prominant figures
of the past didn't feel the same way or a lot of what we have and know
today MIGHT not be there (I did say might).  In my view, exploration
is ALWAYS justified, regardless of the cost.  In MY view.  I am glad
there are others who share this feeling, but I wish there were more
and that they were richer...

					-Chris

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 05:34:16 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222
Subject: Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning
References: <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov> KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET writes:
>Wolfgang Rupprecht asks in Space Digest #132 about confirmed existence
>of ball lightning.

An excellent collection of hundreds of ball lightning excerpts can be found 
in the following:  

Corliss, W.R., "Lightning, Auroras, Nocturnal Lights, and Related Luminous
	Phenomena", 1982. (Published and distributed by The Sourcebook
	Project, P.O. Box 107, Glen Arm, MD  21057) Tel: (301) 668-6047

>A while back I attempted to research this phenomenon myself.  There is
>very little on it and I can't remember much of what there was.  It HAS
>been created under laboratory conditions, with strictly controlled
>conditions (perfectly mixed gasses, etc.).  It is true plasma, but
>no one (that I know of) really knows what makes it tick.

Some "rf" plasma balls have been generated in the laboratory in
a reduced pressure atmosphere and referred to as ball lightning,
but that is doubtful given the bounce, sometimes explosive, and its
existence observed inside metal skinned sheds and aircraft.  We think
we have a basic understanding of the phenomena. 

>motions, jumping between metallic objects.  It "latched" on to a power
>line and moved rapidly down the line past my father.  It then lept
>with unbelievable speed from the line to a nearby trashcan, setting
>off an explosion which destroyed the trashcan and knocked my father
>into a ditch!

I believe this shows the magnetic characteristics of BL and the
highly conducting nature of the "shell or plasma Mantle".  The
latter is demonstrated because the transmission line current repels 
the BL at very short range by inducing image currents in the plasma 
Mantle.   The high conductivity comes from runaway electron
currents --  something in the range of .5 to 10 MeV. 

>A man was living in an apartment or something that was a few stories
>up.  He was sleeping with his window open during a thunderstorm.
>A lightning ball floated through his window.  Its loud crackling awoke
>him just in time for him to see it jump to a lamp or something and destroy
>an entire wall in his apartment.

Energy of BL ranges from 3 to 10 times the energy density of air.  A one
foot diameter nascent ball (typical) would contain about sixty kilojoules.  
A three foot diameter ball have flattened farm machinery & tractor shed. 
That's 1.6 megajoules.. more whack than a concussion grenade, I think. 

>and seems to like metallic objects.  It is very bright, makes a lot of
>noise, and has been reported to remain in existence as long as two

Depends on the metal.  Repelled by conductors without current and
attracted by ferromagnetic material or conductors carrying substantial
current. It can be quite dim too if the currents are MeV energetic
(conducting) and it does not have a lot of high Z impurities.  Their
noise level can be in the silent range, but things like rain, poorly 
formed Mantle, etc can cause it to make snapping or "crackling" noise.  
If rolling over a wet railroad track a BL "sizzles".  

>radio.  That amount of electrical energy has been known to magnetize
>objects.  The UV emission could easily cause "sunburn" which is also
>often a claim of the sighters.

Also a loss of hair and radiation burns evident after a week on the
side of the body toward the BL.  Thei is probably caused by high "Z" 
impurities (copper, lead, tin, etc) being bombarded by the MeV energetic 
currents which can cause some quite dangerous X-rays.   "Clean" pure air 
BL's might still be able to give you UV burns if one passes within a 
couple of feet. 
	
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP    | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #171
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17409; Mon, 23 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST
	id AA17409; Mon, 23 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 87 03:03:32 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703231103.AA17409@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #172

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 172

Today's Topics:
		     Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning
			    ball lightning
			    Ball Lightning
		 And another remark on Ball Lightning
			  Back to the Future
			 More Ball Lightning
			       New book
			 Thanks for the help
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #159
			Re: heat of spacecraft
			Re: heat of spacecraft
			  Light sails, etc.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 06:00:22 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222
Subject: Re: UFOs and Ball Lightning
References: <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov>, <1615@utastro.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <1615@utastro.UUCP> ethan@utastro.UUCP (Ethan Vishniac) writes:
>In article <8702150249.AA14072@angband.s1.gov>, KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.CSNET@RELAY.CS.NET writes:
>> A single brightly glowing and .. 
>> with unbelievable speed from the line to a nearby trashcan, setting
>> off an explosion which destroyed the trashcan and knocked my father
>> into a ditch!

>Few such reports took place in front of a calm
>scientific observer which is why at least one group of researchers
>has persistently claimed that ball lightning is a fluorescence 
>phenomenon involving very low energies.  I think the documentation
>of such incidents is sufficient that few people believe this explanation.

You are probably correct.  Fluorescence would provide a "dimming"
light with time that alone would be nearly impossible to see in the
daylight.  It would not require any "higher internal energy" structure,
so that wind and rain would disassemble it easily. 

I have a report from Sweden (Annika Waern -Swedish Institute of
Computer Science) that there was a recent study there which seems 
to have confirmed the probable existence of ball lightning, but I 
don't yet have a reference and I haven't had time to track it down.  

A couple of days ago I received a letter concerning my interest in Ball 
Lightning from Japan of all places.  Prof. Y. H.  Ohtsuki of Waseda 
University, Japan, organized the "Japanese Information Center for Ball 
Lightning Observation" last June.  Since then his researchers have 
obtained 1600 cases, including many colored photographs, drawings, and 
video tapes.  By rough analysis, it is apparent that Japanese Ball 
Lightning have similar characteristics to those observed on the 
Continent (probably Europe?).  He will be sending me a report shortly, 
which the researchers are now preparing in English. 

In Japan, interest in Ball Lightning has increased considerably, so
they are planning to organize an "International Symposium on Ball 
Lightning" in Japan during 1988.   If you are interested in the 
Symposium, and have more than a passing interest in this phenomenon 
or closely related matters, I would be happy to pass on your address 
to the Japan BL Information Center. 

+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP    | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Feb 87 08:16:40 PST
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
Subject: ball lightning

    For a good description of what is known about ball lightning
and bead lightning, see the book by James Dale Barry, "Ball
lightning and bead lightning", New York: Plenum Press, c1980.
There seems to be no doubt that the phenomena exist.  What is not
yet understood is the mechanism that allows the ball to persist
for long periods of time.

------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 1 Mar 87 13:31 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.com@relay.cs.net, space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  Ball Lightning
X-Vms-To: IN%"KGEISEL%CGIVC@cgi.csnet", IN%"space@angband.s1.gov", DIETZ

Reading KGEISEL%CGIVC%cgi.csnet's description of his father's incident
made me wonder about something:  if ball lightning is a ball of hot,
ionized air, why did it *fall*?  I would think it would be less dense
than the ambient air.  Would it follow magnetic field gradients?  If so,
that might explain why it often shows up in certain geographical locations.
Those locations would have large local magnetic field inhomogeneities,
perhaps caused by magnetic iron ore deposits.  This is testable -- did
KGEISEL's father happen to live up in northwestern Michigan, south of Lake
Superior?  There are large taconite deposits there.  Taconite contains
magnetite.

It would be amusing if some electrical utility built a superconducting
magnetic energy storage system (basically a ~1 km ring buried several
tens of meters down) and then discovered itself plagued by BL during
thunderstorms.

>   The UV emission could easily cause "sunburn" which is also
> often a claim of the sighters.

If indeed BL contains very energetic electrons, I'd be worried about X-ray
exposure.  X-rays can cause sunburn-like symptoms too.  I hope KGEISEL's
father didn't suffer any ill effects.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 02 Mar 87 09:33:01 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: And another remark on Ball Lightning

An interesting paper that crossed my desk was "A Model for Ball
Lightning and Bead Lightning" (CMA-R11-86) by Karl L. E. Nickel of the
Institut fuer Angewandte Mathematik, Universitaat von Freiburg, West
Germany.  In the paper Prof. Nickel presents the theory that ball
lightning is really an energetic plasma contained within a vortex ring
or Hill spherical vortex.  A classic example of a vortex ring can be
observed when a cigar smoker is making smoke rings.   A simple
experiment to form a vortex ring is to take a glass of water and drop
dyed-water into it with an eye dropper.  The vortex ring forms a donut
shaped core which is a region of high vorticity accumulating the dyed
water.  The vortex ring is extremely stable.  It is quite possible that
a highly energetic plasma could be confined within the core of a vortex
ring.  The electromagnetic forces which would tend to breakup the core
could be cancelled out by the hydrodynamic forces of the vortex ring.
However, such a configuration would have to travel at high speeds to be
stable and would be sensitive to nonaxisymmetric breakup unless the
electromagnetic forces somehow stabilized against this.  I have never
seen scientific evidence to support this idea and for this reason am
sceptical about the reality of ball lightning.  However I find a ball
lightning theory more believable for explaining UFO's than
extra-terrestrial spacecraft.
                                 Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 3 Mar 87 08:38 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Back to the Future

Ethan Vishniac (ethan@astro.AS.UTEXAS.EDU) wrote:
> There are other reports, including a famous one about a Russian
> contemporary of Ben Franklin's who died during an encounter with
> one. (He had tried to trap a large charge using a lightning rod
> and a Leiden jar.)

If someone back in the 1700's could make ball lightning accidently,
perhaps some interested amateur scientist with a small budget could
do the same today.  Collecting natural lightning is not difficult, given
patience, a lightning rod and a tall tower or building.  Making the ball
lightning is more of a challenge.  Any idea what a lightning driven ball
lightning generator would look like?  A pair of coaxial helical electrodes?
An exploding coil of wire?  It can't be too complex, if it happened by
accident.  Record the results with TV cameras & VCRs (shielded and battery
powered).  Adventuresome experimenters might want to try different gases
(deuterium could be very exciting).

Does anyone have a bibliography on ball lightning?

------------------------------

Date: 3 Mar 87 22:17:37 GMT
From: felix!peregrine!ccicpg!leo!larry@hplabs.hp.com  ( Larry Johnson)
Subject: More Ball Lightning

While I was a student at UCSD one of my professors showed several
photographs of ball lightning to the class. It was time lapse and
as such not detailed. However it appeared to wander down from the
sky, brush against the ground several times, and finally explode
against a phone pole. During the ground bounces it grew in luminosity
due to ionizing dust.
   
My understanding of the stability is that the circular magnetic field
causes the ions to circle the magnetic lines. These rotating charged
particles then create,(maintain) the magnetic lines. The stability
has nothing to do with the speed of the BL. The energies are also too
low for xrays. The stored energy (in the mag field) can be released in
a hurry however if the circular mag field is cut by a conductor since 
the stability is ruined and the ions wind up plunging into the conductor
as they race down the field lines. This explains burnt paint on cars
and scorched people.

Anybody else ever seen a photo? A film would be even better. My physics
prof refused to publish his photo after the first time because of
the adverse mail he recieved. Too bad but I feel privilaged to have 
seen them.

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 1987 01:44-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: New book

I've just been reading a new book called "The Tomorrow Makers" by Grant
Fjermedal, Macmillan Publishing. It offers and excellent coverage of
the personalities and the work of numerous people on the forefront of
the creation of intelligent robots that will either be our successors
or our symbiont.

Interestingly and not terribly surprising (to an L5'er that is) quite a
number of the people are L5 members: Marvin Minsky, Hans Moravec, Mike
Blackwell, Kevin Dowling, John McCarthy, Eric Drexler, just to name a
few. He stumbled on our underground (under computer??)
techno-conspiracy!!! The game is afoot...

Anyway, I'd recommend it highly. What I find most interesting is a
fairly balanced examination of the moral and ethical considerations of
this front line technology. The opinions of members of Harvard Divinity
School were particularly thought provoking. I would go so far as to say
that it changed my whole perception of theologians. They really do have
something to say that is worth listening to.

It's a fun read; it's about people like us. I'm sure many of you will
see parts of yourself in the bits of personal trivia on the highlighted
individuals.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 1987 13:43-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Thanks for the help

For those who helped with the request for assistance in the shuttle
funding push last year, thanks. Here is a letter rcvd by Gary Oleson
from Senator Ted Stevens:

					UNITED STATES SENATE
					COMMITTEE ON APPROPRIATIONS
					WASHINGTON, DC 20510

					February 6, 1987

Mr. Gary Oleson
Senior Vice President
L5 Society

Dear Gary:

	Thanks for your support for my initiative to provide a
replacement orbiter for the Challenger space shuttle. The timely
support that the members of the L5 Society lent to this effort helped
in focusing Congressional and public attention on this proposal.

	As you know, we succeeded in securing an appropriation of over
$2.4 billion for the new shuttle, which raised NASA's funding level to
over 10.4 billion. Hopefully, this will help set the space program back
on track. You should be proud of the role you played in this outcome.

	Again, thanks for your assistance during the closing days of th
99th Congress.

	With best wishes,

					Cordially,
					Ted Stevens

 	(handwritten at bottom)
		Your help was VERY important

			Thanks, Ted


==============================================================================
And I will say the same to all of you out there: YOUR help was very
important.
			Thanks, Dale

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 1987 01:09-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #159

Errata: The date on the banquet for Forward is of course 3/28/87, not
3/38/87....

------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 87 17:07:10 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Subject: Re: heat of spacecraft
References: <8702102105.AA27868@ji.Berkeley.EDU>, <269@ka9q.bellcore.com>, <2970@ihlpa.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <2970@ihlpa.UUCP>, animal@ihlpa.UUCP (D. Starr) writes:
> ... you can dump only a small amount of your orbital momentum
> before you've gotten into a path that intersects the earth's surface.  At
> this point you still have a lot of velocity to dispose of.  As a result,
> re-entry paths are limited to about half a revolution or less.

Not necessarily so if the spacecraft develops lift.  The Dyna-Soar was
supposed to dip in and out of the upper atmosphere, taking more than
one revolution to come down.

			David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 20 Feb 87 04:37:55 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Ctr., Cambridge, MA
Subject: Re: heat of spacecraft
References: <8702102105.AA27868@ji.Berkeley.EDU>, <269@ka9q.bellcore.com>, <2970@ihlpa.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

	That doesn't have to be the case, if your reentry vehicle can
generate aerodynamic lift.  Just design the vehicle and your reentry
path so that it loses velocity only fast enough to provide the lift
(after allowing for the inevitable inefficiencies).

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 87 04:24:31 GMT
From: princeton!puvax2!0164384%PUCC.PRINCETON.EDU@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (David King)
Organization: Princeton University - Computing and Information Technology
Subject: Light sails, etc.
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> I don't think you can tack a light sail, but if it's on an angle like
> a mirror [elaborate picture and description]....
 
  How are you going to *hold it* in that funny angled position?  Oh, I guess
you could play some tricks with thrusters and gyros, but I think I've got
a better way (which is NOT completely original with me).  Build two light
sails and attach them.  One is a conventional reflector; the other is made
of wire mesh with a charge applied.  The first sail is pushed by radiation
pressure; the second by the solar wind.  By varying the angle between them
and the charge on the mesh (mesh so it will let most of the light through),
you should have great flexibility without needing reaction mass or massive
gyros.
  How much serious work has been done on purely electrostatic, or perhaps
electromagnetic, engines?  There is an ion drive research project here at
Princeton, but the thrust of the continuous drive is something like a
micronewton (if anybody wants an exact figure, send mail and I'll go ask)
while the pulsed drive produces 20 newton pulses with a really horrendous
duty cycle.  Why on Earth can't somebody built a source of electricity
with a decent power-to-weight ratio???  I see no theoretical reason why
an ion drive couldn't develop as much thrust/mass as, say, a Saturn V.
In particular, how long will it take before we have *small* fusion reactors,
small and efficient enough to put themselves in LEO with their own energy?
    -Keith Mancus <6106728@PUCC>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #172
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19062; Tue, 24 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
	id AA19062; Tue, 24 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703241103.AA19062@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #173

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 173

Today's Topics:
 Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) are the key to space industrialization
			  Re: Solar Garbage
Re: Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) are the key to space industrialization
		      Space propulsion systems.
	       How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven?
			Re: Al203 condensation
			Re: Al203 condensation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 26 Feb 87 11:48:18 MEZ
To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) are the key to space industrialization
 
In the "Weekly Bulletin" of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, 11
Feb. 1987, Vol. 12, No.6 there appeared an absolutely fascinating
article entitled: "Fusion Rocket Studied: Star-Drive Might Put Man on
Mars".  Livermore Lab physicist Charles Orth organized a seminar
composed of scientists from NASA, JPL, MIT, and Rocketdyne to discuss
"Interplanetary Propulsion Using Inertial Confinement Fusion".  I quote
the important core of the article: "A radical new engine based on the
energy of stars would propel the Intertial Fusion Rocket (IFR).  The
engine uses lasers and a large super conducting magnet.  In the vacuum
of space, an invisible magnetic bottle acts as a thrust nozzle.  Pellets
of fuel are injected into the magnetic bottle one by one, at the rate of
about five a second.  Laser-pulses implode each pellet, causing hydrogen
nuclei to fuse....  The magnetic nozzle shapes the expanding plasma
debris from the tiny fusion explosions into a ... jet.  LLNL's Rod Hyde
conceptualized this design, and published it in 1983.  Orth and his team
are expanding the concept with detailed systems studies.... Orth
detailed the required features (of the laser), such as reliability for
1.0E8 pulses, light-weight, high operating efficiency and temperature,
and ability to fire perhaps as many as 30 times a second with a 2-10
megajoule output.... At present, only some advance form of excimer laser
seems viable for an IFR application.... Three fuels were closely
considered: a deuterium-tritium mixture, deuterium-deuterium, and
deuterium-helium-3... Even though the deuterium-helium3 mixture looks
the best at first glance, its energy output is worse than DT's by a
factor of six.  In addition, the unavailability of He3 is a major
drawback.  With dry humor Orth said, "You're going to have to mine the
atmosphere of Jupiter or the surface of the moon to get it".  Orth
said...DT is the fuel of choice in the near-term, despite the fact that
tritium is radioactive.  The nuclear fusion reactions whose debris would
directly propel the IFR also emit neutrons and X-rays.  The magnetic
force of the thrust chamber would not steer this energy.  Any neutrons
or X-rays striking the spaceship would heat it-necessitating a system of
weighty radiators to dispose of the heat.  So Orth and his team have
devised a novel conical design. They placed the reaction zone in the
cone's tip (the back of the ship). They placed a shield right next to
the reaction area, which protects the magnet coil which is supercooled
to zero electrical resistance. They designed the rest of the ship to be
in the protective shadow of this shield. (The cone is hollow) The
neutrons ... don't strike anything except the shield.  Orth said a major
problem facing any space vehicle is getting rid of waste-heat.
Radiatiors are bulky and heavy... Since most of the surface area of the
craft must be waste-heat radiators, the IFR designers went a step
further.  They are making the spacecraft itself the radiator.  Orth also
said that coil shield could incorporate a waste-energy recovery system.
Electricity to run the laser could be made there using Rankine thermal
hardware.  Or, an additional wire coil could produce electricity by
magnetic induction when the expanding exhaust plasma causes magnetic
field lines to cross the coil."
 
                   --- Vehicle Specifications ---
                   Mars mission duration: 110 days
                   Payload:               100 tons
                   Maximum velocity:      190 miles/sec
                   Specific Impulse:      30,000 sec.
                   Pellet drive energy:   5 megajoules
                   Pellet gain:           1,500
 
========================================================================
                             Commentary
 
This is **it** guys.  This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will
open up the entire solar system to exploration and commercial
development.  The major barrier is getting the lasers small, reliable,
and efficient.  However this is **exactly** what they're trying to do
with SDI.  Through SDI research, the military will **accidently**
provide the key technology that will make the IFR viable.  People have
been thrashing around trying to come up with a space objective like the
Apollo program.  Here is one: Send an American to Mars by use of an IFR
type vehicle by the year 2000.  Talk about spin offs: The vehicle once
made could be used for ***many*** missions (and not just to Mars).  IFR
technology would be directly applicable to terrestrial energy programs.
You could even sell the military on the IFR since much of its technology
has direct military application.  This is exactly the sort of project
that could excite the American people into backing a major Apollo type
program and get us **permanently** into space.
                             Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 87 23:32:26 GMT
From: decvax!linus!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
References: <163400004@uiucdcsb>,, <451@lewey.AIT.COM>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> ... Unfortunately, atmospheric drag is much greater than solar
> radiation thrust for thousands of miles away from the earth, so the
> use of sails below Clarke orbit is silly...

Unless you're using perforated sails.  Holes that are small compared to the
wavelengths of visible light will not affect the optical properties of the
sail, but they'll let gas molecules go straight through.  (This wouldn't
work in a thick atmosphere, where a boundary layer of gas "sticks" to the
surface and fills in the holes.  Out in space, where every gas molecule is
on its own, no problem.)  A sail that's 75% holes will have only 25% of the
atmospheric drag (and incidentally only 25% of the mass), but 100% of the
thrust, of a solid sail.  Of course, it's harder to make...
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 28 Feb 87 06:47:30 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Ctr., Cambridge, MA
Subject: Re: Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) are the key to space industrialization
References: <8702261258.AA06415@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702261258.AA06415@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
[Quotes excerpts from a rather showy article describing an Inertial Fusion
Drive]
> ========================================================================
>                              Commentary
>  
> This is **it** guys.  This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will
> open up the entire solar system to exploration and commercial
> development.  The major barrier is getting the lasers small, reliable,
> and efficient.

	The problem is trying to get ANY kind of fusion reactor to work.

>                 However this is **exactly** what they're trying to do
> with SDI.  Through SDI research, the military will **accidently**
> provide the key technology that will make the IFR viable. . .
>       . . .You could even sell the military on the IFR since much of
> its technology has direct military application.  This is exactly
> the sort of project that could excite the American people into backing
> a major Apollo type program and get us **permanently** into space.

	One major problem: if the military either develops it or gets
its hands on it, we will never get the benefit of it, because they will
keep it classified in the name of keeping the Soviet Union from getting
it; they will also wish to expand themselves into space without
competition from civilians who would want to do unrestricted research
and who might advance political causes unfavorable to the
military-industrial complex or even blow the whistle on abuses.

>                              Gary Allen

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

------------------------------

Date:           Fri, 6 Mar 87 13:15:36 PST
From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@locus.ucla.edu>
Subject:        Space propulsion systems.

While we're on the subject of interstellar travel, I thought I would dig
out my "Forcast of Space Technology: 1980-2000" from NASA (via Govt
printing office) and would spew some info about propulsion systems at
the net.  While the document does not give fun numbers like Isp, it
gives some amusing ones, like: Cost-to-develop-system (couldn't be off
by more than 1E2 :-} )

Most of the numbers relate to year 2000 technology (as seen from 1976).

Enough chat, just the facts 'mam:

                                Thrust      Weight   Conversion    cost to
                                Velocity    Power     Efficiency   Develop
Types of propulsion             (M/Sec)    (Kg/Watt)    (pct.)     $1.0 E6
---------------------------      -------    -------     ------    ---------

e Bombardment Electrostatic
---------------------------
Primary Hg Propellant             2.9 E4    3.5 E-3     70%          10
Primary light gas Propellant      2.1 E5    1.5 E-3     70%          10
Auxalliry Hg or Cs Propellant     2.9 E4    1.3 E-2     70%          10

Coiloid Electrostatic Thruster
------------------------------
Glycerol Propellant               1.9 E4    2.5 E-3     60%           2
Cesium Propellant                 1.0 E5    9.0 E-2     65%           4

Electromagnetic Accelerator
---------------------------
QuasiSteady (10 kW)               1.0 E4    1.0 E-3     40%          35
Steady (1 mW)                     1.0 E4    1.5 E-4     50%          35

Beamed Energy Driven Thermal      1.0 E4    1.5 E-4     20%        1500
----------------------------

Solar Sails                       3.0 E8    7.0 E-5 (1+r/2) cos^2 b  21
-----------    [can't get much faster^^^^]          r = reflectance

Solar Electric Propulsion
-------------------------
Hg Propellant                     4.0 E4    2.0 E-4     70%          55

Liquid Propellant Rocket
------------------------
Pump Fed                          5.5 E3    6.0 E-6     95%          90
Pressure fed primary              3.6 E3    3.0 E-6     95%           7
Pressure fed auxilary             3.0 E3    5.0 E-6     85%          00

Solid Propellant Rocket
-----------------------
Propellent Mass=1E2 Kg            2.9 E3                              1
Propellent Mass=1E4 Kg            2.9 E3                             10
Propellent Mass=1E4 Kg            2.9 E3                            150

Detonation Propulsion             7.0 E3    1.0 E-5     50%          10
---------------------

Metastable Chemical (H-H2)
--------------------------
Magnetic Stabalized 1E3 Mass      9.0 E3                             70
Magnetic Stabalized 1E5 Mass      1.7 E4                            150
Solid Matrix Stabalized 1E3 Mass  5.0 E3                             70
Solid Matrix Stabalized 1E5 Mass  5.0 E3                            150

Solid Core Nuclear Rocket                                      Engines only
-------------------------                                      from here on
F= 7 E4 N                         9.0 E3    7.0 E-6 < @  100%       400
F= 3 E5 N                         9.0 E3    6.5 E-6 < @  100%       700
F= 1 E6 N                         9.0 E3    7.0 E-6 < @  100%      1200

Dust Bed Nuclear Rocket
-----------------------
F= 2 E4   N                       1.1 E4    7.0 E-5 < @  100%       600
F= 4.5 E4 N                       1.1 E4    3.0 E-5 < @  100%       850

Nuclear Light Bulb Rocket
-------------------------
F= 5 E5   N                       2.0 E4    6.0 E-6 < @  100%       900
F= 1 E6   N                       3.0 E4    4.0 E-6 < @  100%      1250

Nuclear Gas Core Rocket
-----------------------
F= 2.5 E5 N                       4.0 E4    1.0 E-5 < @  100%       600
F= 4.5 E5 N                       6.0 E4    7.0 E-6 < @  100%       850

Nuclear Electric Propulsion
---------------------------
Thermonic (120/240 kW)            4.0 E4    3.0 E-2     65%         900
Thermonic (1 MW)                  6.0 E4    2.0 E-2     70%        2100
MHD (1 MW)                        4.0 E4    2.0 E-2     65%        1500
MHD (10 MW)                       6.0 E4    1.0 E-2     70%        1500

Fusion Rocket Engine
--------------------
Jet Power (200-1000 MW)           1.0 E6    1.0 E-3     25%        7000

Fusion Microexplosions            1.0 E5    1.0 E-4     15%        1800
----------------------

Anti-matter
----------


I don't know if the GPO still has the document, or if there is an
updated version of the report (I got mine in 1978), but it is a great
little book that talks about all aspects of the space program, from life
support to information processing to propulsion. The number on mine is
NASA-SP-387.

Have fun pushing some of these numbers through your equations.

(bill)

             William J. Fulco
         lcc.bill@locus.ucla.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 8 Mar 87 15:29 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:  How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven?
X-Vms-To: IN%"space@angband.s1.gov"

Someone asked "how close is fusion to achieving breakeven".  Well, it
depends on what you mean by breakeven.  The cheating definition is
"scientific breakeven", where one compares the energy produced by the
fusion reactions to the energy injected into the plasma (ignoring energy
needed to run the magnets, conversion losses in turning heat to
electricity, etc.).  According to this measure, if TFTR at Princeton had
been run with DT fuel (it uses pure deuterium in tests to hold down
radiation levels) it would have achieved a Q of .2 -- fusion output
would be 1/5 of the energy input.

Suprisingly, this is not the best.  That honor goes to a dark horse --
muon catalyzed fusion.  Recent measurements in hot compressed DT gas
show that one negative muon catalyzes about 150 to 170 fusions before it
decays.  Each negative muon costs about 5 GeV to produce; at about 20
MeV per fusion (counting heat generated in the lithium blanket) this
gives a Q of between .6 and .7.  It will be necessary to reach ~1200
fusions/muon to make a pure fusion reactor economical, but even at
current fusion/muon ratios a thorium-blanketed fusion/fission/spallation
U233 factory is feasible (if not yet economical, given the glutted
market for fission fuel).

They would be no reason in space to prefer a MCF reactor to a fission
reactor.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Mar 87 17:48:35 GMT
From: amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Howard A. Landman)
Subject: Re: Al203 condensation

In article <8702111517.AA04498@angband.s1.gov> ST401385@BROWNVM.BITNET writes:
> . . .  If Al2O3 condenses into a solid at 2100C,
>then the adiabatic expansion (neglecting supercooling) STOPS at
>2100C (call it 2400 K).  At this point, how much of the thermal
>(undirected) energy of the gas has been converted into (directed)
>kinetic energy?  Since E(thermal)=(n/2)kT (where n is the number
>of degrees of freedom, depends on the gas), the formula for
>specific impulse including condensation is
>       Isp=sqr[2E*(T(reaction)-T(condensation))/m]/g
>or, for the specific case here
>       Isp (Al/O2) =sqr[2E*(T(r)-2400)/m]/g

I'm curious.  It seems to me that this argument only considers pure H2/O2
and Al/O2 systems.  But suppose you mix them?  If you use, say, 90% H2 and
10% Al, doesn't most of the heat from the Al2O3 get transferred to the H2O,
even when the temp falls below 2400K?  So wouldn't the specific impulse of
such a mixture be greater than that of pure H2/O2?  If so, what is formula
describing specific impulse as a function of %Al, and where is its maximum?
Is there a patent waiting for us here?

	Howard A. Landman
	...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 23:27:24 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Al203 condensation

In article <482@cpocd2.UUCP> howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes:
>>	...[discussion of specific impulse of aluminum-oxygen rocket]...
>>       Isp (Al/O2) =sqr[2E*(T(r)-2400)/m]/g
>I'm curious.  It seems to me that this argument only considers pure
>H2/O2 and Al/O2 systems.  But suppose you mix them?  If you use, say,
>90% H2 and 10% Al, doesn't most of the heat from the Al2O3 get
>transferred to the H2O, even when the temp falls below 2400K?  So
>wouldn't the specific impulse of such a mixture be greater than that of
>pure H2/O2?  If so, what is formula describing specific impulse as a
>function of %Al, and where is its maximum?  Is there a patent waiting
>for us here?

>	Howard A. Landman
>	...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard

Unfortunately, probably not.  I have seen (but do not, unfortunately,
have a reference for) a paper in the AIAA Journal which gives the
specific impulse for a wide variety of "trinary" propellants: H2-O2-X
(where X is things like Al, B, Be), H2-Fluorine-X, and several others,
so these possibilities have been studied.

Plotting Isp vs. % of X usually gives a roughly parabolic curve, with a
peak at some moderate amount of X, as suggested.  Unfortunately, the
practical difficulties of building tripropellant engines (Do you really
want to build a pump -- or an injector -- that handles a suspension of
aluminum dust in liquid hydrogen??) generally make the modest increase
in Isp uneconomical.

	Jordin Kare	jtk@mordor.s1.gov	jtk@mordor.uucp

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #173
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21279; Wed, 25 Mar 87 03:03:09 PST
	id AA21279; Wed, 25 Mar 87 03:03:09 PST
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 87 03:03:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703251103.AA21279@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #174

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 25 Mar 87 03:03:09 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #174

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 174

Today's Topics:
		 Summary Earth Mass and N-body motion
		Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers
			Re: Cometary volatiles
	      Re: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers
	      Re: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers
		      Texts on Orbital Mechanics
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Feb 87 15:24:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Organization: AT&T Consumer Products, Indianapolis
Subject: Summary Earth Mass and N-body motion
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

>In Vol. 7, No. 130 of Space Digest, Fred Mendenhall asked for help in
>debugging an N-Body code.  Fred, I am sorry to say that there is no
>easy fix for your problem.  You assumned **falsely** that third body
>perturbations are dominant in low earth orbit.  In actuality the
>oblateness terms, J2-J4 and atmospheric drag dominate until you have a
>gecentric radius of 1.1E8 feet.  If you are only interested in the
>N-Body problem, then let me suggest that you investigate the orbit of
>the asteroid Toro.  The orbital elements for Toro are tabulated in the
>"Astronomical Almanac 1986" on page G12.  However if you insist on
>investigating low earth orbit trajectories, then I suggest that you
>read "Astrodynamics" by Samuel Herrick.  Use the MSIS 1977 atmospheric
>model by A.E. Hedin.  I've written such a code myself and it is over
>several thousand lines long.  Good luck.
>                                 Gary


First of all, I want to thank Gary, and the many others that have
responded to my posting. I've summarized their responses and that
summary follows my remarks. However, in the case of the simulation,
classical orbital periods are determined using Kepler's laws and these
laws do not consider atmospheric drag nor irregulairties in the Earth's
shape. The simulation only knows about gravity and and treats the bodies
as points, therefore, it is perfectly reasonable to expect the error
term to approach zero.

My only interest in Low Earth Orbits is to test out the simulation,
after all if I can't solve the problem with just two bodies, its
tough to have confidence with three or more. With the help I've
received from the net I've reduced the error for one orbit to a few
seconds. Now I expect the program to be good enough to demonstrate

	1. Gravity Whipping 
	
	2. Gravity Breaking
	
	3. Apollo type Free return Orbits
	
	4. Potential Colony orbits
	
	5. Clarke Orbits
	
	6. Possibly inter-planetary missions
	
	7. Military tactics - like lunar loops to retograde Clarke
	
I'm sure I'll think of others. 


					Fred
*********************************************************
		BEGIN SUMMARY
*******************************************************
		
From: ihnp4!thumper!mike

If you're using regular old "Feynman integration" you need to be very
careful.  Try looking in Feynman lectures, book I (I think) for a
discussion of this technique.

The numbers I have are:

M sub e: 5.9734e27 grams
G: 6.673e-8 dyne cm^2/g^2

	Mike Caplinger
	mike@bellcore.com
	{decvax,ihnp4}!thumper!mike

From: ihnp4!tektronix!reed!clyde (Clyde Bryja)
	
According to the system of astronomical constants adopted by the
IAU in 1976, the product of the earth's mass and the gravitational
constant is fixed at 3.986005*10^14 m^3/sec^2.  For gravitational
simulations involving the earth, this product is all you need
(unless you wish to consider secondary effects due to the non-
spherical shape of the earth (which is very significant for
satellite computations).

-- 
+++++++++++					Clyde Bryja
"For Easter Day is Christmas time,		Box 21, Reed College
 And far away is near,				Portland, OR    97202
 And two and two is more than four,
 And over there is here."			tektronix!reed!clyde

From: inuxc!pur-ee!pur-phy!newton!clt (Carrick Talmadge)

Since what actually enters in these equations is the product of G*M,
where G is the universal gravitational constant, and M is the mass of the
Earth, I would suggest using the measured value of G*M.  For this you
have your choice:

>From Earth-Moon laser ranging:

	G*M = 3.98600444(10) times 10^14 m^3/sec^2

>From measurements of the trajectory of the LAGEOS satellite:

	G*M = 3.986004342(20) times 10^14 m^3/sec^2


The number in parentheses represents the error in the least significant digits,
i.e., 1.002(10) -> 1.002 +- 0.010.

Hope this helps!

Carrick Talmadge
clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu


********************************************************
I had the same problem you seem to have had.
Here are the values that I used.  I took G to be
exact (from Particle Physics Data Book) and played
around with Me until I could predict orbits to within
a few centimeters (with certain assumptions).
For the Earth-Moon system, remember to used the "reduced"
mass to do the calculations in the certer of mass. (The
Earth wiggles quite a bit thanks to our dear friend the
Moon.)

	Earth Mass             = 5.97420205e24 kilograms
	Gravitational Constant = 6.672041d-11  N m^2 / kg^2

	Good Luck!

	Rich Webb


Organization: Elec. Eng. Dept., U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Cc: 

   Something that you might want to look into is this: near Earth, ie
to within at least the Moons orbit, the gravational field of the Earth
cannot be treated as a constant. Since Earth is not isotropic, the 
field isn't isotropic either. What is done is to write the field as an
expansion in Legendre Polynomials ( Similar to Fourier expansion ).
The Coefficients for each term need to be determined by measurement  
Currently, there is a 36*36 matrix of coefficients that is used and
standardized for geo-physicists. I dont have any references here, but
I'll try to dig some up, that is, assuming that you are interested in
near-earth orbits. Sent me mail if you are interested


-- 
======================================================================
David Bengtson/Laboratory for Plasma Fusion/University of Maryland
College Park Md 20742  {your keyboard} !seismo!mimsy!eneevax!daveb
======================================================================

From: James Alexander <iuvax!seismo!mimsy!eneevax!alex>
Organization: Elec. Eng. Dept., U of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
Cc: 
Status: R


If you are using 1968 values, you are surely off somewhat.  The value of
the universal gravitational constant G is not too well known.  However the
product GM (M=earth mass) is very well known and this is what is needed 
for orbit computations.  The best value I know is due to the efforts of
some people I work with in the Geodynamics Section of Goddard Space Flight
Center.  It is 3 986 004.40E8 plus or minus .05E8 meter cubed/sec squared.
See eg. Lerch et al. Marine Geodesy 5 (1981) 145-187, also
Geophys. Res. Lett. 9 (1982) 1263-1266.
-- 
    alex@eneevax.umd.edu
    {seismo,allegra}!umcp-cs!eneevax!alex

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 08:51 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Date: 19-FEB-1987 08:33
Subject: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers

    Relative to the dump-on-venus discussion, it seems to me there is a
misuse of the Hohmann Elipse Transfer data.  These figures represent the
change in energy to go from one stable orbit to another. But if you are
dumping refuse, orbital stability hardly seems important. A simple
example will demonstrate why the Hohmann figures are irrelevant to
dumping-in-the-sun :

    Take your garbage and aim it somewhere near the moon when the moon
is directly up-orbit of earth. Calculate your trajectory so that as your
garbage passes through the moon's gravitational field it turns 90
degrees or so. This passage will convert the orbital velocity of your
garbage into radial velocity. Your garbage will then rush into the sun.

    What you have done has not changed the energy of the garbage.
Instead, you have changed a relatively circular orbit into a VERY
elliptical one, that intersects the surface of the sun. If the garbage
didn't intersect the sun, it would loop back around, continue out past
the orbit of earth some distance, and so on in a cometary orbit.

    This doesn't defy any conservation laws. The energy of the garbage
is the sum of its potential and kinetic energies. When the garbage gets
near the sun, it no longer has the potential energy it had in Earth
orbit, but it has a corespondingly greater kinetic energy. If the
garbage loops back and goes beyond the earth's orbit, it will have
greater potential energy than it started with, but much less kinetic
energy ( so it won't stay out there ).

    This is well known stuff. The point is, garbage won't be sent to
orbit the sun, but to SMACK into it. You can do this with Venus too. In
fact, I think you can go all the way to Saturn using this approach, but
when you got there, your velocity relative to Saturn would be tremendous
( in fact, equal to the Holmann delta-vee figure ) so you won't be
soft-land there. You CAN crash however. You can also go into orbit
around the planet by falling deep enough into ITS potential energy well
to pick up the neccesary orbital velocity ( I think ) but you better
have enough big moons around to re-direct your velocity.

    Of course, orbital mechanics is NOT my profession : I could be wrong
about these "free" orbit transfers. Any comments and corrections are
appreciated

			    Dennis O'Connor

------------------------------

Date: 19 Feb 87 19:07:09 GMT
From: dayton!umn-cs!hyper!jmh@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Joel Halpern)
Organization: Network Systems Corp., Mpls. MN
Subject: Re: Cometary volatiles
References: <1818@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


Has anybody in this group read "Heart of the Comet" by Brin and
Benford.  I am asking because of a mechanics question therein.

At one point in the novel, two characters attempt to use rotation
to transfer velocity from one to the other.  While in general this
is possible, it seemed to me and some other people that the
particular case they were in made the machanics a losing proposition
instead of a winning one.  I would appreciate a comment from
someone who knows some mechanics and has read the novel, thank you.

Joel M. Halpern - Network Systems Corporation
umn-cs!hyper!jmh

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 87 04:30:55 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Organization: American Information Technology, Cupertino, CA
Subject: Re: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers
References: <8702191301.AA05108@angband.s1.gov>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

in article <8702191301.AA05108@angband.s1.gov%, OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) says:
% 
% 	Relative to the dump-on-venus discussion, it seems to
%     me there is a misuse of the Hohmann Elipse Transfer data....
% 
% 	Take your garbage and aim it somewhere near the moon
%     when the moon is directly up-orbit of earth. Calculate
%     your trajectory so that as your garbage passes through
%     the moon's gravitational field it turns 90 degrees or
%     so......
% 
% 	Of course, orbital mechanics is NOT my profession : I
%     could be wrong about these "free" orbit transfers.....

I'm not an "orbital mechanic" either, but I think you have a problem
getting a 90 degree turn out of the moon.  Your exit velocity relative
to the moon needs to be at least enough to cancel out the earth's
orbital velocity if you intend to hit the sun -- this is about 18.5
miles/sec.  Assuming you apply no energy to the garbage during your 90
degree corner, the incoming velocity must also be 18.5 miles/sec
relative to the moon.  The moon's escape velocity is only 1.5
miles/sec. At this point my meager knowledge deserts me, but it seems
that the change in direction of the velocity vector of the garbage can
not be very large.  And you can't use the velocity of the moon very
effectively either -- it cruises along at 0.6 mile/sec relative to the
earth, so even hitting it when it's going against the earth's orbital
velocity doesn't buy you much additional braking.

-- 
Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp
American Information Technology    (408)252-8713

------------------------------

Date: 21 Feb 87 04:13:53 GMT
From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: Dumping on Venus and Orbital Transfers
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <8702191301.AA05108@angband.s1.gov>, OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes:
> 
> 	Take your garbage and aim it somewhere near the moon
>     when the moon is directly up-orbit of earth. Calculate
>     your trajectory so that as your garbage passes through
>     the moon's gravitational field it turns 90 degrees or
>     so. This passage will convert the orbital velocity of
>     your garbage into radial velocity. Your garbage will then
>     rush into the sun.

Well...  If you think about it, the maximum velocity change you can get
by diving at a planet is twice its escape velocity (i used a rather
simplistic argument to get at this, but i think it's correct) (just
before you round the planet, you have its escape velocity going one way,
just after you finish, you have its escape velocity going the other way
(well, not quite the other way, but close)).  What you are trying to do
from all this is to redirect your velocity so that you have zero angular
velocity relative to the sun (close enough to zero, anyway, that the
ellipse you are on will intersect the sun's surface).  Jupiter appears
to be the nearest planet whose escape velocity is more than half its
orbital velocity.

It might be possible to get a boost from Mars to swing you out to
Jupiter (umm, Hohmann from Earth to Mars has an orbital velocity of 21.5
km/sec at Mars, Hohmann from Mars to Jupiter has an orbital velocity of
30.0 km/sec at Mars, Mars has an escape velocity of 5.02 km/sec.  Just
barely possible), but Earth, Mars, and Jupiter all have to be at exactly
the right spots.  Earth to Mars requires a delta v of 11.56 km/sec,
Earth to Jupiter requires a delta v of 14.22 km/sec, Earth to Sun
requires a delta v of 35 or so (not listed in my tables).

The moon has an escape velocity of 2.37 km/sec--not really enough to be
useful for much of anything.

david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 22 Feb 87 05:40:11 GMT
From: u5@eddie.mit.edu  (John DeRoo)
Organization: MIT, EE/CS Computer Facilities, Cambridge, MA
Subject: Texts on Orbital Mechanics
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

I have been reading a lot about orbits and such in this news group,
but I know very little about Orbital Mechanics.  Can someone recommend
a text?  I have taken "basic" college physics, Calculus, DifEQ, etc.,
so I don't think I have to worry too much about the math.  If people
send their suggestions directly to me, I will post a summery (so as
not to clog up th news group).  Thank You,
				John DeRoo
(I'm not sure of the path to eddie, but I think it is fed by Harvard)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #174
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23014; Thu, 26 Mar 87 03:03:10 PST
	id AA23014; Thu, 26 Mar 87 03:03:10 PST
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 87 03:03:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703261103.AA23014@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #175

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 87 03:03:10 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #175

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 175

Today's Topics:
			 I-CON VI Convention
		condensed space news from Dec 22 AW&ST
		condensed space news from Jan 5 AW&ST
		condensed space news from Jan 12 AW&ST
		    Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics
			    Solar Garbage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 87 13:17:07 GMT
From: unirot!bicker@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Brian Kohn)
Subject: I-CON VI Convention



          I - C O N    V I

The New York Area's Largest Convention
 of Science Fact, Fiction and Fantasy

    THIS WEEKEND: March 27, 28, 29
Jacob K. Javits Lecture Center on the
    scenic SUNY-Stony Brook Campus
  Stony Brook, Long Island, New York

Guest of Honor:
     Dr. David Brin

Special Guests:
     Colin Baker - Doctor Who # 6
     Mark Lenard - Star Trek's Sarek
     David Gerrold - Story Editor for
          STAR TREK-The New Generation

Films:
ALIEN               ALIENS
Star Trek - The Motion Picture
Star Trek - The Wrath of Khan
Star Trek - The Search for Spock
Buckaroo Banzai Across the Eigth Dimension
Wizards             The Dark Crystal
Creeping Terror     Between Time and Timbuktu
Invaders From Mars  The Man Who Fell To Earth 
Phantom From the Paradise
Doctor Who, Star Trek and Japanimation Videos

Large Dealers' Room with SF Memorabilia and
Comics (Open Saturday and Sunday)

FRP Gaming -- Special Events -- Autograph Sessions
Seminars -- Panels -- Art Show -- Auction

The Stony Brook Campus is conveniently located
at the Stony Brook L.I.R.R. Station or several
miles north on Nicholls Road, Exit 62 North
of the Long Island Expressway.
Tickets are $16 at the door-includes all 3 days.
I-CON Information: (516) 632-6472

The Resource.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 87 22:54:21 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: condensed space news from Dec 22 AW&ST

[This is the last of 1986; there was no Dec 29 issue.]

FCC licenses another competitor for Intelsat, Columbia Communications
Corp., for service between North America and Canada.

In-depth report compiled for NASA on last three Soviet space stations,
based on sources including translated Soviet journals.

Navy Secretary Lehman cancels Navy Remote Ocean Sensing Satellite
program due to excessive costs.  NROSS users, predictably, howl about
loss of US leadership in space.

International Space Station partners ticked off about DoD getting its
fingers into the Space Station.  Negotiations will be delayed.  DoD
wants to keep its foot in the door, given reduction in Shuttle flight
opportunities, and wants to make sure it is not kept out by management
agreements between the partners.  NASA is worried about the secrecy
constraints that might result from DoD use of the Station, Japan is
upset because it wants no part of station military activities, Europe is
concerned about possible restrictions on access to Station facilities.

ESA seriously, repeat seriously, unhappy about continued delays in Space
Station cooperation agreements.

USAF releases draft agreement on launch of commercial spacecraft from
USAF facilities.  NASA is already negotiating agreements for its support
of commercial Titan, Atlas-Centaur, Delta, and Conestoga launches.

USAF will speed up MLV program, and has decided not to use Ariane for
Navstar (Ariane is feasible, but MLV plus shuttle is thought
sufficient).

NASA mixed-fleet assessment urges Fletcher to get going on buying
expendables for civilian missions.  Shortage of shuttle capacity makes
this imperative.  Space science officials concur, say some transfers
from shuttle to expendables could be justified on cost -- their numbers
are shuttle $40-80M/flight, Delta $60-70M, Atlas-Centaur $80M, Titan 34D
$100M+, Titan 4 $250M.  Space Station management is mildly interested
and will get much more interested if the 16/year Shuttle mission rate
estimate turns out wrong, as NRC suggested.

KSC photo analysts reviewing 51L videotapes looking for possible booster
debris falling early.  See 15 Dec AW&ST.

USAF is keeping ASAT alive and pushing live tests in FY88 despite
Congress's ban on live tests in FY87.  Still uncertain is the fate of a
target satellite launched in Dec 1985, whose lifetime has been extended
until fall (i.e. start of FY88) but can't be pushed much longer.

Intelsat approves controversial comsat to link Peru and US, outside
Intelsat network.  Traffic diversion thought to be small.

American Rocket Co. begins full-scale tests of a prototype hybrid rocket
engine for its Industrial Launch Vehicle (suborbital late 87, orbital
88?).

Antenna system on TDRS failed Nov 28, further reducing capacity.

Eosat expects to complete its shutdown of work on future Landsats by Jan
9 unless FY87 subsidy funding is released by then.

Amusing item in letter column:

	"There is a solution to the US civil space program crisis during
	a period of budget constraints.  Instead of laying off engineers
	and technicians to reduce program costs, layoff notices should
	be given to others, such as personnel managers, accountants,
	economists, and lawyers...

	"In normal Canadian fashion, we will institute the same approach
	in Canada about two years after..."

	(signed Doug Caswell, Spacecraft Manager, Government of Canada)

"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 87 01:43:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: condensed space news from Jan 5 AW&ST

[Call for comments:  I am seriously considering retaining the condensed
format even after I get caught up.  Several people have commented that
they prefer it.  More important, one reason why I got behind in the first
place was that the full format takes time I sometimes don't have.  So I
find the condensed format attractive.  I'd like to hear readers' comments
on this.

Now obviously, if you like reading these summaries, condensed is almost
certainly better than nothing.  Telling me "well, if you haven't time for
the full format, I can live with the condensed format" doesn't help -- I'm
fairly sure of that already.  So I'd like to hear your preference for
format, *ignoring* the issue of which is easier for me.  Which do you
want to read?  Does it make a big difference?

This isn't a vote -- since I do the work, I make the final decision.  I
don't promise to follow the popular sentiment.  But I'd like to know how
people feel.						-- HS]

NASA Ames officials tell congressmen that giving the Space Station life
sciences facility to ESA is a mistake, possibly giving Europe leadership
in biotechnology.

Shuttle program starts assessment of five proposed Block 2 SRB designs.
Some claim it would take 4-5 years, minimum, to put them into operation.

[Micro-editorial:  Wanna bet that Von Braun, if he were still alive and
in charge at Marshall, could have a *liquid-fuelled* booster operational
in that length of time?					-- HS]

Proposal to rescue stalled Landsat program at Eosat, but congressional
action uncertain.  Commercial viability of Landsat questioned.

DoD supplemental budget request includes $110M for R&D on heavy launcher
(100-150k lbs) for SDI.  Jarvis and United Technologies shuttle derivative
are major candidates.  Operational mid-90s?

Flurry of stories about the Voyager round-the-world flight includes one on
use of satellite communications.  One problem was that communication could
occur only when Rutan was piloting -- the antenna had to be hand-pointed
and Rutan was too big to unfold it in the rest area.

Fairchild wins JPL contract for Topex/Poseidon ocean topography satellite,
to launch on Ariane in 1991.

Space Station hardware-development RFPs delayed to allow congressional
briefings first.

Tentative NASA approval for shuttle crew-escape system using tractor
rockets to pull astronauts out of side hatch during gliding flight.
It might be ready for the next flight.

Justice Dept. settles legal claims with four Challenger families over
the accident.  Terms confidential, but quite a bit of money is changing
hands, some of it provided by Morton Thiokol.

Air Force Space Div. issues RFP for large new upper stage for shuttle and
Titan 4, to replace the cancelled shuttle/Centaur.  Intended to be ready
for use in 1992.

Letter column entirely composed of flak for Carl Sagan's guest editorial
(see Dec 8 summary).  Much unhappiness about Sagan's "if we weren't
spending all this silly money on defence, we could afford Mars"
attitude.  The one other comment of major interest was a claim that NASA
could not handle a Mars project any more -- first it would need a
capable leader and a purge of the chair-warmers.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 87 02:44:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: condensed space news from Jan 12 AW&ST

Japan sets launch of Astro-C X-ray satellite for Feb 5.

China selects two student experiments to fly on US shuttle mission.

Boland and Garn urge NASA to transfer Ulysses to a Titan 4 launch in 1991,
bumping it from an earlier shuttle slot to reserve all three 1989-90
planetary launch opportunities for US missions.  NASA is thinking about it,
but ESA is expected to be angry about the further delay.

Eosat halts construction of Landsat 6 and 7.  Construction restart will
cost $1M.  After a two-month delay, $10M.  Circa 400 staff laid off or
transferred to other projects.

FY88 budget fully supports USAF launcher development, plus boosting ASAT
funding.

NASA FY88 budget request is $9.48G, a $1G increase after allowing for the
FY87 one-time new-orbiter funding.  Space Station funding lower than what
NASA wanted.  "Space technology initiative" to try to restore technology
base.  New start for Global Geospace Science Mission (formerly International
Solar-Terrestrial Physics Program).  No new start for AXAF space X-ray
telescope.  [Boo.]  No new start for CRAF comet/asteroid mission. [BOO HISS!]
Startup funds for a space-station hardware building at KSC and a Space
Station Support Center at JSC.  No new funding for NASA expendables, except
for the Cosmic Background Explorer's Delta.  No money for the Advanced
Communications Technology Satellite, although Congress is expected to put
it back in as happened last year.  (NASA has in fact signed with Orbital
Sciences for a TOS upper stage for ACTS, in anticipation of this.)

The Spelda dual-satellite deployment system, developed by British Aerospace
for Ariane 4, is being offered for use on Titan.  Arianespace has no
objection as long as prices are fair.

Soviets say that Western commercial payloads for Proton could go to Soviet
launch sites in sealed containers, exempt from customs inspection.

Fred Hauck expected to be commander of STS-26.  Other crew members probably
Richard Covey (pilot), John Lounge and George Nelson.  If a fifth member is
added, it will probably be David Hilmers.  All experienced astronauts.

Dutch participation agreed in Italian SAX X-ray telescope.  If SAX goes
ahead, Fokker will build attitude control and solar arrays.

Intelsat issues RFP for Ku-band transatlantic satellite system for fast
delivery, 24-30 months, as gap-filler between Intelsat 5 and 6 series.

University of Colorado group notes that airborne dust from volcanic eruptions
early in this decade may be confusing satellite sensors studying atmospheric
ozone.  The Antarctic ozone hole may not be real.  They urge that future
atmospheric-science satellites have more discriminating instruments.

Some nice pictures of Soviet boosters on ground and in flight.  Also a bunch
of newly-released technical details on Proton.

Eutelsat is looking at Proton, Titan, and Atlas-Centaur to replace the
shuttle as the official backup launcher (prime launcher is Ariane) for
Eutelsat 2 series.  Eutelsat impressed by Soviet willingness to invest
manpower and effort when needed to assure reliability, also by promise of
a relaunch within 4 weeks after a Proton failure (although this is pretty
academic because a replacement payload probably couldn't be ready so soon
in the West).  Eutelsat is actively pursuing only the US boosters, but that
is just because Proton doesn't need such long lead times, so attention to
it can be postponed.

NASA signs major agreement with 3M for a number of shuttle materials
experiments over the next 10 years.

External Tanks Corp. is fund-raising for preliminary work on a poor man's
space station.  They want to link two shuttle external tanks, fit them
with life support and power (picture shows tanks side by side, with a
Spacelab-sized module attached to the bottom of each, each module having
a solar array, and a tunnel connecting the two modules).  ETCO says this
would cost about $100M for a "spartan and unfurnished" lab, which would
then be leased to commercial and scientific customers for potential annual
profits of $30M+.  High risk admitted, but project believed feasible.  ETCO
is largely owned by a university consortium.  Talks with NASA underway.

[Micro-editorial:  *This* is the kind of project, and budget, that the Space
Station ought to be starting with.			-- HS]

NASA to begin re-bonding tiles on Discovery after sorting out the cause of
the bad tile bonds.  Columbia has no problem, Atlantis yet to be checked.

Picture of two Long March 3 boosters undergoing checkout and final assembly.

Another letter column full of response to Sagan guest editorial, more mixed
this time.  Support of ambitious objectives, criticism of his call for
cooperation "on behalf of the human species" with the country that operates
the Gulag.  Finally, interesting letter from John Martellaro:

	"...I almost always support Sagan's views.  But not here.

	"...I was an eager 2nd lieutenant in the Air Force when Neil
	Armstrong walked on the Moon, and I expected to ride a wave of
	space exploration.  Now, more than 17 years later, we have no
	manned outpost on the Moon or the capacity to supply one...

	"...If we fail to establish lunar colonies in preference to
	another one-time, minimum-capacity trip (this time to Mars),
	we will doom the next generations to imprisonment on Earth
	while singing of past glories."

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Feb 87 18:23:35 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Organization: Tektronix Inc., Beaverton, Or.
Subject: Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics
References: <4918@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

My favorite introductory level book is:
    "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" by R. Bate, D. Mueller, and J. White
    Dover 1971.  Trade paperback size was $9.50 some years ago.
This book is good for understanding the essentials of simple orbits,
ballistic trajectories, planetary orbits, and interplanetary trajectories.
There isn't much related to more complex manuevers such as re-entry,
interplanetary "sling-shot" trajectories and such arcana.

A more detailed treatment can be found in:
    "Orbital Motion" by A. E. Roy
    Halsted Press 1978. $29.95 hardbound some years ago.
Above subjects with more math, plus better descriptions of Lagrange 
points, resonant orbits, and some bits on the motions of stars.


-- 
Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 87 12:11:00 EST
From: LANTZ@red.rutgers.edu
Subject: Solar Garbage
To: Space@angband.s1.gov

	Maybe I'm ignorant of something, but I don't think that it is
necessary to cancel all of the orbital velocity to stick something into
the sun.  Can't you adjust the orbit into a sun-grazing ellipse with far
less energy.  Just make sure you go deep enough into the sun that the
garbage never makes it back out again.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #175
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25533; Fri, 27 Mar 87 03:03:19 PST
	id AA25533; Fri, 27 Mar 87 03:03:19 PST
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 87 03:03:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703271103.AA25533@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #176

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 87 03:03:19 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #176

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 176

Today's Topics:
		   Re: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST
			  Re: Solar Garbage
		   Re: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST
		    Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics
			  Re: Solar Garbage
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
		 Re:  nuclear fission/fusion in space
		Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
	     Re: How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Feb 87 20:34:37 GMT
From: clyde!masscomp!wanginst!vilot@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Michael J. Vilot)
Subject: Re: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <7672@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Ten tons to "polar sunsynchronous transfer", whatever that is.

It depends on the orbit's inclination to the earth's  equator, and the
altitude of the  satellite.  For example, a 450-mile  altitude at 98.7
degrees inclination   is  sun-synchronous.   That   means   that   the
stellite's orbit remains  in the same orientation  to the sun  as  the
earth moves in its orbit during the year.

The  NOAA  weather  satellites use such    an  arrangement to  provide
complete   earth  coverage - one   is  a    "morning  bird",  orbiting
continuously over  the daylight/darkside  terminator; the other   is a
"noon bird", covering the center of the lit/dark sides.  As  the earth
rotates beneath them, the satellites can provide a  comprehensive look
at the entire planet.

-- 
Michael J. Vilot			 ...!decvax!wanginst!vilot (UUCP)
Wang Institute of Graduate Studies	vilot%wanginst@CSNet-Relay (CSNet)
Tyng Road, Tyngsboro, MA 01879		MVilot@ADA20            (ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 25 Feb 87 18:30:01 GMT
From: amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@AMES.ARPA  (David Messer)
Organization: Lynx Data Systems, Minneapolis, MN
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage
References: <12281634089.57.LANTZ@RED.RUTGERS.EDU>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The difference between hitting the sun in the center and grazing the
surface is insignificant from out here.  The sun is only 1/2 a degree in
diameter from earths orbit.

David Messer - Lynx Data Systems

------------------------------

Date: 27 Feb 87 00:10:43 GMT
From: trwrb!trwspp!spp2!jeff@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jeff Hull)
Organization: TRW Inc., Redondo Beach, CA
Subject: Re: space news from Nov 10 AW&ST
References: <7672@utzoo.UUCP>, <868@wanginst.EDU>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

The purpose of sun synchronous orbits is that they provide a constant
shadow angle which makes image processing of the observed data MUCH easier.

Jeff Hull

------------------------------

Date: 1 Mar 87 22:20:36 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!n4hy@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Organization: Home for Burned-out Hackers
Subject: Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics
References: <4918@mit-eddie.MIT.EDU>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov


Two that I use regularly and like:

Fundamentals of Astrodynamics by Roger Bate, Donal Mueller, and Jerry
White, Dover, ISBN: 0-486-60061-0

Methods of Orbit Determination (Editorial comment : and so much more)
by Pedro Escobal. Krieger ISBN: 0-88275-319-3. Both include problems
and answers.

Bob

------------------------------

Date: 2 Mar 87 22:40:54 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Solar Garbage

     I used to work with an engineer that was studying space disposal of
nuclear waste.  The problem they found was that any manmade
transportation system has a finite chance of failing at the worst
possible momment.  That time is when your rocket or sail or whatever has
you in an orbit that eventually crosses a planet's orbit when the planet
is nearby.  An example is on the way out of the solar system your drive
fails just as your apogee reaches Jupiter's orbit.  Then there is a
finite chance that Jupiter will slingshot the waste on an intersection
with the Earth.  The chances of such an occurance are about the same as
an earthquake in a hard rock depository releasing some waste.  Space
disposal was estimated to cost twice as much as underground disposal.
Hence underground disposal.  If space transportation costs come down and
the Goverment messes around for enough years trying to decide WHERE to
put the underground repository, that conclusion may be wrong.

Dani Eder/Advncd Space Trans/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 13 Feb 87 05:05:15 GMT
From: ulysses!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil Karn)
Organization: Home for Burned-out Hackers
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
References: <7555@utzoo.UUCP>, <480@prometheus.UUCP>, <632@crlt.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

> Please, Paul, don't you know anything about orbital mechanics?  Spare
> us this sort of thing until you do, okay?  Orbits decay from air drag,
> which is quite quantifiable (especially since Skylab gave us such good
> measurements of atmospheric heating and expansion).

Perhaps you should read up on orbital mechanics yourself.  Satellites have
decayed because of resonance "pumping" by bodies such as the sun and the
moon.  The Soviet Molniya satellites are in highly elliptical orbits with
initial perigees well above what one would call "safe" but they lost some of
them fairly early when solar and lunar perturbations brought the perigee
down into the atmosphere.  Careful control of the orbital period, along with
an extra margin on the perigee altitude, is required for long orbital life.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 87 08:00:40 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Organization: Prometheus II, Ltd., College Park, MD 20740-0222
Subject: Re:  nuclear fission/fusion in space
References: <7555@utzoo.UUCP>, <480@prometheus.UUCP>, <632@crlt.UUCP>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <632@crlt.UUCP> russ@crlt.UUCP (Russ Cage) writes:
>In article <480@prometheus.UUCP>, pmk@prometheus.UUCP (Paul M Koloc) (who
>is usually much more lucid) writes:
>>>>	- you miscalculate the stability of an orbit and it starts to decay?

>Please, Paul, don't you know anything about orbital mechanics?  Spare
>us this sort of thing until you do, okay?  Orbits decay from air drag,
>which is quite quantifiable (especially since Skylab gave us such good
>measurements of atmospheric heating and expansion).

Sorry, Russ, if you will check back more carefully you will see that
that statement was NOT posted by me.  Still such things are in the realm
of possibility.

>Why?  The whole point of nuclear ion engines is going to be for outer
>planets probes and space tugs.  If one tug malfunctions, you can move
>it around with another one (you might as well have 2 or 3).

That is naive given the interest in SDI. 

>So?  The concern is power/mass and energy/mass ratio.  Concerns about
>thermal efficiency belong where you aren't paying $5000/kg to launch
>things.

Thermal efficiencies contribute directly to the problem.  In addition
for the SDIO low thermal efficiencies contribute to the generation of
large beacon for easy targeting.

>So build them as throwaways; if they malfunction, you simply forget them.

Hardly, that's the attitude that is sure to get the program flushed. 

>Please, Paul, learn some orbital mechanics before you make assertions
>like this.  A perigee over 150 miles is sufficient to keep even a satellite
>of low mass/area ratio (like Skylab) up for many years.

No kidding!  But will it be the better to for the SDIO mission to
have these things hugging the "ballistic boulevard" (as close to
the probable action as possible)?   Still, keep up the optimism.  

>Now, exactly what would cause "orbit disturbing gas jets" from a reactor
>made of uranium carbide, graphite and some heat pipes?  One could easily
>compute the maximum impulse from losing all the heat pipe working fluid
>(in *one* direction) and insure that it would not be sufficient to cause
>a re-entry.  Or, one could have a small hydrazine-powered auxiliary
>attitude control system.  

That's nice.. but what pressure?? .. now what happens if there are
deliberate attempts to put these babies out of action.  I doubt if such
scenarios have been considered in the open literature, i. e.  the
conduction paths to the radiators sheered or blown away, and the control
system malfunctioning.  Radiation is the only cooling, and I can think
of ways where even that can be frustrated.

>Paranoia, yes.  Rational, no.  You're obviously a nuclear-phobe and

I was being rhetorical.  This is the gut reaction of a lot of people.
It is going to be an important consideration.

>If it can't re-enter after it's hot, what's the worry?  Or suppose
>it's designed to survive re-entry and impact intact, just in case (this
>can be done, RTG's are designed to)?  What dust?

I don't think you are considering the full extent of what is going to
have to be put up there to do the various defense related jobs and I
don't think you are considering all of the scenarios for transport that
are available to an exoergic system.

>Backing for this assertion?  What failure modes would cause a reactor
>to dump its isotope inventory onto people or their food supplies?  (I
>think you have none.)

Most food supplies are at the surface and the protein variety tends to
concentrate toxic dusting.

>How long will it take to get a good fusion reactor design up in space?  
>How many years until I can get one? 

Probably five to ten years. 

>How much does the smallest one weigh (BIG question)?  
>Projected power/mass ratio? 

The smallest is a big question.  But for a continuous operating "space
tug" 2 to 10 gigawatts per 50 ton engine. Probably minimum 10 kilowatts
/ lb.  One thing for sure.. we would spend months going propelling to
Mars with "fissling" driven ion engines.  What a drag!

How much more research is yet to be done? 

An infinite amount if tokamak Spheromak and other "solid first wall"
approaches are done to the exclusion of more advanced concepts ( see
Lidsky, Hirsch, Ashworth).

>Has anyone, anywhere achieved net power return from a fusion plant?

Not anything reported unclassified.  Interesting rumors about a from
"hot shot" at Kurchatov (experiment now at Krasnaya Pachra).  Classified
projects here are as optimistic about useful "break even" as are mine,
and they don't even have the most optimal approaches.

>(Who did I just see complaining about costly technological fixes?)
>We can build fission reactors *now*, and we *know* that they work.

>They can also be built small enough to power space probes of reasonable
>mass.  Can you say this?  I think not.  I don't want to bet any part
>of the space program on a dream when off-the-shelf technology is ready
>to do what needs to be done.

The burning plasma in a 10 gigawatt PLASMAK(TM) generator is less than
150 cc yet generates peak burns (60 hertz 3 phase) of 60 megawatts per
cubic centimeter.  Is that compact enough?  The conversion (electric)
efficiency is 90 to 95% without cogeneration.

What do you consider a space program..?  You are seriously putting the
future of the space program on fission and chemicals propulsion driven
engines.

Power????  I would NOT call what fission can generate and what is needed
to carry million pound payloads into orbit per launch anything but a
serious mismatch.  We need gigawatts of clean aneutronic energy, and
you're not going to get it by chasing obsolete technologies.

It's more like a cruel joke.  Let's all go to Mars on via TM... that is
about the best you are going to do with your "off the self(shelf)"
approach.
               These here aneutronic driven buggies
              really do go "lickety split", don't they?    Yep!
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP    | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: 18 Feb 87 20:20:46 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
Subject: Re: A use for nuclear fission in space
References: <7555@utzoo.UUCP>, <480@prometheus.UUCP>, <271@ka9q.bellcore.com>
Sender: space-request@angband.s1.gov
To: space@angband.s1.gov

In article <271@ka9q.bellcore.com>, karn@ka9q.bellcore.com (Phil Karn) writes:
> >                                            Orbits decay from air drag,
> > which is quite quantifiable (especially since Skylab gave us such good
> > measurements of atmospheric heating and expansion).
> 
>                                                            Satellites have
> decayed because of resonance "pumping" by bodies such as the sun and the
> moon.  The Soviet Molniya satellites are in highly elliptical orbits with
> initial perigees well above what one would call "safe" but they lost some of
> them fairly early when solar and lunar perturbations brought the perigee
> down into the atmosphere.

Another cause is mass concentrations in the primary.  Quoting from Richard
Lewis's "Appointment on the Moon":

    The mascons were credited with producing a peculiar "yo-yo" variation
    in the orbits of Apollo 8 and 10.  On each revolution of the moon,
    the apolune, or high point, of these orbits would rise, while the
    perilune, or low point, would drop....  On its third revolution, the
    Apollo 10 orbit was 70.3 miles apolune by 69 miles perilune.  On the
    25th revolution, apolune had risen to 77.1 miles... while perilune
    had dropped to 62.5 miles...


			David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 14:28:47 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: How Close Has Fusion Come to Breakeven?

In article <8703082041.AA08372@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
>... .. The cheating definition is "scientific breakeven"... 
>According to this measure, if TFTR at Princeton had been run with DT fuel
>(it uses pure deuterium in tests to hold down radiation levels) it would
>have achieved a Q of .2 -- fusion output would be 1/5 of the energy input.

>... Muon Catalyzed Fusion.  Recent measurements in hot compressed DT 
>gas show that one negative muon catalyzes about 150 to 170 fusions
>.... this gives a Q of between .6 and .7.  

>They would be no reason in space to prefer a MCF reactor to a fission
>reactor.

A problem with MCF is that it doesn't work if the plasma fuel is
very warm.  That limits the power density.  All of these approaches
have serious power/mass problems as well as biological hazards.
That's why aneutronic energy is the way to proceed ... It's
compact, powerful, and almost healthy.  **** BUT **** there is no
one at NASA that has the interest or the authority to start
even the engineering and fabrication of 100 megawatt engines. 
Too bad, it would demonstrate the solution to the Mars problem 
and put us beyond the SDI "nail strewn space" mind-LOCK. 

NASA.. the society for the preservation of historic propulsion
technology?  

           Ride Amtrak: America's first Super Collider!
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Paul M. Koloc, President: (301) 445-1075                | FUSION |
| Prometheus II, Ltd.; College Park, MD 20740-0222        |  this  |
| {mimsy | seismo}!prometheus!pmk; pmk@prometheus.UUCP    | decade |
+---------------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #176
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27272; Sat, 28 Mar 87 03:03:15 PST
	id AA27272; Sat, 28 Mar 87 03:03:15 PST
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 87 03:03:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703281103.AA27272@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #177

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 28 Mar 87 03:03:15 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #177

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 177

Today's Topics:
       Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization?
				SRB's
			  New thing on SRBs
			 Risk in Space travel
		Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel
			     Orbital Junk
     Re: Josephson junction chip exists (was Re: Want to bet ...)
		   Re: Yttrium, Lanthanum, Thorium
		       More superconductor news
	    Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?
	    Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 15:03:14 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization?

In article <1200@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes:
>In article <8702261258.AA06415@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>[Quotes excerpts from a rather showy article describing an Inertial Fusion
>Drive]

>> This is **it** guys.  This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will
>> open up the entire solar system to exploration and commercial
>> development.  The major barrier is getting the lasers small, reliable,
>> and efficient.

>	The problem is trying to get ANY kind of fusion reactor to work.

No... I think the problem is getting any kind of fusion reactor funded
that will work and isnt' twenty years old.  If it does work, it will 
work with a vengence and that means it will be cheap.  The approaches 
that are being worked on now are:  1)  a clear demonstration of the
inferior intelligence of "big physics";  2) demonstration that "big
physics" knows how to pick items that have enormous cost /unit progress; 
3) and finally, there is no effective oversight by congress of "big
physics".  

I think physics is where is is at, and "big physics" is "Let's
all blah blah the same thing... else we get our funding cut".  

>	One major problem: if the military either develops it or gets
>its hands on it, we will never get the benefit of it, because they will
>keep it classified in the name of keeping the Soviet Union from getting
>it;

Hmmmm!  Not if the greedy little Corporate heads I know get their hands
on it..  The problem is that DoE has the private sector believing that
fusion (commercial) is for the decade 2040-2050..  and that forces them
OUT of even considering it as a possible R&D option.  Incidentally, that
time frame was choosen to take care of the current DoE employees and
their children... another sixty years of welfare.  :-)

Perhaps spending the money locally and letting more of it pass through
to the institutes directly without project specification could improve
both "Innovation" and "Competiveness";..  whatever that is.  Still,
could it be worse??

Paul M. Koloc

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 13:06:34 pst
From: ucdavis!clover!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
To: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SRB's


The latest issue of IEEE Spectrum contained a very complete article on
the SRBs and the Challenger failure.  You might want to check it out -
particularly for data on the previous O ring failures.

				Eric Hildum

------------------------------

From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Date: 11 Mar 1987 1227-PST (Wednesday)
Subject: New thing on SRBs

Propaganda: Thought this was of interest.  This should stir the SRB
fires a bit.  Let's keep the flames down.  Send mail not follow-ups, and
I'll summarize.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

From: hqnewsroom@telemail (ED CAMPION)
Subject: RELEASE/SRM MOTOR TEST
Date: 11 Mar 87 15:10:00 GMT

Sarah Keegan                                   March 11, 1987
Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
(Phone:  202/453-8536)

RELEASE NO:  87-28

SHUTTLE SOLID ROCKET MOTOR TEST FIRING UNDER REVIEW

     Detailed teardown analysis of the test article from the highly
successful solid rocket motor (SRM) joint environment simulator (JES)
firing at Morton Thiokol on Feb. 23, 1987, has indicated potential
insulation bonding deficiencies in the assembly process of the test
hardware.  NASA and Morton Thiokol are assessing options for correcting
this occurrence, which potentially affects the insulation configuration
in the area of the field joints on several other test articles,
including the first full-scale firing test, the Engineering Test Motor
(ETM-1).

     Because the same fabrication/assembly process has been used on the
hardware for the ETM, the assessment and ensuing corrective actions may
cause a schedule delay for the test, which had been slated for March 25.
It is not anticipated that this situation will cause a delay in other
motor test firings or the February 1988 target Shuttle launch date.

     The Engineering Test Motor is an interim step in the developmental
evolution of the redesigned SRM joints.  It does not have the redesigned
joint case hardware and will use motor segments manufactured prior to
the Challenger accident but with modifications in the joint insulation
area to approximate the redesigned insulation.  A non-flight "U" seal is
used in place of the "J" seal which has been selected as the flight
design.  The hand-fitting and secondary bonding of this non-flight "U"
seal led to the assembly concerns.  The flight-design "J" seal will
utilize precise, production-type molds which create a homogeneous,
one-piece insulation for each segment and is not expected to be subject
to the kind of problem encountered in the ETM.

     John Thomas, manager of the SRM Design Team at the NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center, stated today: "We are fortunate to have discovered
this discrepancy in a short-duration Joint Environment Simulator test
firing rather than in a full-duration test.  The JES program is
accomplishing exactly what we designed it to do in terms of providing
early test demonstrations of planned or potential design features.
Whatever the outcome of our Engineering Test Motor deliberations, we
retain full confidence in our baseline joint design, which will be first
demonstrated in the Joint Environment Simulator #3A test, now targeted
for June, and the full-scale Development Motor #8 test, targeted for
July.  Both of these motors contain not only the improved "J" seal
insulation system but the newly designed steel capture feature field
joint, as well."

                             - end -

     This release and other NASA information is available 
electronically through DIALCOM, INC.  For access to NASA NEWS 
through this system, contact Jim Hawley, DIALCOM, INC. at

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 09:15:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Risk in Space travel

> As far as junk in orbit goes, I wonder how many more SDI tests like
> the recent Delta (involving active homing on and destruction of a
> target vehicle) it will take before it's not safe to fly manned
> spacecraft in LEO.
>     -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)

This, I think, was the reason the Challenger disaster was such a shock
to a lot of people: IF HAS NEVER BEEN SAFE TO FLY A MANNED SPACECRAFT!
There has always been a large element of risk involved in space travel.
We who are associated with the aerospace industry must accept that.
Your average man on the street seems to have forgotten (if he ever knew)
that riding to heaven on a pillar of fire, one is likely to burn one's
tail off.

        -- Ken Jenks

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 87 01:22:31 GMT
From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gerry Gleason)
Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel

In article <74700010@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
> ... IT HAS NEVER BEEN SAFE TO FLY A MANNED SPACECRAFT! ...

This is most certainly true, in fact you can argue that the safety
record has been remarkably good (I wonder if sailing ships across the
oceon was any safer in the 15-16 centuries).  But the comment is not
really relevent to the original posting.  We certainly shouldn't clutter
up LEO with junk, so that it becomes more dangerous than it already is,
not to mention how bad it is to move warfare off the planet.  I for one
am interested in colonizing space, and I would much rather it remain
peaceful.

Does anybody know if space junk is/will be a problem, just how big is
near space?

gerry gleason

------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 87 22:26:11 GMT
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
Subject: Orbital Junk

In article <74700010@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>> 	As far as junk in orbit goes, I wonder how many more SDI tests
>> like the recent Delta (involving active homing on and destruction of
>> a target vehicle) it will take before it's not safe to fly manned
>> spacecraft in LEO.
>
>This, I think, was the reason the Challenger disaster was such a shock
>to a lot of people: IF HAS NEVER BEEN SAFE TO FLY A MANNED SPACECRAFT!

	Undoubtedly. What I'm talking about, however, is the difference
between a small-but-finite chance of mission failure inherent within the
shuttle and other manned systems, and the certainity of mission failure
once enough junk is floating around in shuttle orbits. I'm willing to
take the first chance but not the second.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 87 21:18:07 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Josephson junction chip exists (was Re: Want to bet ...)

> > [it is] very hard to build JJ LSI ... IBM concluded that
> > the problem wasn't fixable.
> 
> See Electronics, February 19, 1987, page 49 for several articles
> on a working Josephson junction signal processing computer.  The
> machine is build by Hypres Inc. and cools just a portion of a
> chip by spraying liquid helium on it.

I saw the Electronics coverage.  Although it wasn't very detailed, this
does *not* appear to be JJ LSI -- it's normal LSI with a small chunk of
JJ stuff in one corner.  JJ MSI, maybe.  I also note that Hypres isn't
shipping them in quantity-thousand yet, either.
-- 
"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 87 15:40:15 GMT
From: pyramid!pesnta!phri!bc-cis!raanan@decwrl.dec.com  (Raanan Herrmann)
Subject: Re: Yttrium, Lanthanum, Thorium

	One of the reasons that all those rare-metals are so expensive
is that it is very hard to produce large quantities of them. I know that
in the fifties, 1 gram of Plotonium had a price of about $500,000 - but
in the seventies, the price went down drasically.
	What will happen if someone will find a way to produce a larger
amounts of those rare-metals from exisiting mines?

Raanan Herrmann  (...!delftcc,phri!bc-cis!raanan)

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 14 Mar 87 10:33 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  More superconductor news

Paul Anderson has published a hypothetical model of superconductivity in
the new materials in which electrons are paired by electronic and
magnetic interactions, not by phonons as in ordinary superconductors.
The operation of this new mechanism at room temperature is a
possibility, if the proper material can be found.

Scientists at Stanford have successfully fabricated 0.5 micron thin
films of the new superconductors with a transition temperature of 40 K
(which they are confident can be raised to 90 K).  This is the first
step towards making superconducting connections on ICs (such wires have
low losses up to > 1 THz) and towards making Josephson junctions (note
that the switching speed and operating voltage of a JJ both increase
with increasing critical temperature; both are good).  The Stanford
group also built a prototype of a new kind of tunnel junction using the
materials.  The films were deposited by vapor deposition on a sapphire
substate.  They say commercial use of the material for connections on
ICs in supercomputers could be as little as a year away.

Japan's MITI has started a government coordinated effort to
commercialize the materials.  American scientists speculate they are
trying to get a jump on the US while the materials are still in the lab
here.

Mario Rabinowitz of the Electric Power Research Institute states that
superconducting power lines using the new materials will likely be
available in ten years, and widely used in 20.  Unlike in magnets, where
fine wires of high current carrying capacity are needed, underground
superconducting power lines could be made by simply coating the current
materials on the outside of copper or aluminum pipes, then running
liquid nitrogen through the pipes (with extra outer insulation and
armoring, of course).  The impact on the power business will be
profound.  Example: power plants (nuclear, powersat rectennas) could be
placed great distances from consumers.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 02:18:48 GMT
From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?

In article <1211@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes:
>How do you get a space elevator started?  I can think of 2 ways
>which would not use an inordinate amount of material:
>	2.	Put a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, and have it
>		spin out cables both toward and away from Earth 

	This is the method Clarke assumed in his novel; an asteroid of
useful composition was found and dragged to the proper orbit. A factory
was then added which munched away at the asteroid. The leftovers were
used for a station. I'm not sure how much raw material is required, but
four cables 45,000 miles long each take quite a bit.

>One problem with space elevators is that you would always have to be
>compensating for Coriolis effects (which could trash the system if not
>corrected immediately) unless you made real sure that mass going up and
>mass going down for each particular distance were equal.

	Just some of the monumental engineering tasks involved. Nobody
said it would be easy, but wouldn't it be fun?

		--Rod

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 87 20:41:16 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrcae!ece-csc!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?

> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius)
> 1. Launch a very powerful rocket towing a very long wire
> 2. Put a satellite in geosynchronous orbit, and have it
>    spin out cables both toward and away from Earth

The second method is much MUCH more plausible.  See Clarke's "Fountains
of Paradise" for fictional elaboration on this method.  And of course,
there is the "BANZAI!!!!" method, outlined by Sheffield in "Web Between
the Worlds".  Build the whole thing in space, see, and give it a
trajectory that causes the tip to "kiss" the earth at the anchor point.
When the cable end touches down for an instant, pile a mountain or two
on the cable tip to keep it from flipping back up into orbit.
Damp the vibrations.  Voila.  Simple, no?

> One problem with space elevators is that you would always have to be
> compensating for Coriolis effects (which could trash the system if not
> corrected immediately) unless you made real sure that mass going up and mass
> going down for each particular distance were equal.

Why is this a problem?  The cable is under tension, so the corriolis
force will "pluck" the cable and cause it to vibrate, but will not
necessarily pull it down.  Just be sure the cable is under ENOUGH
tension, and provide a damping mechanism and you're all set.

Wayne Throop

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #177
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28831; Sun, 29 Mar 87 03:03:03 PST
	id AA28831; Sun, 29 Mar 87 03:03:03 PST
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 87 03:03:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703291103.AA28831@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #178

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 87 03:03:03 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #178

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 178

Today's Topics:
     elevators, bootstrap value, comparison, dynamic programming
	    Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?
   Re: elevators, bootstrap value, comparison, dynamic programming
	    Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?
	    Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?
			   Space Elevators
		   Wrong equation, so wrong result
		 Re: Wrong equation, so wrong result
	     More details on space elevator impossibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 10:22:50 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 12 03:27:35 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov
Subject: elevators, bootstrap value, comparison, dynamic programming

<DC> Date: 9 Mar 87 19:05:11 GMT
<DC> From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Chassin)
<DC> Subject: Space Elevators

<DC> I may be wrooooooong but I would think that for any usual distance the
<DC> weight of the cable itself would be far greater than the way of whatever
<DC> your lifting, meaning it would have to be HUGE at the station. Maybe
<DC> someone has done this calculation. I'd be curious to see how it turns out.

Yes, the cable is much much larger than any payload, but unlike chemical
rockets which are burned up after one use, and even the shuttle which is
only partly re-usable, the cable can be re-used for hundreds of tiny
payloads per day, tens of thousands per year, hundreds of thousands or
even millions during the lifetime of the cable. So if an individual
payload is only 1/10000 the mass of the cable, you will still be able to
lift the equivalent weight of a new cable in less than a year, so
doubling time (if all your payloads are invested in new cables or
thickening the existing cable) is less than a year. If you put up a very
thin cable after 5 years effort with pre-existing techniques (STS etc.),
after another 5 years of doubling you have 32 times as strong a cable,
or 2 cables each 16 times original strength, etc.

Hans Moravec (now at CMU, then at Stanford) did a study on hanging
(planet-stationary) and rotating (dipping) cables about 10-15 years ago.
The reference was posted to this digest a couple years ago, but there
seem to be a lot of new members who are enthusiastic with the idea but
not much informed, so perhaps somebody can re-post the reference(s)? (I
don't have them handy, sigh.) I believe his conclusion was that Kevlar
cables of the dipping kind were already practical (except for lack of
transport for putting them up) at the time he did the study, but
non-rotating cables would require new materials not yet invented on Mars
but within feasibility in a few years, and non-rotating cables
unreasonable on Earth.

However, before we spend too much time randomly browsing the features of
an already-installed cable, I'd like to see somebody with the technical
data/knowledge do a summary of all the various methods of lifting
payload from Earth and other planets/moons in terms of bootstrap
costs&benefits. A given cable or other technology will supply a fixed
rate of putting mass into orbit, but can be paid-for in various ways
ranging from totally current-technology Earth-supplied (possible now,
but most expensive among all options) to totally exotic (non-Earth)
supply of materials with processing in space (longest wait before we can
even get started, but cheapest at that time). Each different starting
point reaches the same end point over a different time period and at a
different capital&labor&Earth-materials investment. For example (totally
hypothetical figures here for illustration): a given technology may get
us to a state of 1E5 grams per second payload to GEO (Geosynchronous
Earth Orbit), from these starting points:
  Current technology, taking 10 years, costing 1E12 dollars, diverting
    1% of the world's valuable resources;
  Technology available in 5 years (heavy lift vehicle), taking 7
    years, costing 1E11 dollars, diverting 1%;
  Technology available in 15 years (above, plus advanced shuttle, ion
    rocket, sails, robotics), taking 2 years, costing 1E9 dollas,
    diverting 0.1% because most of the bulk comes from the Moon.
The third sounds cheapest, but hardly gets you anywhere, you are already
almost there and hardly need the cable any longer; The first sounds
most expensive, but gets you from here to there soonest (ten instead
of seventeen years), using the cable to supply equipment for early
lunar mining, rather than vice versa (using the lunar mining to build
the cable).

After getting similar information for all proposed techniques, we
apply "dynamic programming" procedures to find the optimum sequence of
investments to achieve a given level of development at a given number
of years in the future from where we are now.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 87 00:00:30 GMT
From: hpda!hpcllla!hpclisp!coulter@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael Coulter)
Subject: Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?


The biggest problem is finding a material that will support 36000 miles 
of itself.  

-- Michael Coulter ...ucbvax!hplabs!hpda!hpcllld!coulter

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 87 22:42:59 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: elevators, bootstrap value, comparison, dynamic programming

In article <8703141822.AA22188@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:

>However, before we spend too much time randomly browsing the features
>of an already-installed cable, I'd like to see somebody with the
>technical data/knowledge do a summary of all the various methods of
>lifting payload from Earth and other planets/moons in terms of
>bootstrap costs&benefits. 

This is extremely difficult to do, since estimates for the costs of
different technologies vary by over an order of magnitude, depending on
who you talk to.  NASA is currently funding a study by CalSpace
(California Space Institute) to quantify the costs and benefits for
different schemes of getting mass from the Moon to LEO.  Even with that
single goal, and with a lot of restrictions on the parameter space (for
instance, lunar oxygen is the only "product", and the calculation
disregards development and most startup costs) it's a complex question.
Several hours of meeting, for instance, were spent arguing on what size
system(s) to consider -- how many tons per year -- since some approaches
are only appropriate for large scale efforts, while others are best for
small scales.

>After getting similar information for all proposed techniques, we apply
>"dynamic programming" procedures to find the optimum sequence of
>investments to achieve a given level of development at a given number
>of years in the future from where we are now.

Alas, this is the sort of thing government agencies try to do, and it
usually doesn't work.  Neither technology, nor economics, nor politics
are predictable enough.  Remember, the Space Shuttle was supposed to put
mass in orbit for a few hundred dollars a pound, and provide launches
once a week!  And rockets are the best-understood technology
around.	:-(

	Jordin Kare	jtk@mordor.UUCP	jtk@mordor.s1.gov

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 87 07:14:47 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?

In article <1371@dg_rtp.UUCP>, throopw@dg_rtp.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
["> > " = me]
> > One problem with space elevators is that you would always have to be
> > compensating for Coriolis effects (which could trash the system if
> > not corrected immediately) unless you made real sure that mass going
> > up and mass going down for each particular distance were equal.
> 
> Why is this a problem?  The cable is under tension, so the corriolis
> force will "pluck" the cable and cause it to vibrate, but will not
> necessarily pull it down.  Just be sure the cable is under ENOUGH
> tension, and provide a damping mechanism and you're all set.

	The damping mechanism is the problem.  Unless you can make a
very thick/stiff cable (thickness of a skyscraper) of material that
won't fatigue too fast, you are going to have to use rockets for
damping.  This means massive propellant usage (including the fact that
you will have to use much propellant just to correct for the Coriolis
effect caused by bringing the fuel up).

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 20:41:43 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: space elevators:  how do you set them up?

Lucius Chiaraviglio:
> > > One problem with space elevators is that you would always have to be
> > > compensating for Coriolis effects (which could trash the system if not
> > > corrected immediately) unless you made real sure that mass going up and 
> > > mass going down for each particular distance were equal.

Wayne Throop:
> > Why is this a problem?  The cable is under tension, so the corriolis
> > force will "pluck" the cable and cause it to vibrate, but will not
> > necessarily pull it down.  Just be sure the cable is under ENOUGH
> > tension, and provide a damping mechanism and you're all set.

Chiaraviglio:
>    The damping mechanism is the problem.  Unless you can make a very
> thick/stiff cable (thickness of a skyscraper) of material that won't 
> fatigue too fast, you are going to have to use rockets for damping.  
> This means massive propellant usage (including the fact that you will 
> have to use much propellant just to correct for the Coriolis effect 
> caused by bringing the fuel up).

I'm no big fan of the stationary space elevator concept; there are
alternatives that don't require super-strong materials and would be
orders of magnitude less expensive to put in place.  But the claim
that damping presents fundamental problems is wrong.  For one thing,
it's not at all difficult to make the "beanstalk" as thick as you'd
like.  (That's assuming that you have the technology base to make
construction of a beanstalk possible in the first place--admittedly 
not a trivial assumption).  It doesn't have to be solid.  You just 
spin parallel cables with cross links.  The dampers go in the cross 
links.  But a more elegant solution is simply to program the movement 
of the elevators so that vibrations in the cable are dynamically 
damped.

Also, it is NOT necessary that the net mass flow up and down the 
cable be balanced.  If there is a net upward flow, the cable will
lean to the west.  Net flow down, and it will lean to the east.  But
not noticably, for mass flows repesenting at most a few percent of
cable mass per week.  You can work out the numbers; the physics
involved isn't really that difficult.

- Roger Arnold

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 03:50:56 GMT
From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Chassin)
Subject: Space Elevators


I hate to open myself to flames like this but here is a simple
calculation to figure the maximum allow length of any
cable (please excuse the units, "dammit Jim, I'm an architect,
not an engineer"):

Let:	Ft - max tensile stress
	r  - specific gravity
	A  - cross sectional area
	l  - length of cable

We know that
	T = A x l x r   for any cable hanging free this is the 
			tensile stress T at the top
and
	A = T / Ft	this is area determination from stress

so
	Ft = l x r	too simple you may say...
or
	l = Ft / r	ouch!!!

For high grade steel we get Ft = 50000#/sqin and r = .29 #/cuin
(this is not top grade however, I've heard of up to 94K#/sqin)

so l = 14367.8 ft or (read'em 'n weep:)

   l = 2.7 miles   <---- not even close

Alright, what do we need:

       2.3Gin (that's 2,300,000,000 roughly) = Ft / r
	or for r = .01#/cuin (pretty light ~1/2 H2O) , 
	 -> Ft = 11500 tons/sqin

That's real good stuff, wish I had some for my socks... :-) (-:

By the way, when you look at the relationships, you see that strength
only increases to the square of material used but stress increases to
the cube. This is a property of three dimensional space that is more
than a technical difficulty.

Also please check the method, because the result seems too drastic, I'd
rather it weren't like that. It's too bad.

Dave Chassin

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 15:44:09 GMT
From: rpics!yerazuws@seismo.css.gov  (Crah)
Subject: Wrong equation, so wrong result

In article <1012@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes:
> 
> so l = 14367.8 ft or (read'em 'n weep:)
> 
>    l = 2.7 miles   <---- not even close

The problem with that calculation is that you assume that the cable
is of constant cross-section.  So, if you require constant 
cross-section, your answer is correct.
	
But if you are willing to taper your cable, you can get a MUCH longer
cable.  It works like a compound-interest problem.
	
	The bottom foot of cable must be strong enough to support
	only the payload, plus itself.
	
	The second-from-the-bottom foot of cable must be strong 
	enough to support the payload plus the first foot plus
	the second foot.
	
	The third-from-the-bottom  .....
		
		[...]
	
The result is that the cable is tapered exponentially- and can 
be constructed of any material of finite-positive tensile strength,
provided you have enough of it (oversimplification- this is true
only in a laminar, as opposed to spherical (planetary) gravitational
field)
	
	For even mild steel, the above exponential cable is quite
constructable.  For Kevlar or boron, it's not even outrageously thick.

Energy-storage flywheels have the same effect- a flywheel can store more
total energy if it has a thick hub and a thin rim because it is so much
stronger it can turn much faster.  People don't normally build flywheels
that way because they don't store much energy at low RPMs.

Exercise for students: (1) What is the differential equation that
describes the shape of the optimal cable?  (2) Given Kevlar with a
tensile strength of 5,000 Ksi and a density of 1.00 (water = 1.00), how
thick is a 24,300 mile cable at the most highly-stressed point?  Where
is the point of maximum stress?  Assume a constant 1 G gravitational
field.  (Extra Credit) Use an 1/r^2 field, like around Earth.  How thick
now?
	-Bill Yerazunis

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 23:00:39 GMT
From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Chassin)
Subject: Re: Wrong equation, so wrong result

In article <1016@rpics.RPI.EDU>, yerazuws@rpics.RPI.EDU (Crah) writes:
> In article <1012@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes:
> > 
> > so l = 14367.8 ft or (read'em 'n weep:)
> > 
> >    l = 2.7 miles   <---- not even close
> 
> The problem with that calculation is that you assume that the cable
> is of constant cross-section.  So, if you require constant 
> cross-section, your answer is correct.

I'm not sure if the improvement is that great. Of the top of my head I
think it a factor of 1/(e**2), so somethin' like 20 miles???  I'm
hesitant anyway, but I'll go ahead and figure it out, it's not too
tough... I'll post it when I get it done.

Dave Chassin

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 87 01:44:44 GMT
From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Chassin)
Subject: More details on space elevator impossibility

In article <1016@rpics.RPI.EDU>, yerazuws@rpics.RPI.EDU (Crah) writes:
> In article <1012@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes:
> >    l = 2.7 miles   <---- not even close
> 
> The problem with that calculation is that you assume that the cable
> is of constant cross-section.  . . .
> But if you are willing to taper your cable, you can get a MUCH longer
> cable.  It works like a compound-interest problem.

I tried first the following program to get an order of magnitude:

ft=50000	<- max tensile strength
r=0.29		<- density of steel, (try .02 to kevlar)
w=1000		<- 1/2 ton object, (must have one or no result)
while area < 10**33  	<- a reasonable cross section area :-)
  area = (w +wl)/ft	<- wl initially null
  print length/60000, area	<- for area at mile increments
  length = length + 60000
  wl = wl + r * area * 60000
endwhile

The routine exits @ length = 270 miles. Admittedly crude, but effective.

As for diff.eq it'd be something like:
	A(0) = W / Ft
	A(x) = (W + W(x))/Ft
  	W(x) = rS[0->x] A(x)

Maybe someone would care to do it for a poor archie who has even looked
at a differential since sophomore year... I'll do it but it'll take a
few days before I can post it. My intuition tells me however that it
does not have a failing point, true, but the it is ridiculous to think
it is practical.

I'm still interested in the results as they a quite applicable to
tensile stuctures' limitation in architecture. So please participate
with any other ideas and alternatives you might have.

I would appreciate it however if everyone would actually do the math
they say will proove something, before posting. I, for example, would
never have been tempted to post anything if I didn't think I was in the
ballpark with the computer algorithm. It's really a matter of rigour,
which I think is distinctly lacking in our day and age. (I know, I fail
to practice what I preach... I'm as guilty as anyone else... so spare us
the flames, it really just a thought anyway)

Dave Chassin

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #178
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02162; Mon, 30 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
	id AA02162; Mon, 30 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703301103.AA02162@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #179

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 03:03:24 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #179

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 179

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Space Elevators
			 Re: Space Elevators
		 Space elevators, Final (?) equations
	       Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations
		      Space Elevator References
	       Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations
		    Re: Space Elevator References
	     Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter
	       Re: Some comments on anti-matter storage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 87 18:28:14 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Elevators

> ...here is a simple calculation to figure the maximum allow length of any
> cable ...

You forgot the possibility that the cable is tapered, which lets you put
more strength up top and less weight down on the bottom.  Proposals for
Earth-based space elevators generally involve tapered cables.

> For high grade steel we get Ft = 50000#/sqin and r = .29 #/cuin

Nobody is proposing building space elevators out of steel, or even Kevlar
(which is far superior to steel for things like this).  Actually, I dimly
recall -- I may be wrong about this -- that Kevlar is good enough for a
Mars space elevator.  It's definitely not sufficient for Earth.

> 	 -> Ft = 11500 tons/sqin
> That's real good stuff, wish I had some for my socks... :-) (-:

It is within the theoretical maximum strength of materials, though, and
is not too impossibly far above what has been demonstrated for *small*
samples in the *laboratory*.  It *is* far beyond the best that would be
practical in volume production today, which is why nobody is selling
stock in a space-elevator company yet. :-)

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 87 05:25:22 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Space Elevators

> Nobody is proposing building space elevators out of steel, or even Kevlar
> (which is far superior to steel for things like this).  Actually, I dimly
> recall -- I may be wrong about this -- that Kevlar is good enough for a
> Mars space elevator.  It's definitely not sufficient for Earth.
> 
> "We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

First off, carbon fiber is currently the strength/weight champion.
Hercules Inc. is making 800,000 psi tensile strength fibers in quantity
for aerospace applications (principally solid rocket motor cases)  They
claim they will have 1000,000 psi fibers in a few years, as soon as they
can get it out of the lab and into reproducable mass production.

Second, I am aware of an invention that uses multiple rotating tethers
to achieve high tip velocities without outrageous mass ratios.  The 
arrangement is to put a small spinning tether at one end of a larger
spinning tether, with both spinning in the same sense.  From the point
of view of the larger tether, the smaller one is just a constant mass
suspended at the end of the larger tether.

The tip velocities of te two tethers add, but only the small one is
moving at the high velocity.  By keeping the large tether from moving
as fast as it would have to if it were one big one going at the summed
velocities, you don't have to pay the high mass ratio.  

On first examination, a three stage tether could reach zero velocity
relative to the earth's surface with real materials.  To be sure, the
dynamics of such objects are unknown, but the improvement over 
monolithic tethers is large enough to make me spend some of my time
looking into them.

Dani Eder/Boeing Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 87 17:04:43 GMT
From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Chassin)
Subject: Space elevators, Final (?) equations

As some of you might know I recently posted an article
about the absolute limit on the length of a cable. That
was, for a non-varying cross section, 2.7 miles. Here is
the solution for the perfect cable (one that only supports
what is necessary):

	We have two equations:

(1)	A(x) = (W + W(x))/Ft	where A(x) is the area function
				      W is the load we wish to carry
				      W(x) is the weight of the cable
				           function
				      Ft is the yield stress
	and

(2)	W(x) = S[0,x] rA(x)dx	where r is the density of the cable
				      S is a pityful impersonation of
					an integral

so integrating (1) and (2) we get

(3)	dA/dx = 1/Ft dW/dx
(4)	dW/dx = rA(x)

juggle (3) and (4) and we get

	A(x) = A(0)e**(r.x/Ft)	where A(0) = W/Ft

so

	A(x) = W/Ft.e**(r.x/Ft)		plug in the values of
					steel Ft=50000, r=.29

with a load of 1000 lbs, x = ~2x10**9 (36000 miles)

	A(36000miles) = oops my calculator overflowed!!!!

ok so @ what x does A(x) = 10**33 (what I did on the computer at last post)

	x = 242.5 miles (my ballpark figure was close enough...)

by the way 10**33 square inches is a diameter of ~10**11 miles!!!

I think this sufficiently prooves the impossibilty of such a cable. I
would also add that Kevlar is not a better choice for two reasons.
First it is heavier for its yield stress (Lmax=.79 miles; steel
Lmax=2.7miles) Second elasticity is a SEVERE problem. If you think
vibration due to the coriolis force is a problem try elastic
oscillations. Even in steel they're severe at any great length (this is
what limits bridge span among other things).

I hope this satisfies even the most skeptical mind as to feasibility. It
is clear to me that theory has a VERY LONG way to go before it can be
practice.  Don't forget that theory to practice is a process long
studied in architecture, and that many of the structural problems you
encounter in space have already been solved or proven impossible by
architects and structural engineers. So don't bother reinventing the
wheel, just research it properly first (it's not under SPACE ELEVATORS
:-) in the library, try Buckminster Fuller, or Felix Candella, Nervi,
Gaudi, and so on).

I would add as a last note that on smaller planets that rotate faster,
it could work. I'll try various moons around the solar system and see
what I get. I'll let you know what the results are. This is all quite
fascinating to say the least. For me as an architect it's a whole now
frontier of design that remains to be explored, so to speak.

Dave Chassin

PS: I welcome anyone to do the calculations for other planets and moons,
they're quite simple in fact, I just don't want to send any more time
on this subject. I'm sufficiently convinced about earth at least.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 87 21:04:15 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations

In article <1020@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes:

> I think this sufficiently prooves the impossibilty of such a cable. I
> would also add that Kevlar is not a better choice for two reasons.
> First it is heavier for its yield stress (Lmax=.79 miles; steel Lmax=2.7miles)

A common term for how long a cable can be supported by it's
own weight is the "support length".  For Kevlar 49 (A 10 year old
material) the support length is 195 kilometers.  The tensile or
yield strength (usually abbreviated Y) is 400,000 PSI or
2758 megaPascals.  The density is 1.44 gms/cm3 or 90 pounds per
cubic foot.  Gravity at the equator is 9.78057 m/sec2 .

 the support length is thus

             2758 MPa
Ls = --------------------------- = 195,824 meters ~ 195 Km
     1440 Kg/m3 * 9.78057 m/sec2

Not enough for a practical skyhook, even with tapering, but enough
for quite a few other concepts.  (Note- the "effective length"
of a skyhook is 4900 Km).  

In actual fact, the design yield should be less than this, because
any fiber material should be imbedded in some matrix material to
share load between fibers.  On the other hand, much stronger materials
have been seen in the lab, they just cost too much AT PRESENT (Kevlar
was $10/lb some years ago).

When something like nanotechnology appears, it should be possible to build
material structures nearly as strong as atomic bonds - support lengths on
the order of 2000 Km should be possible.

There are a lot of wild things going on in materials research right now.
The vast rewards of lighter aircraft and spacecraft are pushing strongly
for better materials.  Buildings usually don't fly, so it's not surprising
that architects are unfamiliar with these materials, as they are more 
expensive than structural steel.  It is also untraditional to include 
active control for vibration dampening for buildings, but the latest crop
of airplanes would be uncontrollable without it.


Kevlar reference:
DuPont Bulletin K-2, "Characteristics and Uses of
Kevlar(R) 49 Aramid High Modulus Organic Fiber,"
DuPont Textile Fibers Department, Technical Service Section,
Wilmington, Delaware 19898.
Kevlar is a registered trademark of DuPont.


-- 
Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 87 21:41:44 GMT
From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Space Elevator References


	Well, I started all this talk about space elevators, and now I
have the references. The novel is _The Fountains of Paradise", by Arthur
C. Clarke, c. 1978,1979. In his sources and acknowledgements, he lists
a number of references on the topic.

"Satellite Elongation into a True 'Sky-Hook'", John D. Isaacs, Hugh Bradner,
and George E. Backus, of Scripps Institute of Oceanography, and Allyn C.
Vine of Woods Hole Institute of Oceanography (of Alvin fame) in the Feb.
11, 1966 issue of _Science_. First presentation of the idea to the West.

Y.N. Artsutanov in _Komsomolskaya Pravda_, July 31, 1960. He called it a
"heavenly funicular".

"The Orbital Tower: A Spacecraft Launcher Using the Earth's Rotational
Energy", Jerome Pearson, in_Acta Astronautica_ Spetember-October 1975.

"Using the Orbital TOwer to Launch Earth-Escape Payloads Daily", Jerome 
Pearson, Proceedings of the 27th International Astronautical Federation 
Congress, October 1976.

"A (Relatively) Low Altitude 24-hour Satellite", A.R. Collar and J.W.
Flower, _Journal of the Britich Interplanetary Society_, Vol. 22,
pp. 442-457, 1969. Not a tower directly, but important nonetheless.

"A Non-Synchronous Orbital Skyhook", Hans Moravec, American Astronautical
Society Annual Meeting, San Francisco, 18-20 October 1977.

Wlater L. Morgan and Gary Gordon of COMSAT Laboratories and L. Perek, of the
U.N. Outer Space Affairs Division, provided useful information on the
stable regions of geosynchronous orbit, considering particularly Sun-Moon
effects.

NASA Technical Memorandum TM-75174, "A Space 'Necklace' About the Earth,"
G. Polyakov, translated from Russian. He proposes not a simple tower, but
an entire ring orbiting t he Earth, treating the simple tower as a matter-
of-fact step in that direction.


There! Is that enough references? I think people have been thinking about
the idea, and no one has yet said it's completely impossible. I don't have
any of these materials, and I would be interesting in hearing from anyone
who reads them.


			--Rod

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 03:51:52 GMT
From: rpics!chassin@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Chassin)
Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations

In article <1503@vice.TEK.COM>, keithl@vice.TEK.COM (Keith Lofstrom) writes:

. . .
Deletions that I agree with :-> (implications?)
. . .
> There are a lot of wild things going on in materials research right
> now.  The vast rewards of lighter aircraft and spacecraft are pushing
> strongly for better materials.  Buildings usually don't fly, so it's
> not surprising that architects are unfamiliar with these materials, as
> they are more expensive than structural steel.  It is also
> untraditional to include active control for vibration dampening for
> buildings, but the latest crop of airplanes would be uncontrollable
> without it.

Actually I would refer you to the design of almost all buildings over 70
stories. They do in fact have dynamic stabilization system that boggle
the mind. If I recall correctly the World Trade Center buildings have to
such systems inside that are essential 10 ton blocks moved back and
forth somewhere around the 30th and 70th floor (maximum motion) in order
to compensate for the 11 foot sway at the top. Many people think
buildings don't vibrate but this is one of the biggest structural
problems, even though the frequency in incredibly low (order of several
10s of seconds). If any is interested in detailed data concerning
dynamic building stabilization I'd be glad to dredge it up...

Dave Chassin

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 08:05:32 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Space Elevator References

Another - sort of - reference:

A book of collected essays of Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (dammit, I don't
know which one!  It was in the U.T. Austin library, if memory serves)
contained an essay mentioning a tapered tower of bricks (!) extending
towards geosyncronous orbit.  Climb up it and jump off; you are in
orbit!  K.T. didn't actually imagine his tower clear up to geosync; just
high enough that angular momentum was suitable for a high eccentricity
orbit.  The width at the base of the tower was thousands of miles!

Like everything else, Tsiolkovsky thought it up first, but in
insufficient detail.

Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 16:52:50 GMT
From: dayton!viper!dave@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter

In article <7761@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
 >> How do you build the sail?
 >
 >Presumably robotic construction, it will be too big and too flimsy to use
 >human labor efficiently.  If you postulate self-reproducing machinery, in
 >particular, a 1000-km sail is trivial.

If you postulate self-reproducing machinery almost ANY large
engineering problem is trivial.

 >I've seen a properly-shielded proposal
 >for an antimatter-powered ship capable of 90+% of the speed of light, and
 >the shielding problems of more modest vessels pale beside that one.

It seems to me that you would need on the order of five times
as much "fuel", half of which is anti-matter, as payload to
achieve 90% of C.  It must be an interesting design to
handle that much anti-matter with so little structure.

 >"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

I choose the stars.   :-)

David Messer

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 17:12:00 GMT
From: amdahl!meccts!viper!dave@AMES.ARPA  (David Messer)
Subject: Re: Some comments on anti-matter storage

In article <8703101137.AA12054@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>Paul claimed that anti-hydrogen could be stored in a vacuum container
>by being suspended through paramagnetism.  I will not address the
>question of heating and melting of the anti-hydrogen by magnetic eddy
>currents (though this is a problem).  Instead I'll show that this is
>impossible due to vacuum constraints.  One **might** achieve such a
>vaccum inside a diamond container heated to several thousand degrees
>and then cooled to near zero degrees kelvin.  One could

I don't know why you decided on a diamond container other than to make
it sound expensive.  Does anyone know what the vapor pressure of diamond
is compared to, say, gold?

 >take this container to interstellar space, open-and-close it and then
 >bring it back to Earth (I don't think it's possible to artifically pump

Why bring it back to Earth?  I think the eviromentalists would quite
rightly object to manufacturing of anti-matter on Earth.

(Nice anti-matter you have there...  Be a shame if you were to drop
it... :-)

>Another fix is to suspend the antimatter in front of the spacecraft and
>insist that the spacecraft doesn't leave interstellar space.  However
>this seems rather silly to have a spaceship that can't leave
>interstellar space.

No sillier than having water-ships that can't leave the ocean.  Space is
big (really big), if one has to build one's starship in the orbit of
Pluto, it really wouldn't make a whole lot of difference to travel time
needed between stars.

David Messer - Lynx Data Systems

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #179
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04118; Tue, 31 Mar 87 03:03:40 PST
	id AA04118; Tue, 31 Mar 87 03:03:40 PST
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 03:03:40 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8703311103.AA04118@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #180

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 03:03:40 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #180

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 180

Today's Topics:
		       Your Tax Dollars At Work
			  Hole in Ionosphere
		Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel
			     space dates
		Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel
	   summery of info on texts about Orbital Mechanics
			The Cold Rush of 1987
		      Re: The Cold Rush of 1987
			 Re: Space Elevators
		    Emergency evacuation of planet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 22:42:08 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Your Tax Dollars At Work

NASA attempted to launch an Atlas Centaur carrying a FltSatCom this
afternoon after delaying because of weather for a few minutes.
Contact was lost at launch + 51 seconds when range safety blew it
up; there is initial speculation that the launcher may have been
hit by lightning.

At least it was a military payload this time instead of another
weather satellite; they'll certainly not have any problems in
getting money to buy another one.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 87 13:30:17 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!sslvax!bt@seismo.css.gov  (Brian Thompstone)
Subject: Hole in Ionosphere

Hey you guys, the UK national TV news have just discovered that there is
a large (growing?!) hole in the ionosphere over Antarctica, and rumours
of one in the northern hemisphere. They showed animated timelapse
satellite pictures of the Antarctic hole (very pretty) and warned of its
potential for 'skin cancer'/'changing LifeAsWeKnowIt'. Maybe this news
item was timed to coincide with the EEC meeting where the chemical
giants *might* be forced to reduce production of certain aerosol
propellants etc. by a massive 20%.

Articles in journals such as New Scientest and Scientific American over
the last 6 months have suggested a certain amount of controversy over
the facts and or interpretations (if very little in the way of dire
warnings.) Anybody got some real info??

BT

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 87 03:51:47 GMT
From: euler.Berkeley.EDU!dma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. M. Auslander)
Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel

We already have a problem with space debris.  The shuttle windows were
pitted by bits and pieces of various old space vehicles out there.  We
also run the risk of running out of room for everything we want to put up.
There's an international committee assigning slots out at geosynch for
precisely that reason.

Miriam Nadel

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 87 01:58:06 GMT
From: pyramid!amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@decwrl.dec.com  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: space dates

A while back I posted a request for dates for firsts and lasts in space.
I got a few requests for the dates, but no actual dates.  Anyway, here
is what I have so far.  The info is culled from a National Space Society
list, a Scientific American book, a World Almanac, and perhaps some
other sources that I don't recall offhand.  If there are any errors or
additions or suggestions, send them to me.

The posting is formatted to fit my calendar program (which I'm too
embarrassed to post).  It should be fairly simple to convert to other
formats.  The first field is the day of the week the event takes place
on (1 for monday, 6 for saturday, 7 for sunday, 0 for unspecified).  The
second field is the day of the month, the third is the month of the
year, everything else is data.

/*###*/
0/10/4/1957 Sputnik 1.
0/1/31/1958 Explorer 1.
0/10/7/1959 Luna 3 sends pictures of lunar farside.
0/4/12/1961 Yurii A. Gagarin, first man in orbit.
0/2/20/1962 John Glenn, first american in orbit.
0/8/26/1962 Mariner 2 launched.  First spacecraft to flyby another planet, \
first to flyby Venus.
0/12/14/1962 Mariner 2 Venus flyby.
0/6/16/1963 Valentina Tereshkova, first woman in orbit.
0/10/12/1964 Voskhod 1 (Vladimir Komarov, Boris Yegorov, Konstantin \
Feoktistov), first multi-man spaceflight.
0/11/28/1964 Mariner 4 launched.  First spacecraft to flyby Mars.
0/3/18/1965 Aleksei Leonov, first spacewalk.
0/4/6/1965 Intelsat 1 ("Early Bird") first commercial geosynchronous \
communications satellite.
0/7/14/1965 Mariner 4, Mars flyby.
0/11/16/1965 Venera 3 launched.  First spacecraft to land on another planet \
(crash), first to land on Venus.
0/2/3/1966 Luna 9, first lunar landing.
0/3/1/1966 Venera 3, Venus landing.
0/3/16/1966 Gemini 8 (Neil Armstrong, Dave Scott) first space docking.
0/4/3/1966 Luna 10, first lunar orbiter.
0/6/2/1966 Surveyor 1, first American lunar lander.
0/2/27/1967 Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Ed White die in Apollo I fire.
0/4/24/1967 Vladimir Komarov dies when parachute lines of Soyuz 1 tangle.
0/9/9/1967 First successful test flight of a Saturn V.
0/9/17/1968 Zond 5, first circumnavigation of the moon (?)
0/12/21/1968 Apollo 8 (Frank Borman, Jim Lovell, Bill Anders) first manned \
lunar voyage
0/12/24/1968 Apollo 8 enters lunar orbit.
0/1/5/1969 Venera 5 launched.  First spacecraft to successfully land on \
another planet.
0/5/16/1969 Venera 5, Venus landing.
0/7/16/1969 Apollo 11 (Neil A. Armstrong, Edwin E. Aldrin Jr., Michael \
Collins) launched.  First manned lunar landing.
0/7/20/1969 LM Eagle (Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin) (Apollo 11), lunar landing.
0/5/19/1971 Mars 2 launched.  First spacecraft to land on Mars (crash).
0/5/28/1971 Mars 3 launched.  First spacecraft to soft land on Mars.
0/5/30/1971 Mariner 9 launched.
0/6/30/1971 Gerogi T. Dobrovolsky, Vladislav N. Volkov, Viktor I. Patsayev \
die during Soyuz 11 reentry.
0/8/17/1970 Venera 7 launched.
0/12/15/1970 Venera 7, first soft landing on Venus.
0/4/19/1971 Salyut 1 launched.
0/11/13/1971 Mariner 9, first orbit of another planet, first orbit of Mars.
0/11/27/1971 Mars 2, Mars landing.
0/12/2/1971 Mars 3, Mars landing.
0/3/3/1972 Pioneer 10 launched.  First spacecraft to traverse asteroid belt, \
first flyby of Jupiter, first to use gravity-assisted trajectory, first to \
escape Solar System.
0/12/7/1971 Apollo 17 (Eugene A. Cernan, Ronald E. Evans, Harrison H. \
Schmitt) launched.  Last Apollo moon mission.
0/4/6/1973 Pioneer 11 launched.  First spacecraft to flyby Saturn.
0/5/14/1973 Skylab 1, last flight of a Saturn V.
0/5/25/1973 Skylab 2 (Charles Conrad Jr., Joseph P. Kerwin, Paul J. Weitz), \
first American manned space station.
0/11/3/1973 Mariner 10 launched.  First spacecraft to flyby Mercury.
0/11/16/1973 Skylab 4 (Gerald P. Carr, Edward G. Gibson, William Pogue), \
final Skylab mission.
0/12/3/1973 Pioneer 10, Jupiter flyby.
0/3/29/1974 Mariner 10, Mercury flyby.
0/7/15/1975 Apollo-Soyuz Test Project linkup.  First US-USSR joint flight.  \
Last Apollo flight.
0/5/20/1976 Viking 1, Mars landing.
0/9/1/1979 Pioneer 11, Saturn flyby.
0/4/12/1981 Columbia (John Young, Bob Crippen) first shuttle voyage.
0/6/13/1983 Pioneer 10 passes orbit of Neptune.
0/6/18/1983 Sally Ride, first American woman in orbit.
0/1/28/1986 Francis Scobee, Michael Smith, Judith Resnik, Ellison Onizuka, \
Ronald McNair, Gregory Jarvis, Christa McAuliffe die in Challenger explosion.
0/2/24/1986 Voyager 2, first Uranus flyby.
/*###*/


david rickel
cae780!weitek!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 87 17:38:10 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!ka9q!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel

> We already have a problem with space debris.  The shuttle windows were
> pitted by bits and pieces of various old space vehicles out there.  We
> also run the risk of running out of room for everything we want to put up.
> There's an international committee assigning slots out at geosynch for
> precisely that reason.

That's not the reason for assigning geostationary orbit slots.  Space isn't
THAT full of junk, at least not yet.  Geostationary orbit slots are assigned
because the satellites share the same frequency allocations, and they must
be far enough apart as seen from the ground to be easily distinguishable
with practical antennas.  Once a satellite dies, it disappears from its
slot as far as the allocation is concerned, although it is of course
still up there physically.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 87 02:29:05 GMT
From: u5@eddie.mit.edu  (John DeRoo)
Subject: summery of info on texts about Orbital Mechanics

enclosed please find a summery of the mail I received in response to
my request for information about textbooks on orbital mechanics.

-u5

----------------------

Subject: Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics
From: rutgers!dave@viper.MIT.EDU

I just bought the best book on this subject that I have seen.
It is "Fundamentals of Astrodynamics" by Bate, Mueller and White.
Apparently this is the standard text used in the Air Force
academy for their astrodynamics course.

I have only had time to glance at the book, but it seems to
cover the whole range of orbital mechanics including a complete
solution to the two-body problem and the techniques used
in solving the N-body problem.
David Messer - Lynx Data Systems

::::::::::::::

Subject: Re: Texts on Orbital Mechanics

In my Physics of the Solar System course I took, the prof made up his
own "textbook" which was something he kept up-to-date via a computer
file.  He said (as did everyone else in the astronomy dept.)  that since
astronomy is changing so fast, it doesn't pay to write a textbook on it,
since it will be out-of-date before it is published.  While this doesn't
quite apply to orbital mech., this "textbook" from my course did have
quite a bit of this subject in it.  If you send me your USNail address,
I could send you the appropriate sections.

(...)

In terms of posting my reply in the summary, you can say that if
others want to get the text, they might be able to get it from
     Professor Alan Meltzer
     Astronomy Department
     Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute
     Troy, NY  12180-3590

I'm not sure whether *he* would like being swamped with requests,
either--however, I'm sure he could point people to where he had gotten
the info to write the "textbook" in the first place.

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 28 Mar 87 14:02 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  The Cold Rush of 1987

Scientists at Wayne State University, in Michigan, have announced the
detection of superconductivity at 240 degrees K (-27 F) in a two-phase
mixture of the YBaCuO compound system.  Drs. Chen and Wenger, in an
attempt to disprove numerous results from other labs hinting at high
temperature superconductivity in the material, applied a high-frequency
alternating current to the sample and detected the resulting dc voltage.
They are now attempting to identify and isolate the high temperature
superconducting phase.  According the Chen "somebody could announce a
room temperature material at any moment."

Progress has been extremely rapid. According to M. Brian Maple of UCSD,
"`Recently' in this field now means two days ago." Bell Labs scientists
have fashioned flexible ribbons and ceramic rings of the materials, so
there is evidence applications may be closer than many believe.

The only physicists concerned about this stuff are the particle
physicists.  They're afraid it will delay the SSC.  If they wait until
very strong magnets can be built, the SSC will shrink to the point where
it will fit in the LEP tunnel at CERN, and the europeans will beat them
to the Nobel prizes again.

This is Space Digest, so I'll mention some implications for space.  I'm
not sure what the effect of these discoveries will be on space based
power systems.  On the plus side, rectennas could be placed in deserts
far from cities, and perhaps highly efficient millimeter wave
transmitters and receivers could be developed, shrinking the incremental
size of the system.  Fusion gets a big boost.  If very large magnetic
fields can be produced, reactors shrink and fuel density increases.
D-He3 fuel would become preferable for use in main-line reactor
concepts, since reactor power density would be limited by neutron wall
loading, not by the physically attainable power density in the plasma.
This is excellent news for those contemplating lunar He3 mines.

On the minus side, more conventional power systems also get a boost.
MHD generators like high magnetic fields (power density scales as B**2).
Conventional generators will get smaller and more efficient.  Replacing
long distance transmission lines with superconductive lines will save
enough energy to put 50+ power plants in the US in mothballs.  Practical
energy storage systems will save even more.  This could reduce the
demand for new generating capacity for years.  Earth based photovoltaic
systems in deserts may be practical.  End user efficiency will also
improve, perhaps reducing the demand for electricity.  The new
technology should also reduce the price of electricity, though, so
elasticity of demand may increase consumption.

Any use for this stuff *in* space?  High temperature superconductors
would be very useful in electrodynamic tethers, inertial fusion rocket
nozzles, mass drivers, railguns and energy storage for all kinds of
pulsed power systems.  Rocket powered MHD generators could be useful for
powering laser weapons and launchers.  Does a very high magnetic field
make the "MHD Fanjet" more practical?  Can MHD systems replace turbines
or pumps in conventional rockets, increasing reliability?  Magnetic
radiation shielding?  Efficient millimeter or submillimeter wave
transmitters and receivers could make beamed power useful in powering
spacecraft anywhere in the earth-moon system.  Compact fusion plants
would be much appreciated for use on the moon and in space.

I'm looking forward to buying the following technotoy:  a bowl of room
temperature superconductor above which a magnetized globe is levitated.
It would make a great conversation piece for the coffee table.

Someone made a comment about rare earth elements being rare.  They
aren't.  The average abundance of yttrium in the earth's crust, for
example, is over twice that of lead and 60% that of copper.  There isn't
a big market for yttrium (currently maybe 50 tons are used per year in
red TV phosphors, along with assorted other uses in specialty alloys,
microwave ceramics and lasers), but should a big market develop, I
expect production will increase and costs will drop from economies of
scale (how much would iron cost if only 50 tons/year were made?).
Monazite, a common heavy mineral rich in rare earths that often occurs
as sand deposits in ancient river channels, is 3% yttrium.  Yttrium
metal is made by reduction of the fluoride with calcium metal, but
superconductors are made from the oxide, so this expensive step is
unnecessary.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 87 00:03:12 GMT
From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu  (Lawrence Crowl)
Subject: Re: The Cold Rush of 1987

In article ... DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
>... On the plus side, rectennas could be placed in deserts far from cities ...
>... Earth based photovoltaic systems in deserts may be practical. ...

What has a desert done to you lately?  Since the cities already have
ruined ecologies, why not put these microwave and lightwave receivers
there?  If these systems are safe enough for fragile desert ecologies,
they will not bother humans in cities.  People should live in their own
waste.  It makes for a cleaner world.

Apologies to Paul Dietz, this is not a personal attack.  He obviously
had grander visions on his mind.  I just want to make sure we watch our
means while achieving our ends.

  Lawrence Crowl

------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 87 22:55:00 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!ccplumb@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: Space Elevators

For a good discussion of tethers (all the math and physics) see Jerry
Pournelle's _A_Step_Farther_Out_.  He also edited _Far_Frontiers_, which
had a discussion of these `skyhooks' in Vol. 1.
	-Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb)

Quote:
It's like talking to a needle in a haystack.

------------------------------

Comment: 28 Mar 87 20:56:01 PST
Date:     Sat, 28 Mar 1987 20:55 PST
From: HMICHEL%CALSTATE.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:  Emergency evacuation of planet


     I just saw "When Worlds Collide" for the first time today (a 1951
film that won an Oscar for special effects--thoroughly undeserving for
any other category by the way).

     In the film the world has one year before a roving star and planet
come by and cause problems.  One group of scientists, backed by
essentially unlimited resources, builds a space ship to escape.

QUESTIONS FOR DISCUSSION

     Given a catastrophic need, how many space ships could be built and
how many people could be evacuated from earth within the next year?
Where could we go that would give the human race a viable opportunity
for indefinite survival?

LIMITS FOR DISCUSSION

     Assume the threat is unavoidable.  I am not interested in various
methods of blowing up a meteor or comet or whatever.

     Assume global cooperation.  Don't be concerned about military needs.

     Don't be concerned with the effects of the catastrophy.  You may
assume that the rest of the solar system is available for colonization,
even our own moon.  (Although, if you want to make some comments about
what would happen to the moon if the earth was fragmentized, I would be
interested in that insofar as it would affect the moon as a choice for
colonization.)

     You get the drift, I am mainly interested in how many people could
hope to escape and where we could go.

     I'm looking forward to your thoughts.

Michael W. Fleming

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #180
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA26883; Wed, 1 Apr 87 03:03:16 PST
	id AA26883; Wed, 1 Apr 87 03:03:16 PST
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 87 03:03:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704011103.AA26883@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #181

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 1 Apr 87 03:03:16 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #181

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 181

Today's Topics:
		  Boston L5/NSS April Meeting Notice
			NASA Summer positions
		 Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova
		 Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova
	       USSR adds addition to Mir space station
		     Space elevator calculations
		  Re: Emergency evacuation of planet
		  Re: Emergency evacuation of planet
			 Interstellar matter
			   Bussard ramjets
		     More comments on Star Travel
	    Forward's antimatter article in New Destinies
	   Problems with Lightsails for Interstellar Travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 18:51:25 EST
From: glenn%ll-vlsi.arpa@ll-vlsi.arpa (Glenn Chapman)
Subject: Boston L5/NSS April Meeting Notice

For those in the Boston area I will now try and post the meeting notices of the
Boston L5/NSS on a regular basis.

The Boston L5/NSS chapter April meeting is a Lecture by Jack Kelly of the
Center for Space Policy Analysis.  This talk will give an overview of the
NASA/International space station's current status.  Its present budget,
international participation agreements, current planned experiments and the
impact of the station on the technology of the west will be discussed.

The Boston L5/NSS will meet on Thursday Apr. 2 at 8:00 pm at the MIT Laboratory
for Computer Science (AI building, 545 Main St., Cambridge) in Rm NE43-512A.
For more information please contact Glenn Chapman at 617-275-8729 evenings,
617-863-5500 Ex 2657 during the day, or via apra mail at glenn@ll-vlsi.

                                  Glenn Chapman, President Boston L5
                                  MIT Lincoln Lab.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 30 Mar 87 17:57:04 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: NASA Summer positions

The period for accepting summer positions closed over a month ago.
Please stop mailing resumes, there is very little I can do with them, now.

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 87 07:24:59 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (P Douglas Reeder)
Subject: Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova


_Science_ Magazine has good, current articles on Supernova 1987a (are they expecting another this year?) with the latest news direct from the scientific community.
-- 
                 -Doug Reeder,  Reed College

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 87 04:49:02 GMT
From: bek-mc!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova

In article <5815@reed.UUCP> douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes:
>_Science_ Magazine has good, current articles on Supernova 1987a
>(are they expecting another this year?) with the latest news direct 
>from the scientific community.

They not only expect another supernova this year, there has already been
one.  I expect the discoverer is rather peeved because his one shot at
fame is overshadowed.  (It is not really a shot at fame, over a dozen
are found each year, but most of them, including 1987b, are so far away
that they never get to be naked eye objects.)

Time magazine had an interesting quote, which says a lot about
journalists' ability to comprehend orders of magnitude.  Quoting from
memory "The supernova makes Mt St. Helens and Krakatoa look puny by
comparison."

				David Palmer

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 15:25:00 EST
From: glenn%ll-vlsi.arpa@ll-vlsi.arpa (Glenn Chapman)
Subject: USSR adds addition to Mir space station

     The Soviet Union has today (Mar 30) announced the launching of the
first large addition to their Mir space station.  This "star" module has
a mass of about 20 Tonnes, and is about the same size as the Mir station
itself.  This section, called Roentgen in the West (the Russian name for
it was garbled in the announcement) is devoted to high energy (X-ray)
astronomy, and contains equipment built by the West Germans and the
British.  One interesting point is that the module has its own life
support system which means that it can act as a free flyer to some
extent.  No date of the docking to Mir was given.  It was not stated
whether Roentgen was going to dock to the rear docking port of Mir, or
the front axial one.  The Soviet plans call for modules docked to the
forward axial port to be transferred by a remote manipulator attachment
to one of the 4 side ports of the front docking "ball".  However Mir was
launched without its manipulators in place (they would not fit inside
the launch shroud), and it was planned that they would be added later on
in an EVA which has not yet taken place.  Actually this launch is even a
little ahead of schedule because the Russians had stated to the western
researchers that the module would be up there by the end of May.

   One other interesting point is that of the two cosmonauts currently
on Mir, the rookie one, Alexander Laveikin, has already obtained 1270
hours of zero g time on his first mission.  On April 12th he will exceed
the duration of the highest time of a currently active US astronaut
(Owen Garriott with 1674 hours from Skylab 3 and STS-9).  By coincidence
(?) April 12th is also the 26th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's flight
which opened the age of man in space.

   Again the USSR is moving ahead. Mean while the congress is now trying
to cut 2.1 billion out of NASA's funds.  Is that what we really want?

                                             Glenn Chapman
                                             MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date:     Sun, 29 Mar 87 18:48:35 CST
From: David Chase <rbbb@rice.edu>
Subject:  Space elevator calculations

Please also include in your calculations the amount of mass that must be
lifted to geosynchronous orbit.

If you are really ambitious, provide an estimate of what happens if the
cable should break in the middle; does it all fall in one place, burn up,
or pulverize some distant city?  Back of the hand physics (no envelope
handy) say that it will fall to the east.  Of course, an 18000 mile
section of cable (with elevator attached, of course) could land almost
anywhere.

David

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 87 13:24:37 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (Rick Kolker)
Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet

Martin Caidin (so many books I can't begin to name them) addresses this
in his latest book 'Exit Earth'.  I don't agree with all of what he says
(and the end of the book is much too convenient) but it does put
'Worlds' in a contemporary situation.

Rich Kolker

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 87 08:25:06 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!tut!santra!kolvi!jku@seismo.css.gov  (Juha Kuusama)
Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet

In article <8703290457.AA28166@angband.s1.gov> HMICHEL@CALSTATE.BITNET writes:

>     Given a catastrophic need, how many space ships could be built and
>how many people could be evacuated from earth within the next year?
>Where could we go that would give the human race a viable opportunity
>for indefinite survival?
>     Assume global cooperation.  Don't be concerned about military needs.
 
I admit knowing about nothing about spaceship building, but I do know
something about humans!

My bet is that even if we assume cooperation between nations, the answer
is either zero or all, and that means zero. Humans are infinitely
jealous.  The rescued group is obviously limited. No project as big as
that can be completed in arised social situation.

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 12 Mar 87 14:33 EDT
From: <POUND%BUASTA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  Interstellar matter

In V7 # 160 Jay Freeman writes:
  > The too-low-density bug might better be reinvestigated as
  > "how far is the nearest high-density region of the interstellar
  >  medium?"

and in V7 #161 Keith Lynch sez:
  > Nobody knows the density of interstellar dust grains.

(Obviously Keith has no friends who are radioastronomers...)

In order that we may finally put the Bussard ramjet to sleep, here are
the numbers.  (note: M* = solar mass = 2 E+33 gm, pc3 = cubic parsec,
kpc = 1000 pc)

In a 1 kpc survey about the sun, the long-dead Copernicus satellite
found these densities:

        HII(=H+)            .003 M*/pc3
        HI(=neutral H)      .031 M*/pc3
        H2(=molecular H)    .007 M*/pc3

note that 1 M*/pc3 = 40.3 H atoms/cc = 6.8 E-23 gm/cc.

Typical ISM dust grain density:   0.002 M*/pc3

Typical properties of interstellar clouds (cf. _Astrophysics II_, Bowers
and Deeming, 1984):

        Type            Kinetic Temp      density       Composition
                                         (atoms /cc)

   Diffuse Clouds         50-150 K        10-1000       mostly HI
                                                        mass=400 M*
                                                        radius = 5 pc

   Molecular Clouds        3-10 K         10^3 - 10^6   mostly H2,
                                                        molecules (CO),
                                                        and dust
                                                        m = 300 M*
                                                        r = 1 pc

The nearest clouds are on the order of a *kpc* away. Nobody's gonna use
a Bussard ramjet in the near future. :-(

|   Legalize        |           Marc Pound--Boston Univ. Astro Dept
|   Henry Spencer!  |           pound@buasta (on a variety of networks)

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 13 Mar 87 08:39:19 SA
From: Tero Siili <FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Bussard ramjets

I have not been following the digest in a while, so my comments may be
out of date, but anyway:

1. How does one achieve braking to halt in a solar system with a BRJ?
   If I picture the situation correctly, in order to brake down the
   magnetic scoop would have to remain in the direction of motion and
   simultaneously the thrust would have to be to the direction of the
   scoop. Two questions arise: how does the outgoing, most probably
   high-temperature and ionized fusion-product plasma interact with the
   magnetic field of the scoop and secondly, is it possible, that after
   expelling the fusion-products, the 'ashes', to the direction of
   movement, at sometime the scoop eventually begins to collect the
   'ashes' along with hydrogen, which eventually would change the
   realtive amount amount of fusionable fuel in the scooped stuff, thus
   maybe reducing the efficiency of the fusion plant?

2. Those discussing about laser-powered lightsails, someone suggested,
   that the tracking of the ship and the sail would be done
   preprogrammed.  It would be nice to read, what magnitude of angular
   accuracy would be needed at the solar system end, to keep the laser
   beam on target even about 4-7 light-years distance away.
   Additionally, Robert Forward suggested using the same laser for
   braking to halt at the target solar system. If the beam does not go
   on target, the ship can not stop.  It would be nice for a manned
   vehicle... Some other questions arise, what is the scattering due
   interstellar medium, does the solar wind of other stars have
   effect(probably not), etc...

Well, that much for this time

Tero Siili
Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 16:22:31 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: More comments on Star Travel

In SPACE Digest Volume 7 : Issue 162, Henry Spencer responded to some
earlier remarks made by me concerning Robert Forward's laser driven
light sail.

>> ... Where would you get the energy?
>Presumably solar energy.  Mercury is valuable territory.

A major problem here will be dumping the waste heat.  If we assume that
our laser is pumping out a terra-watt and is operating at 10 percent
efficiency then we have to reject 9 terra-watts. If the radiator is made
of steel then it will have a surface area of greater than 14.7 square
kilometers in order not to melt (that's a square steel plate that is 2.4
miles by 2.4 miles).  This radiator will have to be in the shadow of the
collector or a sun shield.  Building such a device on Mercury would be
ill advised because it would only worsen heat rejection.

>> How do you build the sail?
>Presumably robotic construction, it will be too big and too flimsy to
>use human labor efficiently.  If you postulate self-reproducing
>machinery, in particular, a 1000-km sail is trivial.

A 1000-km sail is trivial as is a 1000-km frensel lens and a 14.7 square
km radiator??  Henry, your credibility is showing.  I got a better thing
to postulate: Let's postulate that if we close our eyes, clap our hands,
and wish real hard then an FTL-drive will appear out of thin air.  A
self-reproducing machine with full AI capability already exists (it's
called a human being).  I doubt you'll ever make a machine that is
cheaper than that.  However by your own admission this sail is too big
and flimsy for humans to make.

>> How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a
>> light year away?...
>You don't.  All you do is keep the beam pointed in pretty much the
>right direction, with maybe an occasional correction.  The spacecraft
>moves to stay in the beam, not vice-versa.  The key problem is not sail
>tracking but pointing stability.

Now that's a pretty thin come back.  You're a bright guy Henry, you know
that the position error of the beam will grow as you get further away.
There will be jitter on board the laser due to machinery and buffeting
from the solar wind and light pressure (the intensity of which is almost
totally chaotic).  Your sail is supposed to have a pretty heafty
velocity vector and is quite fragile (so no large delta Vs).  Of course
you can fix that by letting the beam diverge but that defeats the whole
idea.

                        --- Commentary ---
There is too much wishful thinking in these ideas and not enough hard
science.  I want to see us get to the Stars as much as anyone else in
this news group.  However Science Fiction masquerading as real
engineering proposals isn't going to get the job done.  Let's increase
the signal-to-noise ratio on the issue of Star Travel and make the
subject respectable.  Too many times have I read someone claim that some
whacky idea was plausible and all that remained was the engineering
details.  Those engineering details are often 99.999999% of the problem.
Look at nuclear fusion, the problem is "trivial".  All you got to do is
drop a speck of tritium-deuterium into a container and zap it with a
laser. The minor details of the laser, radiation, heat extraction, etc.
are "simple" engineering details and not worthy of our concern.  What
utter Hogwash.  If we can't crack the "trivial" engineering details of
Inertial Containment Fusion, then what hope is there for these other
crazy ideas.  Come on guys, get some perspective on the problem.
                            Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: Fri 13 Mar 87 10:34:25-CST
From: Larry Van Sickle <CS.VANSICKLE@r20.utexas.edu>
Subject: Forward's antimatter article in New Destinies

A more easily obtainable artice by Robert L. Forward on the engineering
of antimatter space drives is in New Destinies, Volume 1, Spring 1987,
Baen Books.  It should be in your local bookstore in the science fiction
section.

Larry Van Sickle
cs.vansickle@r20.utexas.edu.#Internet
Computer Sciences Department
U of Texas at Austin

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 13 Mar 87 16:36:44 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Problems with Lightsails for Interstellar Travel

Some comments on laser-propelled lightsails:
 The article which must be read in order to comment intellegently about
interstellar travel using laser-pushed lightsails is Forward's article
in the March-April 1984 _Journal of Spacecraft_.

    However, this article seriously underestimates the difficulties.
Consider the problem of pointing accuracy.  At a distance of one parsec,
the beam will wander a million miles if the pointing accuracy diverges
by as much as 1/360,000 of a degree.  Unless drift is very very slow
(weeks) the craft will not be able to follow the beam.  A thin plastic
lense 1000 kilometers in diameter will be a very difficult object to
hold in position.
    There are also fundamental optics problems.  If the lense is assumed
to be 15 AU from the laser and focussed at a spot 4 light years away,
the optical magnification at the target is 200,000, the ratio of the
object and image distances.  The light misses the sail if it is
misdirected by half the sail diameter.  Given that the sail diameter for
the first mission is 4 km, this implies:
    The lense must be positioned to within an accuracy of 1 cm in the
lateral direction,
    (2) The laser aperture must also be positioned to within 1 cm,
    (3) The laser aperture must be no larger than 1 cm.

I can't believe that a 1000 km lense could be positioned to within a
centimeter, or that a laser could put the required power density through
a 1 cm aperture.  Further, assuming a laser wavelength of about 1
micron, with a 1 cm aperture, the diffraction limited beam spread of the
laser will be about .0001 radian.  With the lense 2 billion kilometers
from the laser, the beam width at the lense will be 200,000 km: most of
the beam will miss the lense. (Obviously, positioning the lense closer
to the laser will not help, since it makes the magnification factor
larger.)
    Forward pointed out, when I brought up some of these issues that
some of the optics problems might be made to go away if a diverging
lense is placed in front of the converging lense, although at a cost of
adding some new complications.  The fundamental problem of pointing
accuracy is not solved, and this is the basic issue behind lense
positioning.
    For the larger sails or sails that only accelerate close to the sun
(eg., fly-by missions), the problems are not quite as bad.  For the 100
km diameter sail in the rendezvous mission, the positioning accuracy can
be 25 cm, which is still an amazing feat of positioning for a 1000 km
lense.  The laser aperture can be up to 25 cm: the beam will still
mostly miss the lense.  For the 1000 km diameter sail used for the
manned mission, the accuracies are 2.5 meters, and the laser will at
least hit the lense.
    In short, laser pushed lightsails are a *possible* way to do
starflight, but are not an *easy* solution.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                             EDU: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #181
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA29288; Thu, 2 Apr 87 03:03:11 PST
	id AA29288; Thu, 2 Apr 87 03:03:11 PST
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 87 03:03:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704021103.AA29288@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #182

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 87 03:03:11 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #182

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 182

Today's Topics:
		condensed space news from Jan 19 AW&ST
	       anti-matter storage, how good a vacuum?
			  Orion Recalculated
	       And the Star Travel debate rages on....
			antimatter confinement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Mar 87 00:34:36 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: condensed space news from Jan 19 AW&ST

Soviet Union 1986 launch schedule was 91 missions, slightly fewer than
earlier years due to longer-lived satellites.  First 1987 launch was a
weather satellite on Jan 5.

Launch of Japan's MOS-1 Marine Observation Satellite postponed a month
due to problems in satellite instrumentation.

New US position on international cooperation on Space Station to be
presented at multinational meeting in early Feb.  DoD influence felt.

House/Senate continues to refuse release of Space Station hardware funds
because NASA has not satisfied them about life sciences and payload
funding.

Truly is re-evaluating policy on shuttle payload specialists.  They may
be limited to one per flight, because extending crew complement beyond
that means using middeck lockers for crew supplies, and there is a
desperate shortage of middeck locker space for small payloads.

STS-26 crew is emphasizing visits to contractors and NASA centers to
hear workforce concerns and boost morale.

First full-scale SRB firing slips to mid-March; delay in STS-26
possible.

NOAA will hold competition to buy 3+ expendables for GOES launches.
NOAA has funding for the launchers in its new budget, which also marks a
victory in that the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting has been
convinced to approve two polar-orbiting metsats (it has repeatedly tried
to reduce the civilian polar metsat constellation to one).

USAF proposes Adaptable Space Propulsion System, essentially a
replacement for Shuttle/Centaur, providing a backup for Titan/Centaur.
Target is 10k pounds into Clarke orbit, using hypergolic liquids or a
hypergolic/solid combination.  (An all-solid solution does not seem
feasible.)  New engines may be needed.  One problem is that 10klb to
Clarke orbit probably can't be done without cryogenics unless NASA
authorizes a 55klb payload weight for the shuttle, and NASA's current
position is that the USAF should plan for 50klb max.

 [Micro-editorial: The solution to this is obviously to
 take a Centaur up dry, and fuel it in orbit from residual
 External Tank propellants or from an orbiting propellant
 facility.  This would have many other uses.  -- HS]

NASA management to be briefed on new Space Station cost estimates, which
are said to have grown to $12-13G from the $8G target.  NASA management
says if it's that bad, reductions in scope will be needed.  Also to be
presented is the "lifeboat" crew-rescue issue.  The lifeboat
unfortunately would need $0.3-1G extra, and may be presented to Congress
as an "if you want it, add money" option.  There is great concern about
the escalating Station costs.

 [A long scathing editorial about the Space Station
 situation is coming, but it will have to wait
 until I have a bit more time to write it.  -- HS]

 [Meanwhile, a snide suggestion: why not contract
 with the Soviets for a rescue mission if needed?
 *They* can do rapid-reaction launches!  -- HS]

NASA Dep. Admin. Dale Myers says that NASA wants to be involved in the
DoD heavy-lift vehicle, which is very ill-defined as yet.  He says it is
becoming clear that neither NASA nor DoD really knows how to cut launch
costs by a factor of 10, an oft-cited goal.  Obvious HLV candidates are
shuttle-derived systems and souped-up Titans.

McDonnell-Douglas redesigns Titan 4 payload shroud after test shroud
fails during test.

DoD MLV winner expected to be announced this week.  Transpace and McD-D
agree to cooperation on commercial Delta if Delta wins.  [It did.]

USAF reduces Vandenberg shuttle pad from operational caretaker status to
minimum caretaker effective next Oct, lengthening reactivation time.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 15 Mar 87 01:03:52 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 14 11:50:18 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: anti-matter storage, how good a vacuum?

<ESG7> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 12:29:19 MEZ
<ESG7> From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<ESG7> Subject: Some comments on anti-matter storage

<ESG7> The best vacuum known is in interstellar space which is 0.1 particles
<ESG7> per cubic centimeter.  The interplanetary vacuum is 1000 particle/cc.
<ESG7> ... The best current artifical vacuum is at about 1.0E10 particles per
<ESG7> cc.

What on Earth (literally) are you talking about?? I thought we were
talking about some 50-100 years in the future when we're living and
working in space? What makes you think the ability to force air out of
a vessel into Earth's atmosphere is relevant?

<ESG7> Let us assume that through the marvels of technology an artificial
<ESG7> vacuum of 1000 particles/cc is possible (a seven orders of magnitude
<ESG7> improvement).

No marvel is needed; merely open your vessel to interplanetary space.
With ionization and electromagnetic pumping of the ions out to
interplanetary space (instead of into Earth's atmosphere as you seem
to imply) and free electrons we should be able to achieve several
orders of magnitude better than the ambient (interplanetary) semi-vacuum.

<ESG7> One **might** achieve such a vaccum inside a diamond container heated
<ESG7> to several thousand degrees and then cooled to near zero degrees
<ESG7> kelvin.  One could take this container to interstellar space,
<ESG7> open-and-close it and then bring it back to Earth (I don't think it's
<ESG7> possible to artifically pump it down).

Why would you ever want to bring your container back to Earth? Surely
you don't think we're going to try to store massive amounts (a few
grams) of antimatter anywhere near or on Earth, do you? We're trying
to get hazardous or polluting industry off Earth into space!

<ESG7> Another fix is to suspend the antimatter in front of the spacecraft
<ESG7> and insist that the spacecraft doesn't leave interstellar space.
<ESG7> However this seems rather silly to have a spaceship that can't leave
<ESG7> interstellar space.

By your logic it would be silly to have an airplane that can't travel
on freeways or a ocean-liner that can't leave water, after all what
good does it do to have a plane or ship that can't deliver door to
door? What ever happened to the idea of a shuttle craft? The big
trans-star ship keeps away from dense matter, and the local shuttle
commutes between the trans-star ship and the local planet or
space-colony.

<ESG7> Apologies to Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock, but it looks like antimatter
<ESG7> storage doesn't work.

Credit for Startrek for having a starship which never landed itself on
planets but either beamed people down&up (probably not possible) or
used a shuttle craft. Startrek was sort of right on that point I think.

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 15 Mar 87 12:34:57 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Orion Recalculated

     An article by Ted Taylor in the recent (April) Scientific American
gives yield to weight figures for fusion bombs:
     "The overall yield to weight ratio fo strategic thermonuclear
  warheads has been as high as about six kilotons per kilogram.
  Although the maximum theoretical ratios are 17 and 50 kt/kg from
  fission and fusion reactions, the maximum for US weapons has probably
  come close to the practical limit owing to various unaboidable
  inefficiencies in nuclear weapon design (primarily arising from the
  fact that it is impossible to keep the weapon from disintegrating
  before complete fission of fusion of the nuclear explosive has taken
  place).

     In his article on Orion type propulsion in Physics Today, Freeman
Dyson uses as a lower limit 1 kiloton per kilogram.  Multiplying by a
factor of SQRT(6) (note that specific impulse is proportional to square
root of energy) gives an exhaust velocity of 7500 km/sec if the entire
debris velocity is converted into exhaust velocity. For the best Dyson
assumes (for reasons I don't quite follow--he apparently does not
consider the possiblility of a magnetic nozzle, and seems to assume that
material that hits the pusher plate is stopped rather than reflected)
that the exhaust velocity is the debris velocity over two.  This may be
a more realistic assumption if we include inefficiencies anyway.  An
exhaust velocity of 3700 km/sec is 1.2 percent of c.  For the
nonrelativistic case (and relativistic flight is real hard with only
exhaust velocities of 1.2% c!)  The maximum velocitys obtained at a mass
ratio M for a stop-at-destination trip is V(mission) = V(exhaust)*EXP(M)
/2.  So for a mass ratio of, say, 100, we can get mission velocities of
about 5% of c, which means the nearest stars in about 100 years.
(Eliminating Dyson's factor of two doubles the exhaust velocity, and
halves this time)

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                             EDU: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 87 12:21:16 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: And the Star Travel debate rages on....

The Star Travel debate is attracting alot of interest.  This is
great, since the subject is certainly interesting.  However some
reader's responses bordered on being random.  I would like to encourage
these people that before they hose out some emotional flame onto the
net that they proof read it before to see if their argument
is comprehensible (many weren't).  As usual the most well thought out
and technically correct responses come from Paul Dietz.  Paul made
a couple of statements that were incorrect:

> Gary Allen claimed that interstellar colonization was impossible,

I've never claimed that interstellar travel is impossible.  In fact
in an earlier posting I described a way to travel to the stars by
means of an interstellar "Ark" and based my 50 light year colonization
limit on this vehicle.  I am confident that interstellar travel **is**
possible through Inertial Fusion Rockets (IFR) of the type described
by the British Interplanetary Society and Rod Hyde of LLNL.  However I
do think that interstellar travel by Bussard Ram Scoops, anti-matter
rockets or laser driven light sails is impossible.

>Gary Allen's analysis of antimatter heating in imperfect vacuum had
>several flaws.  (1) Gary assumed that all the energy generated in
>annihilations on the tiny solid hydrogen mote will be deposited in that
>mote. Gary's mote had a surface area of 1E-11 meters, for a diameter of
>slightly under 2 microns.  The gamma radiation produced in annihilation
>will travel meters in antihydrogen, and the charged particles          s
>centimeters... only a small fraction of the energy released is
>deposited by the antihydrogen.  (2) Gary claimed that heating of the
>vacumm chamber will lead to runaway outgassing....
>the energy hitting the wall per unit can be made arbitrarily low
>by increasing the radius of the container.

I redid the calculation assumning a ten percent absorption of the
energy.  Unfortunately the temperature of the anti-hydrogen is still at
the one atmosphere boiling point.  The calculation was a simple order of
magnitude analysis to prove impossibility.  Except for the assumption of
energy absorption, I always made assumptions favorable to the
anti-hydrogen remaining frozen.  However it still melted.  Of course, if
you make the container really big then there will be less wall
interaction.  However we're talking about a fuel tank inside a star
ship.  This has to be reasonably compact.  Also we have not addressed
the problem of transport of the fuel from the tank to the combusion
chamber or handling during manufacture.  Both problems are far more
difficult than simple storage.  Also another reader mention the
possibility of easier handling of anti-matter at low temperature.  This
is news to me.  However this point is irrelevant, since the antimatter
will be heated to a much higher temperature by the energy of collision
and then its wave function could see the colliding particles wave
function causing mutual annihilation.  I should also point out that
Paul's observations on the difficulty of absorbing energy raises grave
questions about how one extracts thrust from a matter/anti-matter
reaction.

>Finally: Gary Allen made explicit his assumptions that went into his
>50 light year limit on colonization.  These assumptions seem debatable,
>to say the least...
>>    The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster  an
>> than ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive.
>We've already handled the first.  About the second, expense is relative
>to the capabilities of a society.

Paul has not handled the first problem.  In arguing for anti-matter
rockets and Forward's light sails, Paul has not demonstrated feasibility
nor has he shown the capability of relativistic velocities.  Expense is
relative, but a trillion bucks is still a trillion bucks.  If you divide
a tillion dollars over the entire American population you will be giving
every single person $4000.  Would you pay $4000 so someone elses
grandson could make it to Tau-Ceti?  I'd pay $4000 for my grandson (and
$40,000 for myself). However I'm a space fanatic.  From John Q. Public,
you'd be lucky to get forty cents.

>Gary goes on to state that stars of spectral type K5V to M are unable
>to support life.  Wrong -- planets around those stars are unable to
>evolve life.  Gary depends heavily on the assumption that building a
>civilization away from planets, and on barren planets, is impossible.

Paul, you're the one that's wrong.  It's clear that I meant these stars
couldn't evolve life.  Of course they can support life that travels to
it, but what idiot civilization would send a star ship to a barren
system?  We got plenty of dead worlds in the solar system, and it costs
a whole lot less to stay here.  The extreme expense of star travel is
justified only if you can go to an earth-like world.

>Gary mentions that the average lifetime of a civilization or country is
>500 years.  After that every individual gives up and dies, I suppose?

No, but they could (and probably will) do something much worse.  A
society could regress and become no-growth.  It could renounce
technology and become an agricultural society concerned with religious
contemplation and such burning philosophical issues as: "How many angels
can dance on the head of a pin?"  The Romans inherited geometry and
science from the Hellenistic Greeks.  What did they do with it?  Answer:
Almost nothing.  The Medieval Europeans also inherited this same
Hellenistic tradition.  What did they do with it?  Answer: Almost
nothing.  We can thank our stars for the Renaissance.

Another point people kept raising in arguing against the 50 light year
limit theory was the concept of "carrying the seed".  "Carrying the
seed" works for the first three times you've travelled to the stars.
But what do you do **after** you've carried the seed?  Sure, I'd like to
have a son and a daughter but do I really want ten thousand sons and
daughters?  The "seed" argument doesn't work for unbounded interstellar
growth.  Many people argued against the three star ship limitation,
saying that the solar system has lots of resources, (Why should one be
content with just three star ships?). However these enormously expensive
ships won't be built for economic reasons.  They'll be built for
idealogical reasons, i.e. carrying the seed, scientific research, etc.
However after your home world has done it three times and your daughter
planets have each done it three times, then the thrill will be lost.
The home world will be insulated from the frontier by its colonies.
It'll feel that it has done its part and leave star travel to the colony
worlds.  Others argued against the 1 light year frontier thickness.
This is an insignificant point.  If you argue that the frontier is 10
light years thick, then the radial limit upon expansion is only slightly
increased, if at all.  The law-of-scale concerning the frontier volume
servicing the home world volume would still stand.
                              Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date:         Mon, 16 Mar 87 13:51:16 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      antimatter confinement

>> Anti-hydrogen could be stored in a vacuum container by being
>> suspended through paramagnetism.
    Yes, but a better way to suspend it is to put a slight charge on
(hit it with a few electrons) and then suspend it between crossed
capacitor plates, with an optical positioning sensor, and active control
to the charge on the plates to keep it centered.

>>The best current artifical vacuum is at about 1.0E10 particles per cc.
>>Let us assume that through the marvels of technology an artificial
>>vacuum of 1000 particles/cc is possible (a seven orders of magnitude
>>improvement).  One **might** achieve such a vaccum inside a diamond
>>container heated to several thousand degrees and then cooled to near
>>zero degrees kelvin.
  Tungsten would be a better choice, the sublimation vapor pressure of W
at room temperature is something like 1 atom/universe.

>>take such a container to interstellar space, open-and-close it and
>>then bring it back to Earth [orbit]
(I don't think it's possible to artifically pump it down).
    A good way to make high vacuum in space is to take a bluntly pointed
cone and move it through the interplanetary gas at hypersonic
velocities.  The cone effectively bats away the gas molecules, and if it
is moving faster than the kinetic velocity, very few fill in behind.
Immediately behind the cone there will be a vacuum which is many orders
of magnitude better than the ambient.

>>Let the anti-hydrogen have a surface area of 1.0E-11 square meters.
>>[assume the ambient gas is] 1 degree Kelvin (in truth it will be much
>>hotter).
    Why hotter?

>>The thermal velocity of the gas will be 1 meter/sec.  1.0e-3
>>particles/sec will impact the anti-hydrogen delivering 1.0e-5
>>ergs/sec.
   Carbon=12 amu, annihiliating 12 antihydrogens=24 amu total; (1
amu)*c**2=0.0015 erg, so we get 0.036 erg/atom, or 3.6e-5 ergs/sec.
Close enough.

>>assume that most of the heat is absorbed in the anti-hydrogen.
   This is the critical assumption, and it is faulty.  Energy from
antiparticle annihilation will mostly be in the form of pions, which
decay to muons and gammas.  For a small amounts, very little of the
energy should be absorbed in the antihydrogen.  Unfortunately, the
energy will be absorbed in the container walls.  However, these (a) have
a much smaller energy density absorbed and (b) can be actively cooled.

>Also there will be outgassing of the anti-hydrogen which will heat the
>walls of the container...
   Now *this* could be the killer problem.  What is the vapor pressure
versus temperature curve for hydrogen?  And how low can we take the
temperature?  Certainly millikelvins are possible in the lab, but
probably not without ever touching the sample.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #182
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01278; Fri, 3 Apr 87 03:03:17 PST
	id AA01278; Fri, 3 Apr 87 03:03:17 PST
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 87 03:03:17 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704031103.AA01278@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #183

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 87 03:03:17 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #183

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 183

Today's Topics:
		 laser beam to interstellar sailboat
		 Re: Space Travel ... and Antimatter
		Materials Strength and Bussard Ramjets
		  Robert Forward talk, comments on.
	 Making antimatter by neutron-antineutron oscillation
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 03:07:04 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 14 11:52:32 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: ota@galileo.s1.gov, mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov
Subject: laser beam to interstellar sailboat

<OTA> Date: Tue, 10 Mar 87 09:11:29 PST
<OTA> From: ota@galileo.s1.gov
<OTA> Subject: Star Drives

<OTA> This laser could use a laser from the lightsail as a guide beam for
<OTA> tracking and distortion correction.

This wouldn't work over interplanetary distances, much less
interstellar, because of the long speed-of-light feedback delay. Let's
go back to pre-aimed beam with the light sail tracking the beam not vice
versa, since that involves no long servo delay, ok?

<HS> Date: 10 Mar 87 22:44:35 GMT
<HS> From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: Re: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter

<HS> All you do is keep the beam pointed in pretty much the right
<HS> direction, with maybe an occasional correction.  The spacecraft moves
<HS> to stay in the beam, not vice-versa.  The key problem is not sail
<HS> tracking but pointing stability.

Yup. Note the "occasional correction" must be a sudden change in the
second derivative of angle, not in absolute angle nor first derivative,
lest the sail suddenly lose track of the beam (literal use of word
"track" here).

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 11:01:04 GMT
From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: Space Travel ... and Antimatter

Gary Allen left a few points uncriticized.  I think I'll jab at them.

>				      The engine itself will need a pretty
>heavy-duty cooling system.  The crew quarters will quite simply need
>shielding.  A combination of a long ship and shadow shielding can get the
>mass down to where it's manageable.

Down to where it's manageable?  Hahaha.  Now *why* is this man laughing?

>				      I've seen a properly-shielded
>proposal for an antimatter-powered ship capable of 90+% of the speed of
>light, and the shielding problems of more modest vessels pale beside
>that one.

Why do I hear people throw off .9c without blinking?  Grr, it worries
me.  You say this ship is capable of .9c?  Do you know what this
entails?  Have you done the physics?  (For the lazy, just look it up in
J Ackeret "Zur Theorie der Raketen" Helv Phys Acta 19:103 (1946))

In units where c=1, to obtain final velocity v, assuming utter
perfection energy-wise, the ratio of payload to entire ship is
sqrt((1-v)/(1+v)).  Assuming one wants to decelerate back to zero at the
end, one must square this quantity.  This gives 5.26%.  If one is
travelling at constant acceleration a, the distance travelled is
(cosh(aT)-1)/a).  (T here is proper time; it works out that the payload
ratio is exp(-aT).)  This works out to be, for acceleration measured in
"g"s, 8.5/a light years (plus coasting).

Now this is almost believable.  But what about the real world?  (There's
*always* something, isn't there?  Bitch, bitch, bitch.)

If fraction eff of emitted energy is useful, and the rest is just dumped
(this includes inefficiencies and stage separations, etc), we must raise
this ratio to the 1/eff power.  (This conveniently turns out to be
equivalent to the case of wasteless exhausts with relative velocity
eff.)

So, our payload ratio becomes .00004% for eff=.2, and .000000000016% for
eff=.1.  Frankly, I think anyone seriously expecting eff>.2 to be
achieved is a raving lunatic.  ("Scotty, could you beam this
'engineering' difficulty into a wall?"  "Aye aye, Captain!")

Anyway, that's uh, a LOT of fuel you've got there.

Now, if one were planning to return ....

So let's look at v=.1.  Here for eff=1.0, we get a payload ratio of 82%.
Not bad.  When eff=.2, we get 37%, and when eff=.1, about 14%.  This may
even be plausible.  I'll believe it when I see it, of course.  After
all, eff=.01 gives us a ratio of .0000002%.

Oh, you were really talking about being properly shielded?  I haven't
thought about the gamma rays, but what about interstellar space grains?
I mean, you run into a teensy little gram at .9c, and it's like being
hit by a 20 kiloton nuke blast, the size of the Hiroshima bomb.  You
know, as in "BOOM".  That's a LOT of shielding to provide for.  And
there's still that immense payload ratio.  (Yes, I know the typical
grain is believed to be about 1e-15 g.  Somehow I don't like the idea of
learning about the atypical dust grains the hard way.)

Even if you restrict .9c to the intergalactic medium (and pray a lot),
just getting there is going to take a while.  And to make matters worse,
one is going to have to practically *crawl* through the Oort cloud.  At
.0001 or less.

Note that I don't think interstellar travel is impossible.  Just a lot
harder and far more expensive than I think most of you want to realize.
Nothing less than planetoid-sized and extraordinarily slow arks seems
feasible according to known physics.

>> Number two:  How do
>> you store the stuff?  (remember quantum theory proves that no container
>> is 100% effective)...
>
>Quantum theory turns up other interesting things, too.  There has been a
>suggestion

Wow.  An actual suggestion.  THIS is why you people believe in
interstel- lar travel?  Because of suggestions of how physics *might*
turn out?  Gag me with a gluino.  (And to think that I thought that the
unswerving faith in the of-course solvability of the "mere" engineering
difficulties was stupendous.)

>	    that at really low temperatures -- like 0.0001 K -- antimatter
>could be handled with normal matter, because the wave functions don't
>overlap enough to produce a reaction.  I'm not enough of a physicist to
>check that one.

I'm not enough either, but it sure sounds like wishful thinking.  Appar-
ently it's close enough for government work, and of course as always
it's close enough for sci-fi.

Come on.  There is *always* the zero point energy minimum, even at
absolute zero.  *This* is what quantum mechanics tells us.  And its size
is inversely proportional to the mass of the object in question.

As a first guess, I would expect a kind of van der Waals analogue of a
force to develop between nearby hydrogen and antihydrogen atoms, encour-
aging the electron and positron to annihilate each other.

>		  The studies funded by outfits like the USAF have concluded
>that storing the stuff is not an insuperable problem; low temperatures,
>hard vacuum, and handling by magnetic or electric fields will suffice.

Someone should tell the physics community!

One of the interesting side results that I've seen noted from the method
of stochastic cooling was experimental confirmation of the stability of
antiprotons.  Before, they had linear beams of antiprotons that
travelled at near the speed of light for a fraction of a second--kind of
hard to catch them.  Stochastic cooling allowed circular beams to be
kept going (at worthwhile beam densities).  And it was just last year
that the first published accounts of successful antiproton traps came
out.  They could actually count how many antiprotons they had.

Or has the USAF stuff been kept classified all these years?  Just how
long have they kept antimatter stored?  And how much?

Sorry, I just can't be impressed by toys.

>			 the proton-antiproton reaction does *not* yield
>gammas immediately.

Of course not.  Protons are rather complicated objects.  This has been
known for nearly two decades now.

But does this make a difference?

>		      A large fraction of the energy is temporarily in the
>form of charged particles, which a magnetic nozzle can handle.

A "magnetic nozzle"?  Now what is that?  And how can it handle reaction
times on the order of 1e-23 to 1e-10 seconds?  (You did say
"temporarily"?)  And just how does it aim a mixture of positive and
negative particles of various masses and momenta in the same direction?
(Hmm, let me guess: "very quickly!")

Yes indeed, this sounds like a classic way to revolutionize all of
modern high energy physics.  Perhaps they should tell someone....

>							         Please
>read some of the work that has been done before denouncing it as impossible.

OK.  Here's a compromise: I will simply denounce it as science fiction.
That way no one can accuse me of exaggerating.

Note that I don't think the storage of vast amounts of antihydrogen is
impossible.  Just very very difficult, with nothing exotic about it
either.

Humph.  I've got a much more practical suggestion for getting to the
stars.  First, find a good-sized black hole (say this big ---> . <---)
....

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

PS-I've changed my mind.  I give the derivation of the equations for a
relativistic rocket with inefficiencies--those for hyperbolic motion are
too well known and hence omitted:

			<-de- * ==|===M====>

Let
	M denote the rocket rest mass,
	dM the change in rocket rest mass,
	de the exhaust energy,
	dx the wasted energy,
	eff the efficiency ratio de/(de+dx),
	v the Earth-frame speed of the rocket,
	dv' the change in the rocket's speed, in the rocket-frame
	dv the corresponding Earth-frame change,
	B the factor 1/sqrt(1-v^2).

Computing to first order in the rocket's frame, we get

		de + dx + dM = 0		(conservation of energy)

		de = M dv'			(conservation of momentum)

		dv' = B^2 dv			(relativistic addition)

This yields:

		eff dM/M + B^2 dv = 0,

which is easily solved to give M_final/M_init = sqrt((1-v)/(1+v))^(1/eff)
for a trip starting at velocity 0, ending at v.  This value is squared for
stopping, and squared again if a round trip is planned.

More generally, in case of fuel emitted with velocity w<1, one replaces
"de" by "b dm" in the energy equation, and "de" by "w b dm" in the momen-
tum equation, where dm is the rest mass of useful fuel, and b=sqrt(1-w^2).
This is equivalent to replacing "eff" by "eff w" in the final results.

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 18 Mar 87 13:32:38 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Materials Strength and Bussard Ramjets

     Somebody responded a while ago that materials strengths won't
limit a Bussard Ramjet, since you could design it so that there is
no stress on the field coils.  Sorry, but this turns out not to be
the case.
     A magnetic field produces a force on the coils that produce it.
This is not absolutely obvious, but think of the (I x B) force of
the field on the field coil wires.  This force is inherent in the
energy density of the magnetic field; clever design can't erase it.
Electric fields have the same problem.
    There is another force on the coils as well, which is the inertia
of all those interstellar hydrogens being pulled in.  Don't know
how large this will be, but probably smaller.
     Shortly after Bussard's paper was published there was a discussion
paper which analyzed this effect and concluded that the fields would
have to be much weaker than Bussard proposed to avoid structural
limitations in the field generators.  Don't recall the reference offhand,
but I could find it if anybody is really seriously interested.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 17:35:37 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxa!rmrin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D Rickert)
Subject: Robert Forward talk, comments on.

I attended a talk by Dr. Robert Forward the other night on the subject
of interstellar space travel.  I was impressed that he had done some
mathematical analysis of his ideas to eliminate obvious and
not-so-obvious "it just won't work without magic" type stuff.  He also
submits these ideas to journals that have a referee process to give
others a chance to throw bubble-bursting darts.  And finally, wonder of
wonders, he's convinced the Air Force (with Hughes as intermediary) to
pay him a salary for his hobby.

Those of you who follow the standard s-f magazines know his thing is
light sails.  He also was hot on the idea of anti-matter drives and
hinted darkly at a "negative mass" drive which he wasn't willing to say
a lot about because the papers were still under review.

In the informal discussions afterward, I brought up the generation ship
concept; not that I'm a big fan of it but just to hear his rebuttal.  As
I expected from previous net-notes, he dismissed it with, "We'll wave to
you as we go by fifty years after your launch when we have developed our
better drive."  Of course, even with the better drive the faster ship
was still slated to use up most of the crew's lifetime so it really
isn't too far from being a generation ship either (but I quibble).

Driving home after the meeting, the thought occurred to me that perhaps
he errs in thinking the rate of progress in spacecraft development will
be the same as it was for today's aircraft (not a surprising assumption
for someone working for Hughes (and the Air Force)).  However, the
driving forces for the development of today's 747 (or Voyager, or
Challenger, insert your favorite technological marvel) were military and
commercial, neither of which I see operative on an interstellar scale.
The Kennedy "race to the moon" approach might work but I see the
development time as far longer than the time in office of any
administration.  Even more thought provoking is the amount of effort
that will be needed to build the huge lenses and lasers in space that he
envisions.  Those efforts will require long term living by tens of
thousands of people in things like O'Neil colonies.  These large space
habitats will already be generation ships without engines.

Since Dr. Forward's main technological message seems to be that the best
way to build an interstellar craft is to leave the engines and
propellant behind, the same thinking could be applied to a space
habitat.  His thrust (sorry) is to minimize mass of the ship so that
reasonable accelerations can be achieved to allow travel times within a
lifetime given practical constraints on available power.  Granted that
this is a good hard-headed engineering constraint, one still has the
liberty of trading off the other variables such as trip duration.  My
guess is that some of his ideas (or their descendants) will be used for
the exploratory unpeopled probes but by the time (if ever) we have
decided where we want to go, we'll want to go in droves and with a
"getting there can be half the fun" philosophy.  As a weak support for
this notion I cite the rapidity with which early exploratory voyages
were followed by voyages of colonization throughout history (sometimes
the colonizers came first and said "Hi" to the explorer's when they
landed).

I await the rebuttals eagerly (and fear only the silence).

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 21 Mar 87 11:13 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Making antimatter by neutron-antineutron oscillation

On the subject of manufacturing antimatter...

One speculative phenomenon in some grand unified theories is neutron-
antineutron oscillation. Free neutrons would oscillate into antineutrons
(and back again) if there is a tiny mass difference and if the theory
allows some kinds of baryon-number changing interactions.

Current experiments place a lower limit on the oscillation time T of 10^6
seconds. After t seconds (t << T) a free neutron will be found to be an
antineutron with probability (t/T)^2.  10^6 seconds is a bit long to be
useful, since the neutron mean lifetime is about 900 seconds.

However, these experiments were done on earth. There may be a weak
intermediate range force sensitive to baryon number (this is very
controversial) or perhaps there are contributions from quantum gravity that
might cause antimatter to experience a stronger attraction to the earth
than normal matter (this will be tested soon at CERN).  This could
change the energy of a neutron relative to an antineutron near the earth
and suppress oscillation. The oscillation time might then be more
like 3x10^3 seconds, in which case we might (in space) optimistically
change about 10% of the free neutrons to antineutrons. If making a free
neutron costs 10 MeV (from fusion, say) this would be some 10,000 times
more efficient than the most optimistic accelerator based scheme, and might
even be a net source of energy.

Perhaps one could also use resonant enhancement of the oscillation, using
a magnetic field interacting with the particles' magnetic moments. A similar
phenomenon has been proposed for solving the solar neutrino problem by
resonantly converting electron neutrinos to other flavors as they pass
through the sun.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #183
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03049; Sat, 4 Apr 87 03:02:55 PST
	id AA03049; Sat, 4 Apr 87 03:02:55 PST
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 87 03:02:55 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704041102.AA03049@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #184

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 4 Apr 87 03:02:55 PST
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #184

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 184

Today's Topics:
       Re: Making antimatter by neutron-antineutron oscillation
			  Re: Fermi paradox
			   Fermi's Paradox
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #162
			    why make arks?
    Plausible arguments; antimatter; Forward; 50 light year limit
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Mar 87 14:09:25 GMT
From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: Making antimatter by neutron-antineutron oscillation

In article <8703211635.AA11975@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@slb-test ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:

>		   perhaps there are contributions from quantum gravity that
>might cause antimatter to experience a stronger attraction to the earth
>than normal matter (this will be tested soon at CERN).

To date, this has been best tested within the K0-anti-K0 system, which
undergoes strangeness changing oscillations much like the conjectured
baryon-number changing oscillations.  I don't have the numbers handy,
but the limits are stringent.

The best way to change baryon number is to have a good-sized black hole
handy, all set to explode.  But given that, you could turn an asteroid
into fuel for a ship, always keeping the mini black hole at a critical
mass, constantly radiating energy. 

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 12:20:36 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!tut!intrin!pl@seismo.css.gov  (Petri Launiainen)
Subject: Re: Fermi paradox

In article <750@jumbo.dec.com> stolfi@jumbo.UUCP (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>Steve Willner proposes four explanations for the Fermi paradox:

Here's yet another candidate:

n) The space around us is fully inhabitated, but measures are taken to
   keep us from knowing it, because such knowledge is considered harmful
   for a growing-up civilization.

Petri Launiainen

------------------------------

From: warlord@athena.mit.edu
Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 15:33:44 EST
Subject: Fermi's Paradox

In issue V7 #162, Gary Allen writes:
>   In a previous posting I made the assertion that one would not expect
>an interstellar civilization to expand beyond 50 light years radius from
>its home star.  This caused some readers to ask the obvious question,
>"Why?"  Unfortunately the argument supporting this assertion is complex.
>...

I won't argue here since the math is sound.

>However within 800 years the inner home worlds will have changed
>totally.  The typical life span for a nation or empire is about 500
>years.

500 years sounds more like a guess.  The deviation is certainly wild:
Western Roman Empire on the order of 1 millenium vs. the empire of the
Medes (nearly the same size as the early Persian empire, but lasted less
than 2 decades).  However, just because the nation(s) initiating
interstellar colonization are no longer in power doesn't mean that
colonization is going to end necessarily.

>If you have a frontier thickness of 1 light year then there will be
>about 6 frontier stars to service 94 interior home systems.  . . .

Now we have the real problem.  If we assume *no* progress in technology,
and *no* change in cost and investment relations, we certainly are stuck
within this 50-ly limit.  But didn't Gary just say a few paragraphs back
that alot can happen in 800 years???  Incidentally, just because a
theoretical limit exists, we cannot assume that our engineering
applications have reached it (i.e., we might be able to make more
efficient, more attractive space arks, make them cheaper...).

Gary also mentions problems when contacting solar systems with
unfriendly life forms ( we might not want to land on the dinosaur
planet...), but what if we met another spacefaring race???  I would
think that we would want to improve communication and transportation
whether or not they are friendly (and perhaps especially if they are
hostile...).  If they are neutral or friendly, think about interstellar
commerce...  Seems as though this 50-ly limit hinges on a lot of ifs...

>Of course this whole argument is false **if** you can travel fast
>enough that relativistic time dialation is possible.  Then the "Fermi
>Paradox" really is a paradox.  Gary Allen

No argument there.  Perhaps the paradox is more helpful in getting us to
think: if we can move further than 50-ly, what does that gain us?  After
all, the paradox is really a practical limit according to Gary's
argument., rather than a theoretical one.

Edison Wong

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 1987 16:16-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #162

Gary Allen: Your 50 light year analysis seems to assume a bottom line
oriented Western Terran psychology, and it makes the assumption that
the cost of a generation ship remains a significant fraction of a
"Gross System Product". I think the limit of 3 is one of the softest
numbers I've seen in awhile. With the proper mindset and
self-replicating systems the number may be more like hundreds. I
certainly expect to see self replicating systems before I see a star
ship.

I might add that the Nanotechnology session here will cover some of the
issues that make megaprojects like generation ships economically
feasible; you just 'grow' them.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 13 Mar 87 15:19:58 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 10 18:29:16 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: why make arks?

<AG> Date: 25 Feb 87 14:39:15 GMT
<AG> From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Andre Guirard)
<AG> Subject: Re: 50 light years (newsgroup survey)

>> >...  Since these Arks would represent
>> >virtually no financial return upon completion, the constructing
>> >civilization would look upon making these ships as only a "luxury
>> >activity" for disposing of surplus wealth.
(False, see below.)

>>This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a
>>civilization considers projects worthwhile.  I and, I'm sure, many
>>others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind
>>when we support space exploration: species survival.
(True, see below.)

<AG> Let's hear from some people in this newsgroup.  Those of you who
<AG> support space exploration, what are your main reasons?  Send me mail
<AG> and I'll post a summary.

I'll answer the specific question above, about arks (survival capsules
that have no economic return to parent civilization).

Some civilizations will choose to send arks, even they give no return
on investment directly to parent civilization; others won't. The
former will survive, via the arks, where the latter are destroyed by
local war or nova or whatever. Eventually the Universe will be
populated mostly by only the (descendents of the) former. We as
individuals can't survive; we die before we are a hundred years old
usually. But we can have children, which can produce our grandchildren
etc. We can help those children etc. live on Earth by nurturing them
in early years, or we can put them in an ark with supplies and send
them out where they will be safe from thermonuclear war and novas.
It's all the same thing basically. If you want to survive through your
descendents, you must first breed descendents and second see to it
that those descendents have a good chance to survive, including
putting some of them in arks when the technology is ready, and working
toward that technology in the meantime. If you don't want to survive,
you are a discrace to your ancestors who were hoping they would
survive through you. (Technically it's the genes which survive.)


I agree with the rest of Andre Guirard's message, about putting
genetic information from billions of people on an ark, about the more
planets we inhabit the more people and other creatures can live who
might never have lived, etc. Well said and I have nothing to add
(actually some of Andre's ideas sound like ideas of mine I expressed
previously in this forum; I think the ideas are getting around, or we
think alike, etc.)

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 14 Mar 87 09:48 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Plausible arguments; antimatter; Forward; 50 light year limit

Dave Chassin wrote:

> I see a serious lack of 'scientific method' here. Many people have
> been basing arguments solely on plausibility. This is ridiculous
> reasoning, and I think it achieves nothing. I would and do reject
> any line of reason which concludes: 'and this seems plausible'.

This is correct, except that plausible arguments can be used as
counterexamples when someone has claimed to prove something.  In this
case, Gary Allen claimed that interstellar colonization was impossible,
but plausible scenarios where it is highly likely can be given.  The
plausible scenarios are nothing but tales, of course.  No certainty is
possible short of observing actual colonization or the lack thereof,
since we cannot predict the psychology or sociology of unknown aliens,
nor be sure of the feasibility of star travel until it is accomplished.

Gary Allen's analysis of antimatter heating in imperfect vacuum had
several flaws.  (1) Gary assumed that all the energy generated in
annihilations on the tiny solid hydrogen mote will be deposited in that
mote.  Gary's mote had a surface area of 1E-11 meters, for a diameter of
slightly under 2 microns.  The gamma radiation produced in annihilation
will travel meters in antihydrogen, and the charged particles
centimeters at least.  So only a small fraction of the energy released
is deposited in the antihydrogen.  (2) Gary claimed that heating of the
vacuum chamber wall will lead to runaway outgassing.  With proper design
this will not happen: at a fixed background gas density, the energy
hitting the wall per unit area can be made arbitrarily low by increasing
the radius of the container.  Also, particles ejected from the container
wall by the impact of radiation can be made to have an arbitrarily small
chance of hitting the antimatter mote, again by increasing the radius of
the container.

Ted Anderson was surprised I hadn't read Robert Forward's work.  I have
read some of it.  I thought phased array lasers would be more reliable
than a single large laser directed through a zone plate.  Also, I don't
have Forward's book with me.  I thought the self-deceleration mirror
trick was unworkable, but on second thought I now see that by having the
vehicles track the beams rather than vice versa the idea may work.  Ted
did suggest using a reference beam from the lightsail and phase
conjugate.  I don't see how this can work, given the time delays
involved.


Finally: Gary Allen made explicit his assumptions that went into his 50
light year limit on colonization.  These assumptions seem debatable, to
say the least...

>    The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster than
> ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive.

We've already handled the first.  About the second, expense is relative
to the capabilities of a society.  A starship requires a trivial
fraction of the material and energy resources available in a star
system.  Even making antimatter requires tiny (on an astronomical scale)
solar energy collectors.  The effort required is large compared to
*today's* capacity, but that's about as relevant as saying travel to the
moon is impossible because cavemen didn't have the capability.  (Rockets
will never be launched because one launch consumes as much energy as the
campfires of all the tribes produce in 10 years -- clearly ridiculous!)

In my previous plausible scenario, a society might spend $1E16 per year
on starships.  Even taking Gary's $1E12 figure for the cost of an Ark,
that's 10,000 launches per year.  Gary's assertion that no society could
build more than three of these ships is clearly contradicted in this
scenario, by many orders of magnitude .  (I wonder were Gary got the
$1E12 figure?  The small space colonies should be much less expensive
than that.  Perhaps most of the cost is in fuel?)  Note also in my
scenario that individual productivity is assumed to be 100x higher than
today, so individual income could perhaps be $3M/year.  If 30,000 people
save ten years of income, that's about $1E12.

Gary goes on to state that stars of spectral type K5V to M are unable to
support life.  Wrong -- planets around those stars are unable to evolve
life.  Gary depends heavily on the assumption that building a
civilization away from planets, and on barren planets, is impossible.
Strange, given that he is advocating L5-style Ark spaceships and has
advocated lunar colonies.  Note that Gary's argument that space colonies
are too expensive (they require much shielding) is hardly relevant when
there is no habitable planet to live on instead, and also hardly
relevant to societies much more technologically advanced than our own.

Gary argues that civilizations on the edge of the expanding sphere will
more likely send their colonists back rather than forward.  This seems
implausible.  Either those old systems have depleted their resources, in
which case you wouldn't want to go there, or they have not, in which
case they will have a large entrenched population.  Gary mentions that
the average lifetime of a civilization or country is 500 years.  After
that every individual gives up and dies, I suppose?

The issue of starship feasibility seems to bring out a lot of silly
arguments on the part of the less responsible SETI advocates (I do not
necessarily place Gary in this class).  For example, Drake has argued
against the possibility of starships by arguing that the energy demanded
would be better used by the society to increase the standard of living
-- this from a man who works in a profession that, by that standard,
would not exist.  Sagan (I think?) wrote an article on starships arguing
they were infeasible.  His argument showed that the starship would
require ridiculously large waste heat radiators.  Unfortunately, he
assumed the radiators would work at 300 degrees K!  Sagan and Newman
wrote a paper purporting to show (via application of the diffusion
equation) that colonization of the galaxy would take too long for the
wave to have reached here.  Unfortunately, their use of the diffusion
equation was mathematically inappropriate (the population density
gradient at the edge of the colonization sphere was too large;
colonization is more like an explosion).  Etc., etc.

Responsible SETI advocates simply say speculation without
experimentation is scientifically sterile, so let's listen and keep out
minds open.  That's my position.  If I were a betting man I'd bet they
find nothing, but that's true of much research, and SETI isn't
expensive.  Proposal: look at distant galaxies, where galaxy spanning
civilizations may be detectable.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #184
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05012; Sun, 5 Apr 87 03:03:03 PDT
	id AA05012; Sun, 5 Apr 87 03:03:03 PDT
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 87 03:03:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704051003.AA05012@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #185

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 87 03:03:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #185

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 185

Today's Topics:
	    Refuting ESG7's ideas opposed to building arks
			 SPACE Digest V7 #165
		      Star Travel and Longevity
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #165
	     Re: And the Star Travel debate rages on....
     One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water
		    Re: Star Travel/ Fermi Paradox
	      SPACE Digest V7 #167, interstellar travel
   Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 14 Mar 87 12:04:28 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 14 11:47:12 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Refuting ESG7's ideas opposed to building arks

<ESG7> Date: Mon, 09 Mar 87 09:44:24 MEZ
<ESG7> From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<ESG7> Subject: Star Travel, Light Sails, and Antimatter

<ESG7> In an earlier posting I claimed that there are only two hopes for star
<ESG7> travel, namely:  nuclear fusion (IFR systems), or a Grand Unification
<ESG7> Theory "rabbit out of the hat".  Paul Dietz raised a third possibilty:
<ESG7> Light sails propelled by a laser. ...

<ESG7> How would you construct such a laser?
<ESG7> How do you build the sail?

Mere engineering problems. A technology capable of living and working
in space, and of tapping the energy of the Sun and the materials of
the Solar System, might find a way to engineer a billion-mile-long
laser and a thousand-mile-across sail. There's nothing physically
impossible about such engineering tasks as far as I know, just they
are way beyond 1987 technology, might have to wait until 2037.

<ESG7> Where would you get the energy?

Obviously from the Sun. Virtually *all* the Sun's energy is radiated
into deep space, where it essentially wasted, a wee bit slightly
heating the Oort cloud, and the rest going out out out ... into the void.

<ESG7> How do you accurately track the sail when it is over a light year
<ESG7> away?

Dumb question. You don't!!

You just aim the lightbeam along the trajectory you want the craft to
travel (you compute where the target star will be by the time your
craft gets there), and you have machinery on the craft to track the
beam instead of vice versa.

Re antimatter:

<ESG7> How do you make the stuff?

One easy way is to bombard a target with lots of gamma rays (generated
by a gamma-ray laser, which of course is solar-powered), and
selectively collect the stuff that flies out the back. The antiprotons
or anti-electrons (positrons) or whatever you want are collected, and
the rest are returned to the gamma-ray target to try again. This
device is grossly energy-inefficient, but relatively simple to
engineer and who cares if we waste all the solar energy anyway since
we're wasting a lot more now by not tapping it at all (except the
teensy bit which happens to hit Earth or some other planet). If we
ever start running short on gross energy output from Sun (like if we
have a complete Dyson sphere around it and there's none left unused),
then we can design something more efficient.

<PFD> Date:     Mon, 9 Mar 87 18:17 EDT
<PFD> From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
<PFD> Subject:  Laser Sails, Antimatter (Response to Gary Allen:)

<PFD>   Travelling to Alpha Centauri, it may be possible to slow down in
<PFD> Alpha C's plasma tail, since the interstellar wind is coming from
<PFD> Centaurus and the plasma tail should be pointing nearly in our
<PFD> direction.

Furthermore, if we know ahead of time which exact direction the plasma
tail is pointing, we might deliberately aim for the tail instead of
the star, to get maximum decelleration, then tilt the sail to provide
both braking and transverse force, thus ride the tail in to the star.

<ESG7> Date: Wed, 18 Feb 87 11:34:07 MEZ
<ESG7> To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
<ESG7> From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<ESG7> Subject: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years

(Why is the date on this message so old?? If it is a mistaken repeat
transmission, forgive my castigating you again for an old message.)
 
<ESG7>    In a previous posting I made the assertion that one would not expect
<ESG7> an interstellar civilization to expand beyond 50 light years radius from
<ESG7> its home star.  This caused some readers to ask the obvious question,
<ESG7> "Why?"

I ask it again. Your message here doesn't answer it in any correct
way, since it is based on a false assmption.
 
<ESG7>    The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster than
<ESG7> ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously expensive.

That's not the problem, I accept that premise, >0.1C is difficult and
possibly not worth the effort. Also ...

<ESG7> I'm assumning that the only way one could get men to another star
<ESG7> would be through a nuclear fusion propelled "Ark" which was about the
<ESG7> size of an L-5 type colony, and required over a hundred years to
<ESG7> complete one voyage.

Maybe not the only way, but the most reasonable way we currently
envision, so let's go with that.  But ...

<ESG7> Since these Arks would represent virtually no financial return upon
<ESG7> completion, the constructing civilization would look upon making these
<ESG7> ships as only a "luxury activity" for disposing of surplus wealth
<ESG7> (like the Egyptians building the Great Pyramid or the Athenians
<ESG7> building the Parthenon).  It is doubtful that any single civilization
<ESG7> could justify building more than three of these ships.

There you go talking about financial return to parents instead of
setting seed upon the wind. Do you expect your children to support
you? (You would analyze financial return before conceiving children,
and only if they will pay you back more than you invest in their
upbringing would you ever conceive them??) No, your children are your
survival machines for your genes and perhaps some of your ideas and
morals etc. It's the same with these interstellar arks. Did you miss
the earlier postings, or am I seeing an old message that you sent
before the postings arrived at your site?

Have you ever watched a nature film on PBS? (Nature, Profiles of
Nature, Planet Earth, Living Planet, et al) Have you seen how those
primitive creatures assure their survival by sending out millions of
eggs or spores? Some sea creatures even give off thousands of
fully-formed children (not eggs or spores)! We should do the analagous
thing on an interstellar scale if we want to survive.

<AG> Date: 19 Feb 87 15:37:25 GMT
<AG> From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Andre Guirard)
<AG> Subject: Re: Expansion in space is limited to 50 light years
<AG> To: space@angband.s1.gov

(In reply to ESG7)
<AG> This assumes that financial return is the only "coin" for which a
<AG> civilization considers projects worthwhile.  I and, I'm sure, many
<AG> others on this newsgroup have a much more important "payoff" in mind
<AG> when we support space exploration: species survival.

Yup.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 16 Mar 1987  14:20 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #165

"This is not a new idea, by the way" said Henry Spencer about
life-destroying civilizations.  One version was developed in Piers
Anthony's "Macroscope" novel; the neat idea was to destroy them by
sending messages!  See also Fred Hoyle's "A for Andromeda".  Gregory
Benford has written several novels involving destroyers who represent
a spreading machine civilization dedicated to saving the galaxy from the
destructive effects of self-reproducing life-forms.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 87 15:19:00 EST
From: "R2D2::BRUC" <bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc.harvard.edu>
Subject: Star Travel and Longevity
To: "space" <space@angband.s1.gov>
Reply-To: "R2D2::BRUC" <bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc.harvard.edu>

In the discussion about star flight by other intelligent species,
we should keep in mind that the time scale of other species might be
very different. Imagine another species where the normal lifetime
is 100 times that of a human, and to whom 2 minutes of our perception
seems like just a second of theirs. A 50 year flight would seem
like 6 months. 

Of course, the rate of evolution leading to such a species would likely
be comparable to our own, assuming a similar tortuous path to
intelligence, but it would not be beyond reasonable extrapolation to
presume that the species could change itself for much greater longevity.

Bob Bruccoleri
bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc
------

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 1987 13:48-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #165

Count me PARTIALLY with the "many others". Species survival is a last
resort that space makes possible. I certainly hope we can make it here.
But not making it here does not mean we can't make it anywhere else.
One data point makes for very poor statistical conjecture...

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 87 02:54:41 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!myers@csvax.caltech.edu  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: And the Star Travel debate rages on....

In article <8703161124.AA25580@angband.s1.gov> Gary Allen writes:
>  The Romans inherited
>geometry and science from the Hellenistic Greeks.  What did they do
>with it?  Answer:  Almost nothing.  The Medieval Europeans also
>inherited this same Hellenistic tradition.  What did they do with it?
>Answer:  Almost nothing.  We can thank our stars for the Renaissance.

I feel I should point out that 'science' is a MODERN concept. The
Ancient Greeks did not go in for 'science' the way we do today.  Science
was born in the Renaissance, though certainly derived partly from
Ancient Greek roots.

The Romans were great engineers, besides.

The point is that we needed to go through the Roman and Medieval periods
before science could develop. And there has never been a *scientific*
civilization yet that has fallen.

Bob Myers                                         myers@tybalt.caltech.edu
					...seismo!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 17 Mar 87 15:00:56 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water

I've read three different postings to Space Digest suggesting a
solution to the Fermi Paradox is quite simple, namely:  We are the first
intelligent race to evolve in the galaxy.  The simple argument for this
is: "Someone has to be first, so why not us?" To shed some light on this
theory, my calculations are that there are 3.0E9 sun-like stars in the
galaxy.  Assumning that the odds of a sun-like star system generating
life at 1:1000000 leaves 3000 stars in the galaxy with life.  That
puts the odds of our being first at 1:3000, which are pretty bad
odds.  The prospect is made even more unlikely if one takes into account
that our location in the galaxy is utterly mundane (halfway between
the galactic core and the edge, on a main arm).  We might have
been first if we were on the edge (and thereby older) but not if we're
right in the middle.
                         Gary Allen

------------------------------

Subject: Re: Star Travel/ Fermi Paradox 
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 08:46:10 -0500
From: mike@nrl-ssd.arpa

	I've been biting my tounge and not saying anything through this
entire discussion of why star travel isn't possible, but I've finally
had enough of it.  Folks, why is it that we always seem to assume that
there are no real improvements to be made??? Examples: Nobody wanted to
believe the world consisted of anything besides Europe, Africa, and Asia
for centuries until some guy named Columbus came along and rubbed their
noses in it. Then there's always 'Man doesn't have wings, therefore he
cann't fly'; once again, we had to have our noses rubbed in it.  'It is
impossible to fly the Atlantic solo and unrefueled.' (How many times do
you have to rub a dog's nose in it??? Maybe we need to get knocked over
the head with a baseball bat.)  ' The speed of sound is an absolute
barrier. ' Oh really? Ask General Yeager about that one.  'Man cannot
survive in outer space.' Hmmmm. seems to me we went from 90 minutes in
orbit to landing a man on the moon in a grand total of about 12 years
and that includes the time we spent designing the orignal Mercury
capsules.  Gary, Jorge, I realize you guys have good arguments for the
Fermi Paradox, etc, but I really don't see any evidence that this time
will be any different than any of the ones I mentioned above.  Newtonian
physics sufficed for centuries, until we started getting more sensitive
equipment, and started noticing that there seemed to be problems at very
high speeds, etc., and still apply for 99.9999 percent of all the things
that man needs.  What's to say that Relativistic models don't break down
at some point either???? The whole point is, let's quit wasting time
finding reasons not to do things, and start finding solutions to the
problems.


Mike Stalnaker

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1987  09:04 EST
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #167, interstellar travel

We have been considering interstellar travel without taking into account
any technical progress first.  Let us assume that in, say, 10,000 years
we achieve a nanotechnology in which we can make computing elements each
from a small number of well placed atoms.  (Let's neglect sub-atomic
structures for the moment.)  This will permit us to make computers that
contain 10**18 element per cubic millimeter.  This should be able to
simulate a very powerful brain.

Second, suppose that in this 10,000 years we make progress in AI.  Then
that cubic millimeter could be programmed to contain something much like
ourselves, complete with the contents of a billion books.

Now reformulate the interstellar travel problem so that the goal is to
accelerate payloads of the order of a few milligrams.  There may be a
few problems about power sources, but 10,000 years should help with
that.  There may also be some shielding problems, but advances in
redundancy and self-repair should make that inconsequential.
Decellerating, landing on planets, and converting back into animals, are
also interesting little problems.

The basic point is that the launch vechicle will be 10**9 times smaller,
at the start, than the kinds that have been considered here, and hence
need not constitute such expensive projects.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 10:52:21 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60/C)
Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water

In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>  We are the first
>intelligent race to evolve in the galaxy.  The simple argument for this
>is: "Someone has to be first, so why not us?" . . .
>that puts the odds of our being first at 1:3000, which are pretty bad odds.

You haven't shed any light on any theory because your odds don't mean a
thing.  You made up a probability which has as much validity as any
other random number, i.e. none.

>       The prospect is made even more unlikely if one takes into account
>that our location in the galaxy is utterly mundane . . .
>                         Gary Allen


As far as I know, being on the edge has little to do with the age of a
star.  I could be wrong, if so please correct me.  Stars in globular
clusters are much older, but globular clusters are not exclusivly on the
edge of the galaxy.

One factor that you must take into account about the very earliest stars
of the galaxy (such as those in globular clusters) is that the material
they were originally composed of was hydrogen and helium with very very
small proportion of heavier elements.  As the galaxy got older and as
supernovas occurred, the interstellar medium was gradually enriched with
heavier elements.

What this means is that the earliest stars would not have rocky planets
(such as the Earth).  Later stars would have very small rocky planets,
with the size of the these terrestrial planets generally increasing with
time.

Life, as we know, it requires an atmosphere to shield it from solar
radiation and to moderate the temperature, among other things.  Small
rocky planets (smaller than Mars) cannot hold an atmosphere at the
temperatures that occur in the inner solar system.  Thus, life could not
form until the interstellar medium was enriched enough for large
terrestrial planets to form.

What the time frame is for this I don't know.  Perhaps someone else
could enlighten us.

Dan Tilque
dant@tekla.tek.com

P.S. There is an assumption in the above that life will only form on
planets in the inner solar system and not on a planet like Titan which
is in the outer solar system and is smaller than Mars but has a thick
atmosphere.  Does anyone have any *informed* speculations on the
possibility of life forming under the conditions on Titan?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #185
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07342; Mon, 6 Apr 87 03:03:11 PDT
	id AA07342; Mon, 6 Apr 87 03:03:11 PDT
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 87 03:03:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704061003.AA07342@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #186

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 6 Apr 87 03:03:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #186

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 186

Today's Topics:
		    Fermi Paradox and Dark Matter
   Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water
		 The AI-based nanotechnology approach
   Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water
   Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water
   Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water
	       Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach
	      Fermi Paradox:  the South Dakota scenario
   Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 18 Mar 87 13:23:59 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Fermi Paradox and Dark Matter

    Another "solution" to the Fermi Paradox: interstellar space is
"filled" with very small rocks (eg., pinhead sized and smaller).
Regardless of speed, travelling from here to another star you impact
every rock in a volume equal to (cross section of your spaceship x
distance), even if the number density is comparitively small you will
hit many.  If you travel at a speed which is even a fraction of a
percent of c, the impact energy is enormous (remember, the speed of
light is about as much faster than a high-velocity rifle bullet as the
bullet is faster than a person walking, and kinetic energy goes as
v**2).
    This increases the time and increases the cost of interstellar
travel immensely.  For high-speed travel, you need to carry an iceberg
around with you just as an impact shield (as Clarke suggested in his
book _Songs of Distant Earth_).  If this is the case, I *still* think
we'd probably end up checking out a couple of the nearest stars, but I
doubt that there would be a colonization front travelling very far from
the planet.
    In support of this, let me mention that I believe that Voyager and
Pioneer recorded *no* noticible decrease in the micrometeroid density
with distance from the sun, out to at least Pluto distance--this makes
it reasonably likely that the density is constant out to interstellar
space.  (Don't have a reference off hand--may look for one if I find
some time.)
     Also, note that objects this size are almost impossible to detect.
Interstellar dust (what astronomers now call "interstellar grains" is
much smaller, more smoke-particle sized (typically 0.1 to 1 micron).
This is detected by reddening of starlight by scattering.
    This solution also aids in solving the dark matter problem, namely
the question of why there seems to be ten times more mass in the galaxy
than the sum of the mass we can see...
          --a depressing solution, if true...

     Comments on other Fermi Paradox postings: Many of these make
assumptions about sociology (/"anthro"pology), and I wonder about the
documentation behind some of them.  For example, statements like "all
civilizations will expand to fill their frontiers"-- is this justifiable
by looking at the evidence?  Seems to me a typical civilization expands
for a while, then the people at the fringes start looking back inward.
The center (Rome, wherever) becomes the place everybody thinks is
interesting, and the people on the outside resent being stuck in the
boondocks.


--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 22:52:55 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!holloway@csvax.caltech.edu  (Bruce Holloway)
Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water

In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>         Assuming that the odds of a sun-like star system generating
>life at 1:1000000 leaves 3000 stars in the galaxy with life.  That

Given 3000 stars in the galaxy with life, then how many would develop
intelligent life? We have no evidence there is life anywhere else -
maybe it takes a few billion years for intelligent life to arise? We
don't know - we have no way of knowing - our existance seems little more
than a fluke, and the dinosaurs before us didn't seem headed on the road
to sapience.

We have plenty of examples of life on Earth that are far older than man,
or even mammals, and none of them have developed our level of
intelligence.  Out of God knows how many species on the planet, only one
developed what we consider to be intelligence... us. So say that there
is a one in a hundred million chance that intelligent life will form
where there already exists life - and I think the odds are a bit low at
that - according to your figures, that would leave 0.00003 planets with
intelligent life on them, and ourselves a statistical fluke.
  Bruce Holloway

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 14:48:01 GMT
From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: The AI-based nanotechnology approach

In article <MINSKY.12287367337.BABYL@MIT-OZ>, MINSKY@OZ suggests that
within 10k years that we may achieve wonderful nanotechnologies, a la
Isaac Asimov's _Fantastic Voyage_.

I'll believe it when I see it--there's a lot that we do not know.  But
if we do achieve such, I'd bet on it being achievable within the next
200 years.  (I suspect 10k years was just an enormous upper bound to
placate AI criticism.  But really, it's still not yet a question of
"when", but of "if".)

But somehow, achieving such seems to be a great way of sidestepping one
of the major "reasons" to go out to space in the first place.  Thus,
it's now like the film TRON--reality becomes one giant video game.  The
population explosion will be solved by sociological/electronic
engineering etc by our friend the Master Control Program.

(I put "reasons" in quotes above since I happen to find the "because it's
there" argument irresistable.)

>Second, suppose that in this 10,000 years we make progress in AI.
>[and other speculations omitted]

As I've said before, so much science fiction.  Personally I'm rather
skeptical about AI.  I've never *seen* any evidence that mind is capable
of a reductionist explanation, although based on the way I hear many
people talk about it, it's an inviolate axiom.  The argument seems to
run in the (much exaggerated?) direction of "we can imagine a
reductionist explanation, and by {definition|Occam's razor|whatever}, it
really does have a reductionist explanation".

What utter scientizmoid behavoirrhea, to paraphrase the late Michael
Ellis.  (Please don't misunderstand.  I also think the usual AI critics
like Searle and Dreyfus have completely missed the boat.  And I am NOT
engaging in an AI argument per se, just making an observation about your
own AI-based space travel conjecturing.)

I myself can imagine that consciousness could perhaps be understood by
turning the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics upside down,
and that it ends up being a special kind of amplification, based on the
emergent features of a very complicated randomly driven chaotic
dynamical system, etc, that cannot be compressed because of the
Heisenberg uncertainty principle.  (Note that I am purposely not
identifying "reductionist" with "scientific".  Thus, in my lingo there
is, presumably, no reductionist interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Feel free to substitute a different word for "reductionist" if it suits
you.)  (Again, this is not an argument about AI, and please, let's not
make it an argument about QM.)

This is my argument:

You see, for every "reasonable" science fictional conjecture you make, I
can make one ten times weirder which negates your expectations.  In
particular, I find linear extrapolations highly unconvincing.  They are
the stuff of great speculations, and of great research efforts--and so
far, they are all stuff.  But I hear the yes-we-can crowd echo the same
conjectures over and over again until I'm convinced they essentially
believe that they have been established and now it's just soldering iron
time, if only we had the funding.

Someday we may know one way or the other.  Until then, ad astra per dolorem.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720
    "Nihilism is our gift, our sending, our fate." -- that Dreyfus

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 19:03:00 GMT
From: apollo!arnold@eddie.mit.edu  (Ken Arnold)
Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water

In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>I've read three different postings to Space Digest suggesting a
>solution to the Fermi Paradox is quite simple, namely:  We are the first
>intelligent race to evolve in the galaxy.  . . .
>                         Gary Allen

These are pretty random numbers, and so mean little, especially since it
doesn't take into account the distribution of those 3000 stars and what
affect position in the galaxy *really* has on evolution (mostly because
nobody knows).  You're also reasoning in the wrong direction.  As an
analogy, any *given* arrangement of molecules in the air of your room is
quite improbable, but, by gum, if you we're able to determine it, there
would be one.  If you looked at that arrangement, you might argue that
it was so wildly improbable that it couldn't possibly happen.  But, in
fact, there is guaranteed to be at *one* inconceivably improbable
arrangment at any given moment (let us not quibble too much over
"moment" -- if you like, rephrase this in terms of rolling 10e6 dice and
looking at any single roll).  We *know* that there is one oldest race.
Maybe it's us.  Maybe it isn't.  But you can't tell by looking at us;
this is one of those things which, given our present Solar-system bound
status, we can only prove false, not true.  Although one thing is
certain: The first intelligent race of beings would certainly develop
someone who would say:

	"If there are other intelligent beings out there, why haven't
	they contacted us?  Certainly we couldn't be the first -- it's
	too improbable!"

(Unless, of course, life is wildly, hugely, probable, which it doesn't
*seem* to be.)

		Ken Arnold

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 04:36:50 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!percival!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water

In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>I've read three different postings to Space Digest suggesting a
>solution to the Fermi Paradox is quite simple, namely:  We are the first
>intelligent race to evolve in the galaxy.  . . .
>                         Gary Allen

To start with, there are several false assumptions here. 

1. The core stars *cannot* support life due to a number of conditions.
   The major factor is that they are first generation stars (more on
   this below). I seem to recall that the radiation level is a mite high
   too...  (remember that there may be one h*ll of a black hole at the
   center).

2. Older is *not* better. First generation stars (Population II) do not
   have *any* elements heavier than helium. This makes life more than a 
   little difficult. 

   Second generation stars may have some elements up as far as iron, but
   the distribution is such that life is *very* unlikely (picture iron
   being as rare as gold, and with no noble metals metals would be
   unlikely to be discoverable). (take a good look at the heavy elements
   required for life).  Even if it does evolve it won't be able to
   develop a technology (or if you are *very* optimistic, they might,
   but it would have to be based on unknown principles, thus we would
   not be able to detect them).  There is also the matter of their
   civilization (if any) being a few *million* years older than ours...

   Third generation stars. Now we are talking about Sol. And it is the
   oldest one for quite a ways.

A good reference is an article published in Analog in Jan 1970 by Ben
Bova titled "Galactic Geopolitics". It has been reprinted in at least
one of his books (non-fiction).

Leonard Erickson

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 23:36:53 GMT
From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gerry Gleason)
Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water

I'm not so sure that we're the only ones with intelligence (what do our
considerations have to do with it anyway).  But then that brings up
another issue, we are certainly the only ones to have developed
technology, and that probably is necessary if you want to get very far
from your home planet.

LET'S FACE IT ALL THIS IS SPECULATION!!!  We don't even know what time
and distance scales other beings would operate on.  Sure we would like
to be the center of the universe and all that, but its probably not
true.

I agree with the poster who commented that no one would believe their
was more to the world until Columbus rubbed their noses in it (of course
he didn't believe it either, why do you think we have the West Indies).
I think it would be much more productive to speculate about things like
space colonies and travel inside our solar system.  No doubt what we
learn in this process will help spur us onward (think about how much
easier it will be to build really big science projects).

gerry gleason

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 87 01:10:26 GMT
From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gerry Gleason)
Subject: Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach

In article <1050@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
> . . . 
>I'll believe it when I see it--there's a lot that we do not know.  But . . .

I'll believe it when I see it too, and I agree that the "if" question
persists.

>I myself can imagine that consciousness could perhaps be understood by
>turning the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics upside down,
>and that it ends up being a special kind of amplification, based on the
>emergent fea- tures of a very complicated randomly driven chaotic
>dynamical system, etc, that cannot be compressed because of the
>Heisenberg uncertainty principle.

Others have suggested this, but using this argument to say AI is
impossible is also saying that somehow biological matter has some
strange influence over quantum mechanical happenings.  Or on another
track, that mind is separate from body, and it is our "minds" or
"astral" bodies that influences matter.  I don't know about you, but I
need more justification to accept this as reality.

>You see, for every "reasonable" science fictional conjecture you make, I can
> . . .
>Someday we may know one way or the other.  Until then, ad astra per dolorem.

I don't need to make science fictional conjectures, I guess that I just
believe in the "closure" of the universe.  If you do not postulate some
kind of "spirit" world that we cannot access from this one, then there
is no reason that silicon can't think just as well as carbon-based life
(if we could only figure out how to plug them together).

By the way the arguments about reductionism just don't work, who says we
have to be able to understand what we build.  I read a comment by Godel
about the implications of his "completeness therum" to the AI question.
He said basically that if we do build a truely intellegent machine that
we won't be able to understand how it works.

Someday we will know one way or the other, but how you answer the question
will effect how (or if) you work in the field.  (What does ad astra per
dolorem" mean anyway I don't know ?Latin?).

gerry gleason

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 17:11:40 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Fermi Paradox:  the South Dakota scenario

    Yet another solution to the Fermi Paradox: Postulate some naturally
occuring phenomenon (like quantum strings or black holes) that is hard
to create and hard to move.  Assume the Solar System DOESN'T have any of
these, and that they are REAL useful to an advanced civilization.  That
makes "here" not worth visiting.  We can call this the "South Dakota"
scenario.

    On the other hand, the low infrared to visible light ratio of the
stars and galaxies we can see leads me to believe there are no
star-faring expansion-oriented industrial civilizations.  All that prime
energy going to waste.  Back to the Paradox...

Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 87 02:16:30 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water

In article <1092@drivax.UUCP>, holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) writes:
> In article <8703171427.AA29060@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> >         Assuming that the odds of a sun-like star system generating
> >life at 1:1000000 leaves 3000 stars in the galaxy with life.  That

> Given 3000 stars in the galaxy with life, then how many would develop ...

	Actually, some of the approximately human-sized carnivorous
dinosaurs that lived right before the extinction of dinosaurs had
cranial-space to body-weight (the source said brain to body weight, but
that is not necessarily so) ratios as us.  While this does not guarantee
intelligence, it literally provides space for it.

	Some primates, such as chimpanzees, show intelligence that is
the rudiment of our civilization-forming intelligence.  If something had
killed us off before we could form a civilization, but chimpanzees or
other higher primates lived, it is likely that one of those species
would have evolved to take our place.  Bears have also been known to
show intelligence (talk to somebody who has been on a camping trip and
hung their food in a part of a tree not climbable by adult bears, only
to find a mother bear directing her cub up the tree to knock it down),
and have limbs that could be adapted for use as manipulators without
radical change, although it would probably take a while for ursinoids to
replace us if we were bumped off.

> We have plenty of examples of life on Earth that are far older than
> man, or even mammals, and none of them have developed our level of
> intelligence.

	It is quite possible that many species choked just short of it.

> Out of God knows how many species on the planet, only one developed
> what we consider to be intelligence... us. So say that there is a one
> in a hundred million chance that intelligent life will form where
> there already exists life - and I think the odds are a bit low at that
> - according to your figures, that would leave 0.00003 planets with
> intelligent life on them, and ourselves a statistical fluke.

	Of course, right now WE DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH DATA TO MAKE SUCH
ESTIMATES of how many intelligent species are in the galaxy.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #186
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09431; Tue, 7 Apr 87 03:02:45 PDT
	id AA09431; Tue, 7 Apr 87 03:02:45 PDT
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 03:02:45 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704071002.AA09431@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #187

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 03:02:45 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #187

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 187

Today's Topics:
		condensed space news from Dec 15 AW&ST
	       Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach
	       Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 87 00:57:25 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: condensed space news from Dec 15 AW&ST

Arabsat is procrastinating about whether to let Geostar use Arabsat 1C.
Apparently hardware changes would be needed.

State Dept. okays export of two Ford Aerospace comsats to Japan, for
eventual Ariane launch.

White House will probably overrule OMB's desire to hold NASA to pre-51L
budget levels.

SRB joint simulator test tests revised seal designs at low temperatures;
no leaks.

New analysis of 51L videotapes suggests that failure may have started
earlier than previously thought.  Ali F. Abutaha, a perennial source of
weird theories about the Challenger accident, may be onto something this
time.  His latest is that abnormal loads in the rear attachment strut
for the right SRB may have flexed the SRB joints excessively, followed
by bits falling off.  He has identified two features in the videotapes
that *might* be debris falling from the right SRB.  The first is at 55
seconds, and Abutaha suggests it is the pin retainer band from the
failing joint -- the band has never been found.  The second is at 70
seconds, suggested to be part of the strut itself.  Telemetry data does
suggest that the loads in the strut were abnormally high, compared to
the left SRB strut and to previous missions.  Further photo analysis and
re-examination of the radar data are being considered, and it's possible
that a look may be taken for debris closer to shore than the main search
area.

FltSatCom F7, launched by Atlas-Centaur Dec 4, is on orbit and working.

Boeing tells NASA and USAF it is willing to invest its own money in
getting Jarvis working.  No firm go-ahead yet, though.  Boeing says it
does not want NASA subsidies (although it is interested in the USAF
heavy-lift RFP expected soon) but would like cooperation on market
assessment, facilities use, and technical assistance.  Current Jarvis
breakdown is that Hughes handles mission planning and control, payload
integration, and the third "transfer platform" stage; Boeing does
everything else.  Boeing is pushing Jarvis for Space Station assembly,
heavy planetary missions, and SDI work.

McDonnell Douglas signs four reservations for commercial Delta: American
Satellite, Inmarsat, and two for Comsat Corp.  All conditional on McDD
winning the MLV contract [they did].

Titan 3 booster segments cleared for launch.  Further testing underway,
both nondestructive examination of inventory segments and firing tests.

GAO study comes out strongly in favor of activating the Vandenberg
shuttle pad early next decade.  Says nine payloads will need Vandenberg
shuttle launches in 1992-4.  Some of the payloads might be modified for
expendables, but some probably can't be.

NASA cancels design of additional shielding for the isotope generators
on Galileo and Ulysses.  The shields appear to be helpful only for a
short period on launch, and there are some (admittedly unlikely)
scenarios in which they actually make things worse.  NASA says the
decision was based solely on the risk assessment, although there were
also problems with weight, schedule, and in particular cost -- GE was
estimating $40-50M *each* for the shields.

 [Mini-editorial: Lordy.  Assuming there's only one shield per probe --
 I forget whether G. and U. have one or two generators each -- that's
 about $100M for work that presumably started about a year ago and would
 have been complete for 1989-90 launch windows.  Assume engineer
 salaries at $70k/yr (I don't know what the real numbers would be; I
 suspect that's high) and 200% overhead (100% is normal for big
 bureaucratic organizations, but high-tech engineers would need more).
 Assume materials costs are minor by comparison.  Then that's five
 man-centuries of effort in about three years.  That seems high, to put
 it mildly.  Sounds to me like somebody is getting ripped off, and I
 don't think it's GE!  -- HS]

NASA and contractors put heads together on revised tile-bonding
procedures after bad bonds discovered on some of Discovery's tiles.
Problem is not believed widespread.

Range Control Center at the Cape gets major upgrade of equipment,
including more sophisticated equipment for the Range Safety function.

French competition for space structure commemorating 100th anniversary
of Eiffel Tower (1989) won by inflatable ring, 8 km dia, with aluminized
Mylar spheres spaced along it.  Launch in late 1989, piggyback on the
Ariane launching Spot 2.  Life about three years, should be visible from
Earth as object about the size of the moon.

News story about quality and reliability problems in defense hardware,
possibly also relevant to space hardware.  Willis J. Willoughby, Jr.,
USN head of quality and reliability, says problems are due to choking
amounts of paper and bureaucracy ("We've got to keep an eye on the
hardware... not concentrate on whether the paper is filled out right."),
ridiculous and outmoded specifications, excessive requirements, an MBA
corporate investment approach oriented solely to next-quarter results
and ignoring technology and capability development (his recommendation:
"Hang all the MBAs."), and engineering education that ignores realities
like production engineering.

NASA Goddard starts procurement for the Explorer Platform, a satellite
bus designed to carry different payloads for in-orbit replacement by
shuttle missions.  First mission: extreme ultraviolet telescope package.
1990-91.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 87 06:45:02 GMT
From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach

In article <888@laidbak.UUCP>, gerryg@laidbak (Gerry Gleason) writes:
>>I myself can imagine that consciousness could perhaps be understood by turn-
>>ing the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics upside down, and that
>>it ends up being a special kind of amplification, based on the emergent fea-
>>tures of a very complicated randomly driven chaotic dynamical system, etc,
>>that cannot be compressed because of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle.
>
>Others have suggested this, but using this argument to say AI is impossible
>is also saying that somehow biological matter has some strange influence over
>quantum mechanical happenings.

But the Copenhagen interpretation a la Wigner/Wheeler *does* say this: con-
sciousness can collapse wave functions.  Translating into the many-worlds
view, one would say that objects can go splitting along their merry ways,
but mind balks and retreats to one path--or perhaps is only "aware" of the
one path--or perhaps--hell, I don't know, roll your own interpretation at
this point.

>			         Or on another track, that mind is separate
>from body, and it is our "minds" or "astral" bodies that influences matter.
>I don't know about you, but I need more justification to accept this as
>reality.

Huh?  My mind is currently influencing electrons nearby, and as you are read-
ing this, is influencing them nationwide.  I can't comment about my "astral"
body--you will have to clue me in as to what whacko belief you think I have.

>>You see, for every "reasonable" science fictional conjecture you make, I can
>>make one ten times weirder which negates your expectations.  In particular,
>>I find linear extrapolations highly unconvincing.	[...]
>
>I don't need to make science fictional conjectures, I guess that I just
>believe in the "closure" of the universe.

Now this is more of a metaphysical conjecture; I rarely see science fiction
that ever questions the 19th century philosophy of science worldview--Stan-
islaw Lem comes to mind here.

However, this has little to do with my argument, as closure does NOT imply
that AI-based nanotechnology will work as Minsky originally suggested.

>					    If you do not postulate some
>kind of "spirit" world that we cannot access from this one,

I did not postulate a "spirit" world.  Just a "mental" world, and gave in
25-words-or-less format the scientific underpinnings why such might not be
simulatable.

I'm thinking more along the lines of hard core stuff that would be appro-
priate for the Journal of Theoretical Biology or Mathematical Biosciences
etc, and not junk like the _The Tao of Physics_.  OK?

>							     then there is
>no reason that silicon can't think just as well as carbon-based life (if
>we could only figure out how to plug them together).

Sure there is!  I *gave* a reason.

>By the way the arguments about reductionism just don't work, who says we
>have to be able to understand what we build.

A good point, but I'm claiming that there is the subtler possibility that
an appropriate simulation might not even exist.  There's a distinction here.

To turn it around, who says that understandability implies reductionism?
To me, quantum mechanics is a perfect example of what I mean.  Science has,
apparently, reached a limit as to what is in fact *out* there--there is NO
mechanism that "explains" QM, it just "is".  Many find this bothersome--I
do not, nor comprehend why anyone does.

Now, I'm not saying mind "is", and that's that.  I'm saying that its final
explication may be too deeply embedded in the physics of QM and chaos to
permit accurate simulation.

I see no reason why AI won't eventually develop AI, but I am skeptical that
silicon based AIs, say, will be recognizably like our own intelligence, or
even capable of simulating our own.  (I've been told by someone who knows
Searle that this is what he really has been trying to say all these years.
I was rather surprised, to say the least.  Do note that I said "skeptical",
not "contrarily convinced"; I find Searle's arguments laughably fallacious.)

Essentially, what you say is just a question of A => B, I say is a question
of A => C => D => ??? => B.

>Someday we will know one way or the other, but how you answer the question
>will effect how (or if) you work in the field.

Don't misunderstand!  I'm all for research--even on antimatter drives.  I
do not, however, believe that the usually stated end goals are feasible.
This belief is based, I believe, on what we actually know is possible, as
opposed to those whose beliefs are based on "reasonable" conjectures.

Thus, is it "reasonable" to say that the chemistry of antihydrogen will be
just like hydrogen's?  Probably, but I can imagine charge conjugation sym-
metry violations that show up and effect the long term stability of antihy-
drogen.  In other words, a lot of basic research is going to be needed when
we start investigating antimatter in detail, and much of it is going to con-
firm the expected, but little kinks will have to be looked for.

As for myself, I'm just a mathematician who likes to annoy other people.

>(What does ad astra per dolorem" mean anyway I don't know ?Latin?).

It is Latin for "to the stars through grief".  It generally refers to the
hardships on the way to realizing any dream; the space program has added
an unexpected literal twist to the ancient aphorism.

As this is wandering far too afield from space, I won't argue it anymore.
Please don't followup with bogus strawmen that have nothing to do with my
points.  "Astral bodies", indeed.

To summarize, let me quote my buddy Rich Rosen:
	Anything's possible, but only a few things actually happen.

Or perhaps I ought to paraphrase Trent Phloog:
	WOW! That theory goes STRAIGHT UP into the CLOUDS! AMAZING!!

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 87 04:26:04 GMT
From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gerry Gleason)
Subject: Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach

I didn't really want this to be an extended debate, but I will post one
more time to clarify some of my points.

In article <1055@cartan.Berkeley.EDU> obnoxio@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
>In article <888@laidbak.UUCP>, gerryg@laidbak (Gerry Gleason) writes:
>>Others have suggested this, but using this argument to say AI is
>>impossible is also saying that somehow biological matter has some
>>strange influence over quantum mechanical happenings.
>
>But the Copenhagen interpretation a la Wigner/Wheeler *does* say this:
>con- sciousness can collapse wave functions.  Translating into the
>many-worlds view, one would say that objects can go splitting . . . .

The Copenhagen interpretation says things about "observers" effects on
experiments and measurments.  I see no reason that an observer could not
be an intellegent machine, which gets back to my original point, what is
special about carbon based life.  Do carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, etc. have
peculiar effects on matter that other forms of matter do not?  The word
"observer" in this interpretation is closely linked to conscousness, not
to what type of matter posseses conscousness.  My interpretation of
conscousness is that it arise not directly from a type of matter, but
from a particular configuration or pattern of matter; from the topology
of a network of interconections.

>>			         Or on another track, that mind is separate
>>from body, and it is our "minds" or "astral" bodies that influences matter.
>>I don't know about you, but I need more justification to accept this as
>>reality.
>
>Huh?  My mind is currently influencing electrons nearby, and as you are read-
>ing this, is influencing them nationwide.  I can't comment about my "astral"
>body--you will have to clue me in as to what whacko belief you think I have.

Exactly, so are the states of your computer, how is the situation different.
My point was, either biological matter has special effects on the matter
around it, or there must be something else that living beings have that
makes us and other creatures special, i.e. a soul (or whatever you want
to call it).  Even this does not exclude machine conscousness/intellegence,
unless there is a rule that machines can't have souls.

>>I don't need to make science fictional conjectures, I guess that I just
>>believe in the "closure" of the universe.
>
>Now this is more of a metaphysical conjecture; I rarely see science fiction
>that ever questions the 19th century philosophy of science worldview--Stan-
                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>islaw Lem comes to mind here.
 ^^^^^^^^^	What are you refering to here?
>
>However, this has little to do with my argument, as closure does NOT imply
>that AI-based nanotechnology will work as Minsky originally suggested.
>
>>					    If you do not postulate some
>>kind of "spirit" world that we cannot access from this one,
>
>I did not postulate a "spirit" world.  Just a "mental" world, and gave in
>25-words-or-less format the scientific underpinnings why such might not be
>simulatable.

Oh, well if its a mental world, why can't a machine with a mind have
access to it?  What does simulatable have to do with anything?  Can't
you conceive of a machine that can't be simulatable?

>>By the way the arguments about reductionism just don't work, who says we
>>have to be able to understand what we build.
>
>A good point, but I'm claiming that there is the subtler possibility
>that an appropriate simulation might not even exist.  There's a
>distinction here.

[stuff deleted about the relationship of reductionism, understandability,
 QM, etc]

As I pointed out above, simulation has nothing to do with it.  Take any
of these issues (reductionism, understandability of the solution, QM
underpinnings, etc.), and nothing you can say on these issues applies
differently to biological or silicon system.

>As this is wandering far too afield from space, I won't argue it
>anymore.  Please don't followup with bogus strawmen that have nothing
>to do with my points.  "Astral bodies", indeed.

>ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

I agree, if there is any more follow up, it should be moved to another
more appropriate group (which?), or if you (Matthew) want to comment
directly to me, feel free.

gerry gleason

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #187
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11203; Wed, 8 Apr 87 03:03:00 PDT
	id AA11203; Wed, 8 Apr 87 03:03:00 PDT
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 03:03:00 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704081003.AA11203@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #188

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 03:03:00 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #188

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 188

Today's Topics:
   Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water
	       Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach
			     Biosphere II
		Re: Robert Forward talk, comments on.
	The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion
	       we'll want more even after miniaturized
	The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion
		   Re: Future of U.S. space program
	       Re: Paying off the national debt with s
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 87 19:46:36 GMT
From: philabs!pwa-b!mmintl!johnmill@nyu.arpa  (John Miller)
Subject: Re: One explanation to the Fermi Paradox that doesn't hold water


In article <1092@drivax.UUCP> holloway@drivax.UUCP (Bruce Holloway) writes:

	[following up to earlier article suggesting 3000 stars in our
		galaxy ought to have life]

>we have no way of knowing - our existance seems little more than a
>fluke, and the dinosaurs before us didn't seem headed on the road to
>sapience.

Well, maybe not.  But some more recent stuff I've read says that some of
the later, smaller dinosaurs were achieving a brain-body weight ratio
about that of the modern baboon, suggesting that the idea of the
necessarily stupid dinosaur should be relegated to the same scrap-heap
of preconceptions as the cold-blooded, sluggish brute stereotypes that
we have all known and loved.

	[some reasonable thoughts leading up to the following statement]

>So say that there is a one in a hundred million chance that intelligent
>life will form where there already exists life - and I think the odds
>are a bit low at that - according to your figures, that would leave
>0.00003 planets with intelligent life on them, and ourselves a
>statistical fluke.

In other words, maybe we are the cosmic equivalent of enough monkeys on
enough typewriters writing Shakespear ....

It would appear that on this planet evolution (or whatever) worked out
all right.  But must it always?

Say that life arises fairly easily on lots of planets.  Now let's say
that at ANY LEVEL one particular life-form gets a clear advantage over
all others and short-circuits evolution at that point ... Use some
imagination.

Or take our own planet.  AIDS has come along and scared the hell out of
us.  In point of fact the larger the population the greater the chance
that something will come along parasitic on that population, and there
is always the chance that SOMETHING will do in its hosts totally.  Even
at our "advanced" stage we could be obliterated without a trace, and a
few hundred million years later all the mammals by something unrelated,
and cockroaches later still ...

Stagnation could set in: No environmental challenges for billions of
years, no significant evolutionary advancement.

Too much environmental challenge and evolutionary change is unable to
keep up.  Just let the sun warm up 5% per thousand years ....

A supernova in the vicinity and your budding life-system is fried; and
the odds are that almost every galactic neighborhood will have a
supernova every billion years or so ...

Interplanetary collisions are clearly occur, and everybody who reads
this has heard the speculation of the dinosaurs being wiped out that
way.  Mercury looks like it was nearly shattered once ...

The point is that although life may arise easily, on a cosmic scale it
is extinguished VERY easily.  We balance on a very long, thin
tightrope....

It could be that we have been very, very lucky.  And I would say that
this CLEARLY the biggest reason why we must get our act together and get
out into space.  We can't stay lucky forever.

				--johnmill

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 16:59:46 GMT
From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: The AI-based nanotechnology approach

In article <897@laidbak.UUCP>, gerryg@laidbak (Gerry Gleason) writes:
>I didn't really want this to be an extended debate, but I will post one
>more time to clarify some of my points.

Well sure, but in the meantime you are obfuscating mine.  (Which does
not mean that I was clear in the first place, but I did think my words
referred to what I thought I was thinking.)  I'll be sending you a
detailed response sometime next week.

>My interpretation of conscousness is that it arise [...] from the
>topology of a network of interconections.

*That* remains to be seen.  I've been suggesting that it could be more
than the topology of a network--dynamical considerations of a quantum
chaotic sort could be significant.

>Oh, well if its a mental world, why can't a machine with a mind have
>access to it?

I did NOT say it *can't*.  Indeed, my original article did not even
address this question--it's a red herring, and one that I wish you
wouldn't bring up since it completely obfuscates my point.  MINSKY'S
SUGGESTION was about reducing/coding people and their minds with bits,
and THAT was what I made a countersuggestion about.  That implies
**NOTHING** about my beliefs about whether a separate silicon
intelligence is possible.

This is on an abstract par with the proposed solution to the Fermi
paradox that we just don't recognize the intelligent aliens around us.

>As I pointed out above, simulation has nothing to do with it.  Take any
>of these issues (reductionism, understandability of the solution, QM
>under- pinnings, etc.), and nothing you can say on these issues applies
>differently to biological or silicon system.

But they DO apply to the question of whether the biological is
interpret- able WITHIN the silicon system.  Replace the word
"simulation" with "very good simulation, to the point that
nanotechnology can be applied to people directly by 'simulating' people
inside silicon" and you will get what I was referring to.

Personally, I think Minsky did not go far enough in his proposal.  Given
10 zillion years, we as might as well assume that everyone can be
reduced to photons coding up the Goedel numbers of our Turing machine
minds--we shall all have identical bodies by then anyway.  Thus, people
will be transported by laser.  Budget travellers will get a parity check
bit attached to the end; first class will be sent via sophisticated
error correcting codes.  As usual, getting your luggage through customs
will be the most difficult part of any trip--at least complaints about
the food will evaporate.

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/Brahms Gang/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 87 00:53:31 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@oberon.usc.edu  (Tim Smith)
Subject: Biosphere II

The discussion of Space Arks reminded me of this:

There was an article in the Los Angeles Times this week ( I believe it
was on 3/23/87 ) about the Biosphere II project.  This project is an
attempt to build a self-contained system capably of supporting eight
people for two years.

The article starts on the front page, so it should be easy to find in
the library.  The article is a fairly long article giving quite a bit of
detail ( for a newspaper ).

Some of the problems they are facing are interesting.  For example, they
want to use termintes to perform the function of consuming some grass
that they are going to have.  In a "natural" environment, this function
would be done by grazing herds and forrest fires.  They don't have room
for grazing herds, and they aren't too keen on the idea of forrest
fires.  The problem is that all the species of termites they have tried
so far will also attack the gunk that seals the glass panels that
enclose the project.

Tim Smith

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 87 06:25:41 GMT
From: linus!philabs!micomvax!musocs!mcgill-vision!mouse@husc6.harvard.edu  (der Mouse)
Subject: Re: Robert Forward talk, comments on.

In article <277@inuxa.UUCP>, rmrin@inuxa.UUCP (D Rickert) writes:
> [Those efforts] will require long term living by tens of thousands of
> people in things like O'Neil colonies.  These large space habitats
> will already be generation ships without engines.

More than that.  They will be close enough for us to support them, so
their ecology doesn't need to be as close to sealed - they'll make good
*practice* generation ships.  They will also be in orbit around a star,
making life easier for then again.  Lucky us - we'll certainly need the
practice before setting out for real in a generation ship.

					der Mouse

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 06 Apr 87 11:40:45 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion

I'm going to give the 50 light year limit argument one more try and
then give it a rest.  Responses to my position that interstellar travel
is limited to 50 light years have for the most part been totally
orthogonal to my actual argument.  The following are the basis for my
position that 50 light years is the upper bound for interstellar travel:

1) The surface of a sphere grows as r**2 while the volume grows as r**3.
2) Because of the speed-of-light limitation, star travel is expensive
and travel time from one star to another takes about a century.
3) Worlds producing starships will eventually be insulated from the
frontier by nearer colony worlds created through earlier star missions.
4) Star travel will be ideologically motivated and will provide no
economic return.
5) The home worlds will change significantly as the radius of
colonization expands.

All of my conclusions leading up to the 50 light year limit are based on
these five points.  Please do not waste my time and other reader's time
with boring sermons about Christopher Columbus.  The Santa Maria didn't
cost a trillion dollars nor did it take a century to get to a America.
If someone can come up with a counter-argument recognizing the above
five points then the discussion will be worthwhile.
                         Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Apr 87 08:50:09 PDT
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 06 07:39:42 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: we'll want more even after miniaturized

<OMGS> Date: 19 Mar 87 14:48:01 GMT
<OMGS> From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
<OMGS> Subject: The AI-based nanotechnology approach

<OMGS> In article <MINSKY.12287367337.BABYL@MIT-OZ>, MINSKY@OZ suggests that
<OMGS> within 10k years that we may achieve wonderful nanotechnologies, ...

...

<OMGS> But somehow, achieving such seems to be a great way of
<OMGS> sidestepping one of the major "reasons" to go out to space in the
<OMGS> first place.  Thus, it's now like the film TRON--reality becomes
<OMGS> one giant video game.  The population explosion will be solved by
<OMGS> sociological/electronic engineering etc by our friend the Master
<OMGS> Control Program.

Basic law of both computers and biology, the demand expands to fill the
supply then wants more space. If people could be reduced to 1mm cubes,
the population explosion would go exponentially until we had a Dyson
sphere completely filled with these tiny people, and there'd be demand
to expand to other stars. I don't think nanotechnology is a permanent
cure for expansionism.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 87 05:47:09 GMT
From: cullvax!drw@xn.ll.mit.edu  (Dale Worley)
Subject: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion

If interstellar colonization is ideologically driven, and if a culture
that considers interstellar colonization gets established, it will come
to dominate the bulk of the planets, because it will have colonized the
bulk of them.  Thus it could be that colonization becomes a
self-sustaining cultural force.

The underlying question is "generation time"--how long does it take from
colonization of a planet until it can send out its own colonizing ships?
Is this short enough that the culture doesn't change completely between
colonizations?  I would think only a couple of hundred years if the
culture and technology of colonizing new worlds is well developed.

Dale Worley		Cullinet Software
ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Apr 87 06:02:51 PDT
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 07 04:37:13 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu

<ESG7> Date: Mon, 16 Mar 87 12:21:16 MEZ
<ESG7> From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<ESG7> Subject: And the Star Travel debate rages on....

(Re stars of wrong spectral class, thus so hot they burn out before life
can evolve, or so cool any planet close enough to be warmed would also
be tidally locked.)

<ESG7> Paul, you're the one that's wrong.  It's clear that I meant these stars
<ESG7> couldn't evolve life.  Of course they can support life that travels to
<ESG7> it, but what idiot civilization would send a star ship to a barren
<ESG7> system?  We got plenty of dead worlds in the solar system, and it costs
<ESG7> a whole lot less to stay here.  The extreme expense of star travel is
<ESG7> justified only if you can go to an earth-like world.

If the major reason for going out there is survival, by planting seed
in more remote places to avoid any local disaster, better to go to
those other stars with dead worlds around them than to stay in our
teensy solar system.

We're trying to leave Earth into space colonies and lunar colonies to
escape worldwide thermonuclear war, but might still get hit by a
really big war that includes space, so it's better than just Earth but
not enough to be completely safe. - Next we're going to other planets
and free-solar-orbiting colonies to escape Earth/Moon thermonuclear
war, but eventually war might reach those colonies too. - Next we go
to other nearby stars and Oort cloud or whereever, then to faraway
stars, then to other galaxies. The further spread the better chance of
survival to end of Universe (heat death or pancake-collapse or
whatever) or forever if possible.

Earth-like worlds would be nice, but are "pie in the sky", not worth
worrying about. Plenty of ugly horrible worlds we can make nice, and
lots&lots of empty space with just debris and energy we can harness.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 22:08:56 GMT
From: amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Howard A. Landman)
Subject: Re: Future of U.S. space program

In article <8703021438.AA14811@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
>Mark Muhlestein wrote:
>The idea of extracting iron from asteroids, for example, is grade-A
>idiocy, given the current cost of iron, and the fact that current iron
>reserves on earth amount to some 100 gigatons (!), and certainly much
>more than no one has bothered to find yet because there's no reason to
>(US iron consumption is about 100 megatons per year).

>The same is true of other resources.  We aren't using anything that
>can't be substituted for, recycled or conserved.  Costs of retrieving
>space materials are outrageous, while terrestrial sources have huge
>overcapacities.  Population growth is slowing down.

I would agree with this if we were discussing mining space materials and
returning them to Earth (as some were).  The arithmetic just doesn't
support that activity very well.  But why dump materials down a deep
gravity well when you need them right where they are, in space?  The
cost of 1 kg of iron in asteroidal orbit (assuming we tried to send some
there, from Earth, with current technology) would probably be at least
$25,000.  At those prices a 20-ton space structure costs at least
$1,000,000,000, just to get the materials into space.  Much cheaper to
mine it locally, and smelt it with solar heat.

	Howard A. Landman
	...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard

------------------------------

Date: 11 Mar 87 22:51:15 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!holloway@ames.arpa  (Bruce Holloway)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s

In article <13200002@silver> seiffert@silver.bacs.indiana.edu writes:

>Along the issue of gold as a conductor, scrap the idea. In space build
>computers and electrical systems out of superconductor material. It is
>easily cold enough. Of course these are systems built to remain in
>space and just for the electrical hardware.

If space is a vacuum, how can it have any temperature at all? When it
gets really cold, atomic activity gradually slows down, right? With
very few atoms in space, seems you wouldn't be able to measure any sort
of temperature.

But the radiation hitting something in space would probably be even more
than penetrates to the Earth's surface, so it could well heat up circuits,
et.al., even more so than here. Plus, with no atmosphere to carry conductive
heat (any such thing?) away, things might get even hotter.

Of course, if you could shield instruments from the sun's radiation, and
reflected radiation from the Earth and the Moon, it might be possible...
but there'll still be the heat of the circuits themselves to contend
with.
-- 
{seismo,hplabs,sun,ihnp4}!amdahl!drivax!holloway
Put the power of RANDOM NUMBERS to work FOR YOU!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #188
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12909; Thu, 9 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT
	id AA12909; Thu, 9 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704091002.AA12909@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #189

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 189

Today's Topics:
	       Troubles with the Soviet Module for Mir
		condensed space news from Jan 26 AW&ST
	       Re: Paying off the national debt with s
	       Re: Paying off the national debt with s
	       Re: Paying off the national debt with s
		       Mining asteroid for gold
		     Re: Mining asteroid for gold
		      Re: Shuttle external tank
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 14:37:22 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Troubles with the Soviet Module for Mir

    The Soviet Union has run into some problems with the "star" module
addition to their Mir space station over the past few days.  Called
Kvant (Quantum) this 20 Tonne system was to create a major expansion of
Mir (see below).  Launched on March 31 they had announced it would dock
on Sunday.  However at that time they said that the auto docking system
failed whenever they brought the module within 200 meters of Mir.  At
that distance it kept veering away from Mir.  They stopped the system at
that point and said that they try again in a few days, but yesterday
(Apr. 7) they talked about delaying another attempt several more days.
   Kvant consists of a 12 Tonne station section with 40 cubic meters of
habitable volume.  There is a vacuum section with X-ray and UV
telescopes, mostly West German or British instruments (with some USSR).
It also contains a huge 10 Tonne descent stage is present to bring
processed material down to earth.  By comparison the descent stage on
previous star modules was in the 4-6 tonne range.  It probably can take
around 10 cubic meters of material down (based on a smaller habitable
volume for this module).  Kvant was designed to dock to the rear of Mir,
opposite the 5 docking port "ball".  After the descent module left it
would open a docking where Progess tankers could connect to refuel and
supply the station, or Soyuz's could attach to bring up new crews.
   Now for some rumors and speculation that make this event event
stranger.  Considering how important this module obviously is it is
interesting that the Russians from their broadcasts and announcements
have been positively upbeat about correcting the problem (before Glosnos
an event like this would produce silence followed by a terse "the
vehicle achieved its mission" - it would also have been called Cosmos
xxxx until it docked).  Yet James Oberg stated in an interview yesterday
that it only had a battery system good for two weeks on its own!  Why
are they delaying the docking still longer if that is true?  If problems
occur they might try flying Soyuz TM-2 over to it, but could the Soyuz
dock to Kvant's front port (it certainly could to the rear port after
the descent module was jettison).  The Soyuz could recharge its
batteries for other trys and the crew could make some repairs if needed.
This is the first automatic docking failure they have had with a "star"
module or Progress tanker.  Two additional strange points.  Before this
failure occurred the Soviets said that the two cosmonauts aboard Mir
were preparing materials to be sent to earth - strange because the
smaller descent modules used before have generally stayed on the station
for several months.  It would not seem that they are making maximum use
of the system that way - hence it might be a test of some new vehicle
(the lander portion).  Secondly last night they said that the current
crew would be up for only 3 to 4 months (more ? they have already been
up there for nearly two).  This would not put them up when the Syrian
came up in July!  However in the past they have made some statements
about this crew not being trained to run the Kvant module (it used to be
called Roentgen in the west).  There were indications of a new crew with
an astrophysicist being sent to run it.  This is getting stranger all
the time.
   Ok now we will see how the Soviets handle what is a major space
problem under full international view.  In all previous events of this
kind nothing was said until long after the fact.  Will they close down
the news or will they kept it open?

                                                 Glenn Chapman
                                                 MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 87 06:22:01 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: condensed space news from Jan 26 AW&ST

Spot Image is now equipped to turn Spot pictures into 3-D terrain models.

McDonnell-Douglas proposes building a heavylift booster by strapping
four stretched Delta first stages together, adding a pair of large
solids, and topping it off with a Titan 2 second stage.

Mars Observer launch officially delayed to 1992 due to shortage of
shuttle planetary-launch slots.  Everyone is pissed off.  NASA rejected
congressional idea of moving Ulysses from 1989 shuttle to 1991 Titan 4
[among other reasons this was a bad idea, the extra 2+ years of decay in
Ulysses's isotope generators would have caused severe problems -- HS].
Strong support outside NASA for launching Mars Observer on schedule in
1990 by using a Titan 3; NASA quietly likes the idea but wants Congress
to find extra money for it.

Martin Marietta has dubbed its new pointing/tracking lab in Denver
"R2P2", "Rapid Retargeting Precision Pointing".  SDI head Abrahamson,
who doesn't like the term "Star Wars", says "I can't believe they did
that..."

McDonnell-Douglas Delta wins USAF Medium Launch Vehicle contest.  First
nine Navstars go up on Deltas with hotter solid boosters and larger
payload fairings; later ones will need lighter booster casings and
stretched first- stage tanks as well.  Commercial utility a major factor
in the competition; one of Delta's strong points was demonstrated 12
launches/year capacity, making several commercial launches per year
available.

[Micro-editorial: I hope the US will now shut up about how the Europeans
subsidize Ariane... but they won't.  -- HS]

Congress balks at notions of regearing SDI to early deployment of
space-based kinetic-kill defense, warns SDI that attempts to divert
funds from long-term work on advanced technologies to work on near-term
systems will result in loss of SDIO's power to control funding
distribution.

DoD and Congress prepare for battle over whether the SDIO heavy-lift
booster should use shuttle-derived hardware or be all-new.  USAF is
skeptical that developments of existing systems can really get costs
down.

NRC report on SRB test program raises serious questions about whether
NASA will really be ready for an early-1988 STS-26.  NRC wants more
thorough testing, more effort on backup approaches in case things don't
work as planned, and more attention to realistic simulation of booster
loads.

NRC also comments that NASA's review of flight-critical shuttle hardware
will not leave enough time to correct anything serious and still launch
next February.  They suggest assigning priorities to identify the most
likely points of failure, and focussing attention on them.

Truly orders investigation of doing a flight-readiness firing of
Discovery's engines before STS-26.  This would delay launch at least a
couple of months.  Officially no decision has been made, but KSC
contractor documentation shows a Discovery test firing scheduled for Feb
1988 -- the official launch date.

Truly approves equipping shuttle with a hatch-jettison system, and crew
with parachutes and related equipment.  If the h-j system is not ready
for STS-26, this will not necessarily delay the launch -- the system's
importance is long-term rather than immediate.  One thing Truly did not
approve is the use of tractor rockets to ensure that crewmembers clear
the left wing.  The astronauts are concerned about the safety aspects of
storing several live rockets in the cabin.  The idea is still under
investigation, as are other approaches to clearing the wing.

NATO orders two comsats from British Aerospace / Marconi Space Systems,
who beat out a US bid from GE.  Satellites will be derivatives of the
Skynet 4 design that BA and MSS are building for the British military.

Some impressive pictures of Soviet booster-assembly facilities and
rollout of an SL-4 carrying a Soyuz.  Rows of boosters and Soyuzes.

Preparations for re-manning of Mir begin with docking of a Progress
tanker.  US impressed by five Soviet launches in 12 days despite severe
winter weather; the Progress launch was televised live, indicating
considerable confidence.

Federal Express buys two comsats from GE Astro-Space.

FCC revokes MCI's license to launch SBS-7 comsat because company has yet
to do anything about getting it built.

Pictures and lengthy coverage of an AW&ST editor trying out an
underwater space-based assembly simulation at McDonnell-Douglas, with
partner Pete Conrad (Gemini 5, Gemini 11, Apollo 12, Skylab 2, now a
McD-D VP).

JPL directory Lew Allen proposes NASA-ESA-Soviet Mars sample-return
mission for launch in 1996.

NASA begins to implement management changes based on the Phillips
report.

KSC is busy shaking up management and procedures to fix problems
identified by the Rogers report.  One important change is measures to
control overtime.  "...no more will anyone work six 12-hr days in a row
without a break..."  The Feb 18 target for STS-26 can be met if nothing
goes seriously wrong.  One complication is the possible installation of
the hatch-jettison system.

Comsat owners are interested in insurance again, and are finding the
rates rather high.

DoD is pursuing meteor-burst communications as a less vulnerable
alternative to satellite communications.  Bouncing transmissions off
meteor trails in the ionosphere has data-rate and range limitations, but
it is virtually immune to jamming and interception (not to mention
antisatellite weapons).

NASA Lewis about to issue RFP for Space Station power systems.

Amusing letter of the month [not space-related but funny]:

	"The article on the SRAM 2 for the B-1B (AW&ST Dec 15) said:
	'The Air Force wants to purchase 1,633 of the new missiles with
	an operational date of March, 1982'.

	"I mean, we're a hell of a company but there's going to have to
	be some schedule slippage."
					"John J. McElroy, Boeing"

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 87 00:43:53 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s

> Along the issue of gold as a conductor, scrap the idea. In space build
> computers and electrical systems out of superconductor material. It is
> easily cold enough...

Only if you work hard at it.  Think:  if space is that cold, why did IRAS
have to carry a big tank of liquid helium to keep its detectors cold?
You can get things cold in space, but it's not just a matter of waving
your hand and getting things down to a few degrees K.  (Please don't tell
me about the new high-temperature superconductors -- they are laboratory
curiosities so far, although very interesting ones.)  Almost any object
in space spends much of its time in bright, bright sunlight.

Note also that superconducting computer and electrical technology is in
a very primitive state compared to room-temperature stuff right now.
-- 
"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 02:13:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gerry Gleason)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s

In article <7770@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Along the issue of gold as a conductor, scrap the idea. In space build
>> computers and electrical systems out of superconductor material. It is
>> easily cold enough...
>
>Only if you work hard at it.  Think:  if space is that cold, why did IRAS
>have to carry a big tank of liquid helium to keep its detectors cold?
>You can get things cold in space, but it's not just a matter of waving
>your hand and getting things down to a few degrees K.

If you want cold in space you need two things:  block out other radiation and
get rid of the waste heat.  Big radiators might work, but aren't likely to be
easy to launch (but if your not shipping everything from Earth?).

Probably, the IRAS detectors generate a good amount of heat in operation.
I don't know about switches, but superconducting wires wouldn't generate
much heat.  Certainly, there are technical problems, but in the long term
superconductive computers will probably be common in space.

gerry gleason

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 17:15:07 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Paying off the national debt with s

> >Only if you work hard at it.  Think:  if space is that cold, why did IRAS
> >have to carry a big tank of liquid helium to keep its detectors cold?
> 
> Probably, the IRAS detectors generate a good amount of heat in operation.

Nope, sorry.  No major heat generation.  (After all, that helium kept
them cold for nearly a year, remember.)  They just needed to be kept
awfully cold for proper sensitivity, and liquid helium was considered
more practical than the alternatives.  My recollection -- I could be
wrong -- is that the various design sketches for an advanced infrared
telescope generally use the same technique, except that unlike IRAS they
have provisions for in- flight refills.

To rephrase my previous comment: yes, you can get cryogenic temperatures
just with radiators, but it's not as easy as the sunday-supplement
articles would have you believe.

	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 20 Mar 87 17:43:59 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Mining asteroid for gold

To shed some light on the "great asteroid mining debate", the East Rand
Proprietary mine (ERPM) is mining gold at 6 grams per ton, using
unskilled black labor paid at $300/month.  However despite this, ERPM is
losing money, (costs are greater than return).  If you want to mine an
asteroid for gold, your gold density must exceed 6 grams per ton to be
profitable.  However, everything that I've read about asteroids
indicates that asteroid gold density is considerably less than this.
                   Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 09:26:47 GMT
From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@AMES.ARPA  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Mining asteroid for gold

In article <8703201650.AA09627@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>...the East Rand Proprietary mine (ERPM) is mining gold at 6 grams per
>ton, using unskilled black labor paid at $300/month.  However despite
>this, ERPM is losing money, (costs are greater than return).  If you
>want to mine an asteroid for gold, your gold density must exceed 6
>grams per ton to be profitable....
>                   Gary Allen

This assumes that you're using the same technology to separate the
gold from the asteroid metal that the ERPM is using.  I really doubt
this.  I would imagine that large-scale electrolytic refining could
yield economic amounts of gold inexpensively, particularly if you
are also refining silicon for solar cells (which you might) and have
practically unlimited sunlight available (which you would).

Just dissolving the iron, nickel etc. in a salt bath might separate
the gold, platinum, and iridium by their chemistry alone.  I don't
know, I'm not a chemist.  (Any chemists out there?)

Russ Cage

------------------------------

Date: 20 Mar 87 20:40:47 GMT
From: mike@ames.arpa  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Shuttle external tank

In article <711@bgsuvax.UUCP> drich@bgsuvax.UUCP (Daniel Rich) writes:
>I recently read a new science fiction short story by David Brin ("Tank
>Farm Dynamo" if anyone is interested), in which he presents the idea of
>a space station made up of used shuttle external tanks.  Does anyone on
>the net know if this would be at all practical?

There is a company which is currently studying the feasiblity of doing
just that. They hope to be able to reuse the external tanks for raw
materials to hulls for space-stations. I'm sorry, but I do not remember
their name right now.

The biggest hurdle in using the tanks is their low orbit. That is,
because of the size of the tanks (large cross-section) and their
relatively low weight, their orbit decays rapidly. So, even at the
highest shuttle orbit, a tank might last only 6 months or so, before
re-entry.

By they way, one of the original Skylab proposals invovled taking the
S-IVB stage to orbit, used as a stage, and while in orbit, install the
lab. (As opposed to installing it on the ground, as was actually done).
So converting tanks to lab space wouldn't be much different than that.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #189
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14698; Fri, 10 Apr 87 03:02:57 PDT
	id AA14698; Fri, 10 Apr 87 03:02:57 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 87 03:02:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704101002.AA14698@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #190

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 190

Today's Topics:
       Soviet module dock to Mir & Russian Reuseable Spacecraft
      Space Station - want to air your views?  Do it via Usenet!
		    Hipparcos astrometry satellite
		       Re: SN1897A - a summary
		       RE: SN1987A (a summary)
			 Amateur Astronomers
		      Astronomers Upset Over Art
		    Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art
		       Re: Amateur Astronomers
	    Re: direct measurement of near-Sun environment
		    Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 15:14:13 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet module dock to Mir & Russian Reuseable Spacecraft

   The USSR announced today (Apr 9) that they had successful linked up
the 20 tonne Kvant addition to the Mir space station (see my message on
Space Digest v7, 189 yesterday for a description it and of the problems
they had before today).  Some reporters here have said that the wording
of the announcement in TASS suggested that there was damage to Kvant in
the docking.  The vocal report that was given on short wave did not
strike me that way.  The Russians certainly kept more open about this
problem than in the past - last night they announced the failure of a
docking attempt about at the time it happened.  Most importantly this
expands Mir by 40 cubic meters (30% in working volume), and adds an good
set of UV/X-ray telescopes to the station.  As was pointed out to me by
Steve Willner of Harvard on the net they could really be used to study
the supernova events that are currently taking place.
   One other interesting point was that before the docking the Soviets
were also talking about a speech by one of their spacecraft designers
where he said that they were building a reuseable vehicle.  The report
also stated that the launch of such a system would be announced before
it happened.
   Whether or not Kvant was damaged when it docked this certainly is not
the failure that it has been described by some people here (I have been
told that one New York Times reporter compared it to the Challenger
accident in its impact on their program before the success of today).
The Soviets take their space problems in stride and work to overcome
them as quickly as possible.  This country should be doing the same
thing with its program.  Otherwise we will be left behind.

                             Glenn Chapman
                             MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 87 06:06:40 GMT
From: elroy!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu  (Greg Earle)
Subject: Space Station - want to air your views?  Do it via Usenet!

In article <7838@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>[A long scathing editorial about the Space Station situation is coming,
>but it will have to wait until I have a bit more time to write it.  -- HS]

If you people want to air your Space Station views to someone who has any
say in the matter, then I suggest you do this (he'll probably kill me for
this, but ...) :

Write your email to lyman@plyman.UUCP.  It's in the UUCP map, somewhere in
u.usa.ca.[135].  In fact, here's the map entry :

>UUCP mail information for host plyman (#USENET lines show USENET news links):
>#Name                   plyman
>#System-CPU-OS          AT&T UNIX PC; UNIX PC Version 3.5 Software
>#Organization           SpaceSoft/Consultants
>#Contact                Peter Lyman
>#Electronic-Address     plyman!lyman
>#Telephone              +1 818 354 4500 , +1 818 794 4170
>#Postal-Address         1454 East Mountain St., Pasadena, CA 91104
>#Latitude-Longitude     34 09 41 N / 118 07 11 W
>#Remarks
>#Written-by             plyman!lyman (Peter Lyman) ; Mon Feb 2 1987
>#
>plyman  escher(DIRECT), idi(WEEKLY), ihnp4(WEEKLY), jplpub1(DIRECT),
>        mfci(DAILY), monrovia(DIRECT)

Although nothing in this map entry gives anything away, in fact, Dr. Lyman
is one of the Assistant Lab Directors of the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
(meaning there's only 2 people, director Allen, and deputy director Parks,
above him in the heirarchy).  He is also a Very Important Person with respect 
to the Space Station, and in fact spends most of his time away from Pasadena
either in Washington or at the KSC or overseas or at meetings and such.
He also has an alter-ego as a computer hacker and all-around nice guy  :-)

I can't promise he'll be able to respond to any/everyone individually (since
he puts in Celebrity Guest Appearances here at the Lab), but I just thought
people might be interested to know that someone In High Places is actually
right on Usenet.

If you don't have a smart mailer then take the Path: of this article and
append `jplpub1!plyman!lyman' to it, or mail to ihnp4!plyman!lyman through
ihnp4 if you know how to get to there.

--
	Greg Earle	UUCP: sdcrdcf!smeagol!earle; attmail!earle
	JPL		ARPA: elroy!smeagol!earle@csvax.caltech.edu
AT&T: +1 818 354 4034	      earle@jplpub1.jpl.nasa.gov (For the daring)
			      smeagol!earle@jpl-elroy.arpa
			      earle@smeagol.jpl.nasa.gov (4 daring nameservers)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Mar 87 09:05:18 GMT
From: news@csvax.caltech.edu  (Usenet netnews)
Subject: Hipparcos astrometry satellite

Organization : California Institute of Technology
Keywords: parallax, stellar distances 
From: jon@oddhack.Caltech.Edu (Jon Leech)
Path: oddhack!jon

	I haven't heard anything about the ESA Hipparcos high-precision
astrometry satellite. Does anyone know the current status of the project?
Has it been launched yet?

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 87 23:46:14 GMT
From: cbatt!cwruecmp!sundar@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Sundar Iyengar)
Subject: Re: SN1897A - a summary

In article <479@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> wyatt@cfa.harvard.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes:
> ....
>Discovery was Feb 24.3 UT (all times are UT, BTW), ...
>... The LMC is about 50 Kpc (50,000 parsecs, where 1 parsec ~3.26 light
>years) away

Thanks for summarizing the events that followed the SN (is it going
to be called the Shelton SN? :-)   ).  At the risk of being flamed
let me ask a simple question.  The SN must really have happened about
50000x3.26 years ago.  Given the relative motions of celestial
bodies and the need to make relativistic adjustments, has anyone
computed its "real" distance from us?

Thanks.

sri

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 87 15:24:44 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: RE: SN1987A (a summary)

A couple of points, originally raised to me by Matthew P. Wiener, in e-mail:

In my previous summary, I reported that Bob Kirshner, in *his* summary,
said that the SN was the brightest since 1835 in M31, and the closest
since 1604 (Kepler's SN). Well, either I misheard or Bob misspoke,
because I checked with him this morning, and it was 1885 for the former
(S Andromeda, mag 7.2, caused terrible confusion about the distance
scale, since only novae were known, not supernovae). On the second
point, there should have been a SN about 1680 seen where the radio
source and SN remnant Cas A is, but it must have been faint, and there's
some controversy as to whether anyone saw it.  --

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!talcott!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa.UUCP@harvard.harvard.edu
      BITNET:  wyatt@cfa2

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 87 03:25:08 EST
From: Grant.Fjermedal@rover.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Amateur Astronomers

The March 23 issue of TIME has a cover story on the supernova, and
as part of the coverage the magazine has a feature on an Australian
amateur astronomer named Robert Evans who has spotted 15 supernovas
first.  I have also heard of amateur astronomers who have firsts
on comet sightings and other neat discoveries.

I would like to pose two questions:

    --What would be good projects for amateur astronomers who wanted
      to make original findings of one sort or another--figuring that
      there was a lot more sky out there than could be completely covered
      by the established observatories.

    --Who are the major amateurs in this country, and what are the major
      amateur organizations (and phone numbers or addresses).

I would appreciate any suggestions either posted to Space or by e-mail.

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 24 Mar 87 10:32:06 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
Subject:  Astronomers Upset Over Art

I heard an item on a BBC World Service science program the other evening
that will be of interest to the SPACE readership. Astronomers are upset
over some tentative French plans to put artworks into orbit as part of
the celebration of the centenary (I think) of the Eiffel Tower. There has
been a competition to select the winning design, and several were described.
For example, there was one that would be an inflated ring, which would
appear from the ground as a circle of 16 very bright stars moving across
the night sky. Another would be a cross-shaped sail device which would reflect
sunlight to the surface giving an apparent brightness greater than the
full moon. (These are LARGE satellites, several kilometers across.)

The astronomers are upset because these would not only be a source of
more light pollution, but the high relative brightness would actually
damage sensitive detection instruments aimed at faint distant objects
if the field of view were invaded by such a satellite. Long-exposure
photographic plates would be ruined by the glare of light, and other
observations would be hindered or made impossible.

They are also upset by the American private proposal for a high-reflectivity
"funeral" satellite, mentioned here before, which would contain the compressed
remains of a number of cremated corpses as an orbiting cemetary. Again, the
reflected light is the problem (and this is an integral part of that
proposal, since the satellite has to be clearly visible from the ground in
order to persuade the loved ones to pay to stick Uncle George in this thing).

While it would be possible to shut off incoming light during the period
such a light-emitting orbiting device will pass within a telescope's
field of view, it will add to the difficulty and complexity of making
astronomic observations, and perhaps add substantially to their cost
(for example, if they have to hire extra people to merely guard the
observations by watching for approaching bright objects and warn the
operators). Writing programs to automatically compute the position of
such objects and automatically shut off the incoming light when such 
things get dangerously near, and maintaining these to accomodate
additional objects or changes in orbital parameters, would be another
task and expense. Also, if the "seeing" is marginal, adding such periods
of enforced idleness could make the difference between worthless and
usable results.

This is an issue I haven't seen much comment on regarding space
development. Is it just assumed that, as soon as substantial activity
begins to fill near-earth space, that all astronomy would move off the
planet's surface, to the lunar farside or to distant orbiting stations?
Who's going to pay for that? All the ground-based observatory budgets
put together wouldn't begin to pay the costs of a lunar base...

And this would also eliminate much of the redundancy and backup and 
reduce the number of observing instruments to just a few. Putting all
our eggs into one or two baskets, as it were...

Regards,
Will Martin

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 87 01:39:19 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art

Humph! Sounds like sour grapes to me.  Compared with other problems that
earth-based astronomers face: daylight, clouds, aircraft nav lights,
moonlight etc etc, the brief transit of an orbiting sculpture would be a
very minor hindrance.

Art in orbit!  What a great way to display an artwork to all humanity!
I can still remember the excitement I felt when I watched the 100' dia
Echo balloons sail serenely across the twilight.  It's a cheap way to
keep space exploration in the public mind.

There's enough room up there for Science AND art.

	Brent

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 87 17:15:36 GMT
From: unmvax!charon!deimos!f12008ad@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Amateur Astronomers

	If you find radio astronomy interesting, then by all means get
in touch with the Society of Amateur Radio Astronomers. This is a field
where one can do many observations that larger radio observatories do
not have time for.  If you would like to get more information about
amateur radio astronomy and S.A.R.A., write:

R.M. Sickels
7605 Deland Ave.
Ft. Pierce, FL 33451

or

SARA President
Jeff Lichtman
37 Crater Lake Drive
Coram, NY  11727

      Hope this helps.                 

	Good luck,

	Ollie Eisman

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 16:45:25 GMT
From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu  (Doug Miller)
Subject: Re: direct measurement of near-Sun environment

In article <8703251759.AA22065@angband.s1.gov>, REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
> It occurs to me that we've never gotten any measurements directly of
> the particles etc. very close to the sun. All we've done is indirectly

[...questions about what might be possible, how we might do better...]

> obvious ons we use now? Could some non-photo method such as neutrinos
> or pions etc. be used to communicate between drone and relay-craft?)

In a word, no.  You don't want to use charged pions (think about 
what the Sun's magnetic field will do to your communications), but even
if you did, the lifetime of your typical K-Mart variety charged pion
is ~10E-7 seconds, and the uncharged variety is even worse, weighing in
at ~10E-15 seconds.  Neutrinos are *hard* to detect, and I don't think
anyone has a clue about how to modulate them.  They would be a perfect
communications medium because they don't interact with very much, but
that also makes them impossible for us to use right now.  Maybe someday,
but neutrino communication is as big a mystery to us now as radio 
would have been to Christopher Columbus.

Doug Miller    ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!doug
	        doug@ngp.utexas.edu

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 17:35:13 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art

In article <15576@sun.uucp>, brent%terra@Sun.COM (Brent Callaghan) writes:
> In article <8703241701.AA19807@angband.s1.gov>, wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will
> Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
> > Astronomers are upset . . .
> 
> Humph! Sounds like sour grapes to me.  Compared with other problems
> that earth-based astronomers face: daylight, clouds, aircraft nav
> lights, moonlight etc etc,  the brief transit of an orbiting
> sculpture would be a very minor hindrance.

	These are either more predictable (daylight, moonlight) or cover
less area (aircraft lights) or do less damage (clouds just get in the
way -- they don't make enough light to damage instruments, unless they
have lightning in them, but then you don't have your telescope running
when it's overcast anyway).  And how many "brief transits" of orbiting
sculptures are astronomers (and everyone else) going to have to put up
with?

> Art in orbit!  What a great way to display an artwork to all humanity!
> I can still remember the excitement I felt when I watched the 100' dia
> Echo balloons sail serenely across the twilight.  It's a cheap way to
> keep space exploration in the public mind.

> There's enough room up there for Science AND art.

	What a great way to extend the billboard eyesore problem to the
entire globe.  Its bad enough that we have to see our highwaysides
scuggified with schlocky billboards -- can't we at least be free of this
when we get away from the roads?  I can see it coming -- even when you
backpack into the Sierra Nevada, you won't be able to avoid the
Coca-Cola signs.  Read Poul Anderson's _The_Merchants'_War_ and despair,
for here it comes. . . .

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #190
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16367; Sat, 11 Apr 87 03:03:08 PDT
	id AA16367; Sat, 11 Apr 87 03:03:08 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 87 03:03:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704111003.AA16367@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #191

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 87 03:03:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #191

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 191

Today's Topics:
			   space pollution
		       Re: Amateur Astronomers
		    Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art
		    Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art
			 Re: space pollution
		    Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art
		     Star charts for the bay area
		   Re: Star charts for the bay area
		  Re: Fermi Paradox and Dark Matter
			  Re: Fermi Paradox
Re: Freon & the Ozone layer (was Re: What are symptoms of UV over-exposure?)
		      environmentalism and space
		    Re: environmentalism and space
		    Re: environmentalism and space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 19:08:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: space pollution


> over some tentative French plans to put artworks into orbit as part of
 
and...

>They are also upset by the American private proposal for a
>high-reflectivity "funeral" satellite, mentioned here before, which
>would contain the compressed

These would seem to present a good opportunity to try out different
anti-satellite technologies.  Lets see, there's old-fashioned missles,
laser and particle beams, there's that method (I forgot what it's
called) of accelerating small masses to (or near) escape velocity
electromagnetically, there's false radio messages to make it do
self-destructive things...

I wonder if a talented bunch of amateurs could contribute anything to
this evolving new technology.  Where do I sign up?

                                      --Peter

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 87 03:54:46 GMT
From: euler.Berkeley.EDU!dma@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. M. Auslander)
Subject: Re: Amateur Astronomers


An excellent amateur organization is the Association of Variable
Star Observers.  They are particularly notable for supplying data
that the professionals don't have the time to get and are very
well respected in industrial circles as well.  (The Air Force has
even bought catalogs of variable stars from them.)

Miriam Nadel

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 87 18:57:51 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art

In article <1239@husc2.UUCP>, chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes:
> 	What a great way to extend the billboard eyesore problem to the
> entire globe.  . . .

I don't think it's fair to equate an orbiting sculpture i.e. "art" with
billboards and advertising.  Yes, I like to take a break from
civilization and escape to the mountains too - but I don't get upset if
I spot the contrails from a jet cruising soundlessly overhead.  That's
something to marvel at.

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 19:33:22 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!cdx39!breslau@AMES.ARPA  (Dan Breslau x7106)
Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art

In article <15576@sun.uucp>, brent%terra@Sun.COM (Brent Callaghan) writes:
> Art in orbit!  What a great way to display an artwork to all humanity!

...including those in remote areas who will have no idea what that
message from the gods means :-) .

Dan Breslau

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 87 03:22:24 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!percival!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: space pollution

In article <33e60c88.44e6@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes:
> These would seem to present a good opportunity to try out different
> anti-satellite technologies.  [...]

> I wonder if a talented bunch of amateurs could contribute anything to
> this evolving new technology.  Where do I sign up?
>                                      --Peter

Actually, if they are in *low* earth orbit you can knock them down for
around $10k.

First pick up a sounding rockert capable of reaching orbital altitude.
By this I mean one the can reach the required altitude at the peak of
it's flight. No attempt whatsoever to reach orbital velocity is needed
(or wanted).

Second fit it with a 'warhead' consisting of a hundred pounds or so of
nails, ball bearings, whatever. Add an explosive charge sufficient to
*disperse* them over a wide area.

Finally, calculate the time/angle/etc required for a launch to put your
rocket into the path of the satellite shortly before ther satellite gets
there. Set the timer on the charge and launch.

At orbital velocities, it should only take *one* nail to wipe out a
fair-sized satellite. (of course, the bigger the satellite, the more it
will hit).

The nails that miss will re-enter (after all they have 0 velicity with
respect to the ground). There's even a chance that the satellite will
re-enter (if it gets hit by enough junk).

This system is functionally equivalent to downing a low flying plane by
throwing rocks in the air. (yes, we have just re-invented 'flak')

Leonard Erickson

------------------------------

Date: 28 Mar 87 22:59:13 GMT
From: robinson@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Robinson)
Subject: Re: Astronomers Upset Over Art

What is art?  The project in question is an advertising gimmick for the
Eiffel Tower Centenial Sellabration.  Why not have such a flying
billboard the next time a soft drink company launches a new product?
(Tang Coke, the blinding taste that's out of this world.)

What is art?  The Apple Macintosh "1984" commercial was art.  It also
didn't harm anyone (except IBM).  You may not think of it as art, and
its primary purpose was not to be art, but _I_ liked it.

What is art?  I think it would be art if someone diddled the books so
that Oral Roberts came up short on his ransom money.  Then, when he
appeared on live TV on April Fool's day, a bolt from the blue (provided
by an off-camera ion beam) fried him to a cinder.  I do not advocate
this because it would tend to cause an increase in anxiety among the
faithful (i.e. those who know that they didn't give enough to help
Brother Oral, and who are increasingly concerned that THEY COULD BE
NEXT).  Anxiety leads to fanaticism, and fanaticism leads to people
being burned at the stake in the public square.  (Don't say "it can't
happen here."  It bloody well can happen and has happenned here, and no
matter who it happens to, YOU COULD BE NEXT) There are even Philistines
(in the perjorative, not the literal, sense of the word) who believe
that such an action would not be a work of art, and would object to
being burnt at the stake as a result of such artless behaviour.  De
gustibus non disputadum (sp).

What is the point of this diatribe?  The point is that tastes differ,
and we have no right to harm other people by violently imposing that
which we think of (or try to pass off, in the case of advertising), as
art.  As a demonstration of this principle, I have not diddled Oral's
books and my ion accelerator is still sitting on the shelf.  I hope the
Eiffel Tower commission shows similar restraint.


		David Palmer
		david%citsrl@citvax.caltech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 87 22:15:42 GMT
From: oliveb!bobd@ames.arpa  (Robert Duncan)
Subject: Star charts for the bay area

I have had little experience with astronomy, but I have access to
a telescope, and my brother lives on a hill in Morgan Hill, CA.
(which is relativly dark - the hill, not the city).  I would like 
some kind of reference of the various stellar objects of intrest 
we might be able to see this spring and summer, and how to find 
them in the sky.  I perfer a guide specified for the bay area 
latitude if possible.  Any recommendations?
Thanks in advance.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 87 22:15:46 GMT
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com  (Jay Freeman)
Subject: Re: Star charts for the bay area

_Sky_and_Telescope_ magazine (available at larger newsstands) (and
carried by many libraries) has monthly star charts that show horizons
for several latitudes.

"Planispheres" are common paper or plastic gadgets at museum stores,
science shops, and so on.  I won't try to diagram one here, but they do
a tolerable job at showing what constellations are above the horizon at
a given date and time, at the latitude for which they are constructed.

The latitude in the South Bay is roughly 37 degrees north.  Ten degrees
is very roughly the width of your fist at arms' length, so an error of
five degrees or so clearly doesn't make too much difference in selecting
charts for simple constellation- finding.

					-- Jay Freeman

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 6 Apr 87 13:02 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Re: Fermi Paradox and Dark Matter

I was under the impression that small pieces of normal matter could not
account for missing galactic mass.  The constraints come from the
nonobservation of meteors on hyperbolic solar orbits.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 87 17:52:10 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Fermi Paradox

STEVE WILLNER proposed some explanations for the Fermi paradox:

>   ...  4) Nearby space has been colonized, but for some reason we
>   aren't aware of it.  

Here is another variant of this explanation.  Consider the following
scenario: The dominant civilization in the universe consists of highly
intelligent beings, well-adapted to life in interstellar space.  They
eat hydrogen and metabolize it by fusion.  Their bodies are made mostly
of hydrogen (held together by a certain exotic force).  They grow a lot
bigger than whales and dinosaurs, and take several BILLION years to
mature and reproduce.  They already have colonized our entire Galaxy and
several neighboring ones.  They are not aware of us, but we ARE aware of
them: we call them "stars".

:-)
  
Jorge Stolfi

------------------------------

Date: 12 Mar 87 20:26:19 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Freon & the Ozone layer (was Re: What are symptoms of UV over-exposure?)

Why is O3 formed over the poles at all?  Perhaps the UV incidence is too
shallow to form much ozone there and what gets there has to be imported.
The Antartic may have much different transport due to the local liquid
sea surface which rings it compared to the the land masses near the
artic. I'm not really suggesting an alternative explanation, only that I
think it's a little early to seize on the apparent Cl- as the only cause
when it seems so far from the injection point compared to the
"holelessness" of the local pole (artic).  Did I miss something?

Paul M. Koloc

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 23 Mar 87 12:52:41 PST
From: Doctor Benway <J.JBRENNER%OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU@forsythe.stanford.edu>
Subject: environmentalism and space

I just wanted to say a few words about why I think a lot of
environmentalists are crazy (and how this applies to space
industrialization).

You may notice that this is a value judgement, so I'll start by
explicitly describing some of my values.  I believe intelligence should
be protected from interference and allowed the freedom to develop as it
will.  Non-intelligent life deserves no such protection. Here's a quick
rundown of some of the implications of this: Whales, and possibly chimps
and dolphins deserve protection from slaughter.  Abortions are okay, at
least up to around the third month when intelligent brain waves start.
Euthanasia for basket cases like Karen Ann Quinlan after her accident is
also okay.  Vegetarianism has no moral edge over being an omnivore, and
the people who don't believe in scientific experimentation on animals
have literally Loony Tune attitudes.

Either you believe in this, or you don't.  There is no way to derive
values from any kind of objective principles.  The only type of rational
argument that can be applied against them is to argue that they're not
self-consistent or possibly that they're too vauge in some way
("intelligence?").

So, how does this apply to environmentalism?  The implicit definition
people have been using here is that environmentalism is the belief that
the environment should be preserved unless changing it is unavoidable.
By my standards, this *may* be a useful rule of thumb.  Slaughtering
trees wantonly could easily be a serious mistake, since our survival
depends on the survival of at least some of those trees.  But the notion
that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is something like
murder seems crazy.

Granted that you don't want to clutter up valuable orbits with garbage,
and that living in space is likely to require huge amounts of recycling,
these are practical concerns, with no particular moral force behind
them.  If it suits our purposes to convert the moon into a heap of slag,
or to terraform Mars, or to use some orbit to store nuclear waste, I say
go right ahead.  Not only does this not interfere with any intellgent
life, it doesn't seem to affect any life at all.  How can you have
pollution when you don't have a biosphere to pollute?

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 87 02:43:36 GMT
From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gerry Gleason)
Subject: Re: environmentalism and space

>So, how does this apply to environmentalism?  The implicit definition
>people have been using here is that environmentalism is the belief that
>the environment should be preserved unless changing it is unavoidable.
>By my standards, this *may* be a useful rule of thumb.  Slaughtering
>trees wantonly could easily be a serious mistake, since our survival
>depends on the survival of at least some of those trees.  But the notion
>that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is something like
>murder seems crazy.

While I do agree with you to some extent, some of what you say disturbs
me.  Ok, so there is a "scale of desireability" that is tied in some way
to the closeness of an organism to man, you equate this with
intelegence.  I view extinction as similar to the loss of the last copy
of a work of art or literature.  New ones will come along, and sometimes
this is inevitable, but it is the loss of something that will probably
not recur.

Slaughtering trees wantonly IS a big mistake, as are many other major
environmental changes that we have made.  We do not understand the
interelationships of the environment very well, irreparable damage has
already been done and we can't really predict how far the damage will
extend even if we stop now.

I am not a crazy, but I am an environmentalist.  I do not believe we
should stop building nuclear plants because of the fears of
unknowledgable people (but I do have some reservations about the safty
of the nuclear power industry).  I also object to the unknowledgable
aproach of the Reagen administration to the protection of the
environment.  There is only one earth, it appears to have the only life
in our solar system.  It is our responsibility to do our best to protect
the diversity and quality of life on this planet.

>If it suits our purposes to convert the moon into a heap of slag, or to
>terraform Mars, or to use some orbit to store nuclear waste, I say go
>right ahead.  Not only does this not interfere with any intellgent
>life, it doesn't seem to affect any life at all.  How can you have
>pollution when you don't have a biosphere to pollute?

I have much less of a problem with this, these places seem to be
lifeless anyway.  It will be desirable to leave some places undisturbed
so they can be studied in their original condition.  This is also a good
argument for leaving earth alone, there is plenty of lifeless space that
would not be radically altered be a little industrial waste.

gerry gleason

------------------------------

Date: 24 Mar 87 06:23:55 GMT
From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: environmentalism and space

In article <8703232054.AA18277@angband.s1.gov>, J.JBRENNER (Doctor Benway) writes:
>By my standards, this *may* be a useful rule of thumb.  Slaughtering
>trees wantonly could easily be a serious mistake, since our survival
>depends on the survival of at least some of those trees.  But the notion
>that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is something like
>murder seems crazy.

Uh, just about any notion of ethics is crazy when looked at too deeply.
There are people who will get into infinite arguments about whether we
people actually have "rights" even.  I see no evidence that our morals
are not arbitrary and are more dictated by custom than by right/wrong.

If as you consider it turns out that there is a greater good that depends
on the trees being kept around, then it might be better if we granted
trees those "rights" in the first place.  This argument goes back, essen-
tially to Plato's Republic, where it didn't matter if the gods existed,
just that the people believed that they did.

Those, pigs being unkosher might not make much sense logically to the
ancient but rationalist Jew.  It would just be "crazy".  Yet the custom
might serve as a guard against trichinosis, then presumably of unknown
cause and mechanism, and thus "should" be defended as strongly as life
itself.

Now, those of who have been reading this group for a year will remember
that I "great" flamed Robert Elton Maass for taking just such a stance,
namely that if it could be proven that the earth were doomed in 50 mil-
lennia and furthermore the only hope of our descendants was if we got
out into space within the next 50 years before technobarbarism descended
upon us and close that window forever, that we should immediately set up
a world dictatorship to forcefeed the space program; yet here I am argu-
ing that perhaps the ends can justify the means?

The resolution of this paradox is simple: it doesn't matter if I logical-
ly agree with the set up's conclusions--since the hypotheses about a 50
year window etc cannot in principle be "proven", the argument must be
flamed as if it were used by actual politicians; unfortunately the ends
here did not justify the actual means.  (Sorry again, everybody.)

(And don't give me sci-fi hassles about hypothical worlds where the future
can be rigorously determined.  I'm talking about what we know can be deter-
mined in principle in *our* world.)

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #191
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17820; Sun, 12 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT
	id AA17820; Sun, 12 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704121002.AA17820@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #192

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 12 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #192

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 192

Today's Topics:
		    Re: environmentalism and space
		    Re: environmentalism and space
		    Re: environmentalism and space
		    Re: environmentalism and space
		       Re: UFO Coverup Question
		       Re: UFO Coverup Question
			   Re: UFO evidence
		       Re: UFO Coverup Question
		       Re: UFO Coverup Question
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 24 Mar 87 23:50:28 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: environmentalism and space

Summary: Long posting on "environmentalism," a definition and opinion on
intelligent life, etc.  how it related to space, then:

>But the notion that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is
>something like murder seems crazy.

I suggest you read the Supreme Court opinion "The Rights of Rocks" by
now deceased Justice William O. Douglas.  It's relevant even to space.

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 17:16:12 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: environmentalism and space

In article <8703232054.AA18277@angband.s1.gov>,
J.JBRENNER@OTHELLO.STANFORD.EDU (Doctor Benway) writes:
> I just wanted to say a few words about why I think a lot of
> environmentalists are crazy (and how this applies to space
> industrialization).

	I want to say here how the environmentalists you describe are
crazy, but most environmentalists are probably not.

>                                      . . .I believe intelligence
> should be protected from interference and allowed the freedom to
> develop as it will.  Non-intelligent life deserves no such protection.
> Here's a quick rundown of some of the implications of this: Whales,
> and possibly chimps and dolphins deserve protection from slaughter.

	So far fairly good, but you should add this caveat: When in
doubt, assume intelligence.  Thus, "possibly" for any of the cases you
list above becomes "should, until proven otherwise."

>                                                  Abortions are okay,
> at least up to around the third month when intelligent brain waves
> start.  Euthanasia for basket cases like Karen Ann Quinlan after her
> accident is also okay.  Vegetarianism has no moral edge over being an
> omnivore, and the people who don't believe in scientific
> experimentation on animals have literally Loony Tune attitudes.

	I don't intend to dispute you here, although it could be argued
that carnivorism is immoral by being wasteful of resources when people
are starving, but this isn't the newsgroup for this.  Although I will
add that while I do believe in scientific experimentation, I do not
believe in non-scientific experimentation on animals (and plenty of this
goes on, which is what many of the environmentalists complain about).

> Either you believe in this, or you don't.  There is no way to derive
> values from any kind of objective principles.

	Wrong.  But again, this is not the newsgroup for this.

>                                                      . . .But the
> notion that trees have "rights" and that killing a tree is something
> like murder seems crazy.

	I know a few loonies say things like that, but I think most
environmentalists would take the position that the avoidance of killing
trees is important for survival and moral only because when we
irreparably kill off species and ecosystems we deny other people the
right to use them.

>    . . .Not only does this not interfere with any intellgent life, it
> doesn't seem to affect any life at all.  How can you have pollution
> when you don't have a biosphere to pollute?

	On the other hand, it would be bad to earn the curse of our
descendants by doing something like radioactively contaminating Venus so
that they could not terraform it whereas they might have been able to
otherwise, or through incaution do something like dispose of radioactive
waste in orbits where it later comes back to plague us in forms so
dispersed as to make handling impossible.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 87 00:39:38 GMT
From: martin@yale.arpa  (Charles Martin)
Subject: Re: environmentalism and space

In article <8703250750.AA19462@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>I suggest you read the Supreme Court opinion "The Rights of Rocks" by
>now deceased Justice William O. Douglas.  It's relevant even to space.

I found this in the record of the Supreme Court, Vol 405 (1973); the
case is Sierra Club vs Morton.  Douglas' dissent (untitled) makes
reference to a paper something like "Do Trees have Standing?" The issue
in the case was whether the Sierra Club had standing to sue against a
development project in the Mineral King wilderness region.  Since they
could prove no direct harm to themselves as individuals, they had no
standing, and the injunction against development was removed.

Douglas' point was that environmental objects are, in fact, being harmed
by development, and should be allowed standing much as, for example,
ships acquire in rem legal status upon christening.  In this case, the
suit should have been Mineral King vs Morton.

Standing is an issue which is particularly tough these days, as the
conservative courts make it more and more difficult to achieve.  This
can make the job of civil rights lawyers particularly difficult.

Douglas' dissent is also interesting for its rhetorical style and its
characterization of, e.g., the Department of the Interior.

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 87 14:00:00 GMT
From: adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@XN.LL.MIT.EDU
Subject: Re: environmentalism and space


[gerryg@laidbak.UUCP ]
>Ok, so there is a "scale of desireability" that is tied  in  some
>way  to the closeness of an organism to man, you equate this with
>intelegence.

I do, too.

>I view extinction as similar to the loss of the last  copy  of  a
>work  of  art  or literature. New ones will come along, and some-
>times this is inevitable, but it is the loss  of  something  that
>will probably not recur.

Yes, but this work is only valuable as long as someone can appre-
ciate  it,  and that someone is intelligent life.  Therefore, the
preservation of intelligent life (and the  proliferation  of  it)
must  have the first priority.  Only intelligent life gives mean-
ing to the rest of nature.  If our survival as a species  depends
on  dispersing (as I believe it does) then any environmental con-
cerns must take back seat to it - except safety of other intelli-
gent species (if any). 

Actually, we treat works of art and  literature  just  as  we  do
species:  most of them are neglected in their own generation. Out
of those that escape oblivion by accident, some  get  to  be  re-
vered  in  another generation. We are prolific and wasteful, like
Nature itself, - and who knows, it may be the  best  way  in  the
long run to produce something of value.

>We do not understand the  interelationships  of  the  environment
>very  well, irreparable damage has already been done and we can't
>really predict how far the damage will extend  even  if  we  stop
>now.

Unpredictable change is not, in itself, an evil. 

>I am not a crazy, but I am an environmentalist. I do not  believe
>we  should  stop  building nuclear plants because of the fears of
>unknowledgable people (but I do have some reservations about  the
>safty  of  the nuclear power industry). I also object to the unk-
>nowledgable aproach of the Reagen administration to  the  protec-
>tion of the environment.

I am not sure any such approach exists. People seem to repeat that
kind of accusation by rote, without independent analysis. I believe
it is just politics.

>There is only one earth, it appears to have the only life in  our
>solar  system. 

This is why it is essential to spread this life around before it
gets extinct.

>It is our responsibility to do our best to protect the  diversity
>and quality of life on this planet.

That, too - consistent with that other goal.

>>If it suits our purposes to convert the moon into a heap of slag, or to
>>terraform Mars, or to use some orbit to store nuclear waste, I say go right
>>ahead.  Not only does this not interfere with any intellgent life, it
>>doesn't seem to affect any life at all.  How can you have pollution
>>when you don't have a biosphere to pollute?

Well said.

>I have much less of a problem with this, these places seem to  be
>lifeless anyway. It will be desirable to leave some places undis-
>turbed so they can be studied in their original condition.

The universe is big: some places will be left undisturbed no
matter what.

>This is also a good argument for leaving earth  alone,  there  is
>plenty of lifeless space that would not be radically altered be a
>little industrial waste.

I agree. And, to turn it around -  it  is  a  good  argument  for
colonizing space, so that we *can* start leaving earth alone.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 87 00:58:20 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question

> You obviously have not read anything but Klass' account of the Zamora
> incident, and thus have failed to read other information about the
> case.

On the contrary, I have read other accounts of the case, and found
Klass's distinctly more informative and less pervaded by fervent
I've-made-up-my- mind-don't-confuse-me-with-facts.

> In a book called (poorly titled!) SOCORRO SAUCER IN A PENTAGON PANTRY
> (or something very close to that), each of Klass' points you
> enumerated is destroyed.  I would call this selective reading and find
> it hard to believe a scientist would only read one side of a
> controversial subject.

There is a limit to my book budget, also to my interest in the subject.
Also, most significantly, to the time I have to spend on it.  Other
things being equal, if I want to know about UFOs, I will read Klass
rather than (say) Adamski.

> I lived only 100 miles south of Socorro (working at White Sands
> Missile Range) when this event occurred...  one more try at destroying
> the life of an innocent observer is to be expected.  Why try to find
> contradictory information if you have already concluded that the
> victims are culprits?

An interesting sidelight on this is that in response to my article, I
got private mail from a fellow who lived in Socorro at the time.  He
said, in essence, "nobody in Socorro believed Zamora was telling the
truth".

> ...read the other evidence some time before you spout off PSICOPs latest
> drivel, would you?

Given a choice between wise words from Dr. Hynek and "drivel" from the
likes of Carl Sagan, Isaac Asimov, and Martin Gardner, I'll take the
drivel any day.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 87 04:00:55 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question

> ...read the other evidence some time before you spout off PSICOPs latest
> drivel, would you?

The group's initials are not "PSICOP".  That is the way it's usually
pronounced, but not the way it's written.  Have you ever *read* any of
the "drivel" you condemn?

"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 87 03:57:31 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: UFO evidence

> Ok, so having adpoted this as a hobby, where would people recomend I
> start looking, for information, both on-line and printed, who, if
> anyone is researching it, (i.e. USAF? NASA?, No one?)..
>
> I have no bias in either direction, but I am unwilling to disbeleive,
> or beleive, based on heresay, so where to look?

There are three classes of literature you should read.

First, the "serious" UFOlogists.  I'm no longer acquainted with what's
current, but look for names like Hendry, Hynek, Saunders.

Second, the disreputable UFOlogists and out-and-out nuts.  Why should
you read them?  Well, any good history course will hammer into you that
you cannot cannot cannot take the accuracy of your sources for granted,
and you must must must check them out independently.  One way (out of
many -- see any good how-to-do-history book) is to see what your sources
think of people whom you can assess independently.  If you read an obvious
crackpot or sensationalist, and then see a "serious" UFOlogist treating
him as a respected colleague, this tells you something about the "serious"
UFOlogist.  Names to look for are Hill, Adamski, Keyhoe, Steiger, Keel.
(To properly apply this method, you will have to *read* them, not just
take my word for it that they're whackos.  My personal prediction is that
applying this method will make you lose a lot of respect for the "serious"
UFOlogists, who fiercely attack the skeptics but treat any fellow-believer
with respect no matter how crazy he is.)

Third, the skeptics.  Those nasty people who insist that 2+2=4 and E=mc^2,
and want to see solid evidence if anyone claims otherwise.  It should be
obvious that I'm in this camp.  Philip Klass's books "UFOs Explained" and
"UFOs: The Public Deceived" are noteworthy.  Robert Shaeffer's "The UFO
Verdict: Examining The Evidence" is particularly interesting because
Shaeffer is the opposite of Hynek:  an ex-believer who turned skeptic
because he felt the evidence could not justify the claims.  You might also
want to check out the home turf of the dreaded "debunkers":  the much-maligned
(often by people who have never read it), much-praised Skeptical Inquirer.
-- 
"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Mar 87 21:56:44 GMT
From: csustan!csun!psivax!nrcvax!ihm@LLL-LCC.ARPA  (Ian H. Merritt)
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question

>It's always amazing how easy it is to get confused by just the right
>combination of lighting, perspective, and relative motion.  Some years
>ago I was standing on the cliffs at Santa Monica around sunset.  Out
>over the ocean was a tremendously bright light, apparently motionless
>in the sky.  Within a couple of minutes, there were several people
>standing there watching this "object", all of us quite baffled.  I
>spent a little time analyzing it to determine what it was.

Late on a very dark night, air clear except for patchy, well-defined
clouds, about 5 1/2 years ago, I encountered some unexplained lights on
the way from Los Angeles to Palm Springs (specifically, on hwy 111,
about 5 miles out).  The configuration, as visible from just off the
main highway (I10) was as 3 or 4 lights arranged in what appeared to be
a triangle or rhomboid shape (one of the lights wasn't too clear yet)
hanging at about 9000 feet (estimated by height of mountains very close
by).  At first, I assumed it was just some new lights in addition to the
one known to be at the top of the aerial tramway, but as we approached
the place over which it appeared to be floating, it became clear that
the lights were in no way connected with the mountain, that there were
definitely 4, arranged in a perfect (or nearly so) square. By this time,
we could also see the lone light atop the tramway, at some distance from
where the 4 appeared.  As we drove directly under these lights, they
seemed totally stationary.  We heard nothing, so it was probably not a
chopper.  To this day, I don't know what the lights were.  As I recall,
it wasn't terribly windy that day, but I don't think a balloon would be
that stable in any case, and why would it be up THERE anyway?

Much as I might like to believe we are not alone in the galaxy, we
dismissed the ET explanation as pure fantacy, but what was it?  I have
driven that route perhaps 50 times since, and never again have I seen
anything like it.  As far as our observations were concerned, this was
indeed UFO (Unidentifiable (within our resources) Floating Object).

Cheerz--
					<>IHM<>

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 09:14:57 GMT
From: nsc!nsta!instable!amos@decwrl.dec.com  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: UFO Coverup Question

In article <802@nrcvax.UUCP> ihm@minnie.UUCP (Ian Merritt) writes:
>Late on a very dark night, air clear except for patchy, well-defined
>clouds, about 5 1/2 years ago, I encountered some unexplained lights
>on the way from Los Angeles to Palm Springs (specifically, on hwy 111,
>about 5 miles out).

Have you though about the Goodyear Blimp? The area is also a training
ground for airplanes and helicopters from at least 7 air bases.
-- 
	Amos Shapir
National Semiconductor (Israel)
6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel
(011-972) 52-522261  amos%nsta@nsc.com 34.48'E 32.10'N

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #192
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19433; Mon, 13 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT
	id AA19433; Mon, 13 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704131003.AA19433@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #193

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 13 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #193

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 193

Today's Topics:
			     CSICOP (sic)
		       Manned Maneuvering Unit
		     Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit
		     Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit
		     Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit
		     Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit
		     Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit
		     Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit
			      NASA News
			      NASA News
			      NASA News
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 87 22:10:31 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: CSICOP (sic)

There's really no proper newsgroup for this comment, but since the
situation started here in sci.space, I'll make my final statement here.

Yes, I know that the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims of
the Paranormal uses the acronym CSICOP.  But those of us who have had
"encounters" with their people or their tactics prefer the name PSICOP,
for Pseudo-Scientific Inquisitors of Claimants of Paranormal.  (There I
was in Austin, feeling like the Devil at a revival meeting, with ASTOP
going full blast: loud, rude and strident.)

How strange and puzzling that otherwise seemingly calm, educated and
intelligent people froth at the very concept of extraterrestrial life,
at unidentified aerial phenomena, at subtle talents of the mind.  As
someone else said elsewhere on the net, they remind one of "tiny little
dogs, yapping as loud as they can against the darkness and the unknown."

I might add, "and, in packs, snapping at those who are less afraid..."

(Did anyone witness Randi's problem on the Oprah show last week?  Heard
it was rather funny...)

If any more comments, let's move it to mod.psi or talk.religion.newage.

--Arlan Andrews

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 87 22:25:34 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm!dand@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan C. Duval)
Subject: Manned Maneuvering Unit

Does any one have the info on how long a person can operate in the MMU?
I need things like how long the power will last, how long the oxygen/air
mix will last, how long the unit can maneuver before it runs out of
reaction fuel, stuff like that there. Also, does the unit contain water?
And, if this isn't too personal, is there a mechanism to deal with bodily
wastes, or does the astronaut wear a diaper?

In other words, tell me anything you know about the MMU. Thanks in advance,

Dan C Duval
ISI Engineering
Tektronix, Inc

tektronix!tekigm2!dand

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 87 02:38:44 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit

in article <1204@tekigm.TEK.COM>, dand@tekigm.TEK.COM (Dan C. Duval) says:
% tell me anything you know about the MMU....
% 
% Dan C Duval

From the NASA "Space Shuttle News Reference":

Suit:
	mass: 39 kg (85 lb) plus PLSS backpack 72.6 kg (160 lb)
	Cooling capacity of 2.1 MJ/hr (2000 Btu/hr)
	Airflow 0.17 m**3/min (6.0 ft**3/min)
	"Urine Collection Device" capacity: 950 ml.
	0.6 liter (21 oz) drinkable water.
	Nominal pressure 28 kN/m**2 (4.0 psi)
	Electrical power: 17 volts at 52 W/hr (wrong unit?) for 7 hours
	Oxygen: 0.55 kg primary, 1.2kg secondary: enough for 7 hours total

MMU:
	mass: 102 kg (225 lb)
	Nominal 6 hour mission duration
	translational acceleration: 10.2 cm/sec**2 (about .01 gee)
	rotational acceleration: 10 deg/sec**2
	propellant: dry high-pressure nitrogen
	total delta-vee per refueling: 20 m/sec (66 ft/sec)-- 
Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp    (408)252-8713
American Information Technology; Cupertino, CA

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 87 04:04:17 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit

> And, if this isn't too personal, is there a mechanism to deal with bodily
> wastes, or does the astronaut wear a diaper?

He/she wears a diaper.  The suits have no waste plumbing.  The intent is
that the diaper is strictly a precaution against sudden emergencies.
-- 
"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 87 18:00:35 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit

I've noticed in photos of the MMU in action that the wearer has a pair
of "windshield wipers" sticking out in front.

I'm guessing that they are in fact some kind of MMU status display.
Anyone know if this is true - and what info is displayed ?

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 13:53:33 GMT
From: ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Roger J. Noe)
Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit

In article <7785@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > And, if this isn't too personal, is there a mechanism to deal with bodily
> > wastes, or does the astronaut wear a diaper?
> 
> He/she wears a diaper.  The suits have no waste plumbing.  The intent is
> that the diaper is strictly a precaution against sudden emergencies.

She wears a diaper (more precisely, Disposable Absorbent Collection Trunks,
or DACT).  He does not.  Instead, male astronauts directly connect the
appropriate appendage to a hose which leads to a collection receptacle.
In either case, this is not really intended just for sudden emergencies
as quite a few EVAs are planned to extend for a couple hours or longer
and a waste collection system in the Extravehicular Mobility Unit becomes
a routine necessity.

By the way, I'm told that the connector hoses used by male astronauts are
made in three sizes.  No joke.
--
	Roger Noe			ihnp4!uniq!rjnoe
	Uniq Digital Technologies	rjnoe@uniq.UUCP
	28 South Water Street		+1 312 879 1566
	Batavia, Illinois  60510	41:50:56 N.  88:18:35 W.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 17:43:51 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit

> ... The suits have no waste plumbing...

Hm, I may have been wrong about that.  I've run into a reference to something
that might be plumbing (which would surprise me) and might just be fancy NASA
jargon for "diaper".  I'll see if I can find out for sure.
-- 
"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 19 Mar 87 16:56:37 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit

> > ... The suits have no waste plumbing...
> 
> Hm, I may have been wrong about that...

Sigh.  I must be getting old; my memory is playing tricks on me.  I'm over
the hill at 31.  *sniffle*...

Anyway, back to the topic.  It's not quite as I remembered it.  NASA is
awfully coy about this sort of thing and it's not easy to find the details,
but I managed.  This information is from accounts by the astronauts, so it
is probably accurate but just might be slightly out of date.

For solid wastes, a diaper is all you get.  It's strictly to confine the
damage in a sudden emergency; so far nobody has had one in a suit.  For
urine, the NASA literature implies one system but the detailed accounts
say there are two, one for each sex due to differences in human
plumbing.  The male system is simple, essentially a condom with a hose
to a watertight sack which gets emptied into the shuttle's waste system
later.  The female system is more of a problem because of the lack of a
convenient place to attach it, so to speak.  Apparently what they've
done is a very special multilayer diaper (or section of the diaper, or
diaper insert -- it's not clear) with an inside layer that has a very
strong tendency to carry urine away from the skin and into a center
layer which is very absorbent and can soak up a lot.  Presumably this
goes into the trash afterwards.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 87 19:51:23 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: NASA News

NASA NEWS - NASA SELECTS GSFC SUPPORT SERVICES CONTRACTOR

     NASA has selected Computer Sciences Corporation (CSF), Silver
Spring, Md., to negotiate a cost-plus-award-fee contract for systems,
engineering and analysis support services. The services are in support
of the Mission Operations and Data Systems Directorate, Goddard Space
Flight Center (GSFC), Greenbelt, Md.

     The contract, expected to be effective on November 15, 1987, will
consist of a 2 year 10 1/2 month basic period of performance, a 2 year
priced option and 5 years of unpriced options.

     The total estimated cost proposed by CSC for the basic and priced
option periods is approximately $310 million.

     The contract will provide for approximately 1,000 people located at
the contractor's facilities in Greenbelt and Beltsville, Md. and at
GSFC.

      NASA News Release 87-39 March 19, 1987
      Reprinted with permission
      By Debra J. Rahn Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
      & James Elliot Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 87 19:58:50 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: NASA News

NASA NEWS - NAC RECOMMENDS DIVERSIFIED FLEET OF EXPENDABLE
            LAUNCH VEHICLES

     The NASA Advisory Council recommended that the space agency acquire
a diversified fleet of expendable launch vehichles (ELVs) and shift as
much cargo to them as possible to preserve the Space Shuttle for
missions requiring its unique capabilities.

     In addition to launching cargo designed only for the Shuttle, the
capabilities include two way crew transportation, manned on-orbit
tasking, satellite recovery spacecraft servicing/reboost and the ability
to return cargo from space.

     The recommendations are contained in a study of issues involved in
creating a "mixed fleet" of launch vehicles consisting of Space Shuttles
and ELVs.

     In a letter of transmittal, Daniel J.Fink, council chairman, urged
NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher to quickly seek a supplementary
budget to begin ELV acquisition.  Without immediate action, "the
nation's civil space program - especially that in space science, which
until now has been a shining example of U.S. space leadership - will be
damaged to a degree from which recovery will be extremely difficult and
expensive," Fink said.

     The study places substantial emphasis on space science, which has
suffered considerably from the 2-year delay in the Shuttle program and
unavailability of ELVs.  Creating a "robust and resilient capability"
with an adequate fleet of ELVs could get a number of important science
missions into orbit 2 to 4 years earlier than currently planned, the
study said.

     The cost of an ELV fleet should be considered in relation to the
"enormous budgetary costs, opportunity costs and programs disruption of
the current unplanned for standdown," the council said.

     The study was undertaken by the council at the agency's request. A
task force headed by council member Jasper Welch, a physicist and head
of an aerospace consulting firm, did the study which was endorsed by the
full council.

     The final report identifies and discusses issues and makes eight
major recommendations. They address Shuttle use policy, acquisition of
ELVs including a new heavy lift vehicle, Shuttle flight frequency,
planning for stand downs, defining NASA and DOD roles, identification of
program constraints, evaluation of the upperstage fleet and encourage-
ment of commercialization activities.

     The council is the senior external advisory body to NASA and its
Administrator. Its 25 members are prominent in such fields as science,
industry, education, communication and others.

      NASA News Release 87-30 March 12,1987
      Reprinted with permission
      By Nat Cohen Headquarters

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 87 19:53:35 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: NASA News

NASA NEWS - SPACE STATION SCIENCE OPPORTUNITIES TO BE EXAMINED
         
     A group of approximately 20 scientists and researchers,
representing NASA, the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National
Institute of Health (NIH) and the private sector, will be formed this
month to identify Space Station activities that could be conducted in a
manner which would significantly reduce the time between experiment
concept development and publishable results. "Quick is Beautiful" is the
study's theme.

     Dr. David C. Black, NASA Headquarters Space Station chief
scientist, will chair the group. Other headquartes members will include
Joseph K. Alexander deputy chief scientistand Dr. Stanley Shawhan,
acting chief, Space Plasma Physics, Office of Space Science and
Applications.  Additional NASA representatives from headquarters and
field centers will be joined by NSF, NIH, U.S. universities and
commercial research community representatives.

     According to Black, one of the more valuable modes of conducting
research in terrestrial laboratories is that in which an experimental
concept is developed, an operational prototype is built and tested and
then, should the concept prove viable, an operational system is
implemented.  Typically, the time from concept development to prototype
testing is a few years with publishable results usually attained in 3 to
4 years.

     "This latter time scale is important in that it matches well the
time scale for typical graduate student thesis research," said Black.
"This time scale also matches well that desired by industry in 'proof of
concept' exercises either with a piece of hardware or a process for
development of a new or refined product," he continued.

     "This important mode of research operation has been absent from
space research in recent years with only a few exceptions," said Black,
"with typical space missions now requiring a decade or more from concept
development to hardware flight." He added, while there have been some
successes using the Space Shuttle, the general experience has been that
the dream of carrying the rapid development/flight opportunity into
space has not yet been realized.

     Black said there is a perception that the Space Station can, in
principle, provide a capability to overcome those factors that have
prevented quick and relatively inexpensive opportunities for space
research.

     "As we look to the last decade of the 20th Century, the Space
Station looms as the major component of a permanently space
infrastructure for conducting basic and applied research," said Black.
"Our hope is that this study will be a major step toward involving the
research talent in the disciplines that stand to benefit the most from
humans in space conducting research - life, fluid and materials sciences
as well as basic physics and chemistry," he said. In addition, the study
will consider research activities in which humans play a relatively
minor role but which capitalize on the other key resources offered by
the Space Station.

     Major subjects to be addressed by the group include documenting
prior research experience in space with emphasis on the Space Shuttle,
defining the rationale, objectives and guiding principles for a Space
Station "Quick is Beautiful" program, identifying and characterizing
potential categories of Space Station activities and identifying
requirements both on the Space Station and the transportation system
arising from the program.

     In addition to these major subjects, the group also will develop
guidelines for what constitutes a "Quick is Beautiful" activity (cost,
size, response time, Station resource demand), as well as how to involve
the scientific, university and commercial research communities in
follow-on activities to this study.

     The study is expected to be completed about mid-year and will
culminate with a report to the Associate Administrator for Space
Station, summarizing the principle findings and recommendations.

      NASA News Release 87-27 March 10,1987
      Reprinted with permission
      By Mark Hess Headquarters

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #193
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA20767; Tue, 14 Apr 87 03:02:50 PDT
	id AA20767; Tue, 14 Apr 87 03:02:50 PDT
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 87 03:02:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704141002.AA20767@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #194

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 14 Apr 87 03:02:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #194

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 194

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Useless Trivia (NASA Jumpsuit color or colour)
   NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached?
 Re: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached?
 Re: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached?
      Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts)
   Re: Summary on "what we [US] want" and what to do [was USSR Mir]
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 87 01:24:29 GMT
From: mike@AMES.ARPA  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Useless Trivia (NASA Jumpsuit color or colour)

I heard the same a few months ago. Supposedly the decision to go to the
Air Force issue royal blue-jumpsuits, is to "save" money, or something
like that. Maybe light-blue dye costs more. :->
 
Oh, by the way, I have an address from an outfit which makes
high-quality replicas of the light-blue jumpsuits. In fact, some of our
people out here actually use those instead of the actual ones for sims.
If anybody is interested I'll post it and prices.

		   *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick ***

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 16:14:33 PST
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached?

<KFL> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 01:44:54 EST
<KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
<KFL> Subject: Reply to massive missive - part II of IV (continued)

    I'd like to see NASA permitted to accept private investment or
    donations to fund launch capability and perhaps major in-space
    projects such as the space station. Would you agree?

<KFL>   How do you distinguish between an investment and a donation?
<KFL>   They are already allowed to accept donations, but not donations
<KFL> with conditions on them, which is what an investment is.

That should be changed. Donations with strings should be acceptable,
providing they set the donation aside until such time as they are able
and willing to obey the strings, and providing they don't obey the
strings until and unless it is favorable to NASA policy and generally
conducive to development of peaceful uses of space. Thus NASA should
have these options:

    Reject donation totally on the grounds the strings are ridiculous and
      never will be acceptable.

    Set donation aside, not acceptable now but within realm of
      possibility in future.

    Accept donation now and start working on project.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 87 06:12:27 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached?

In article <8704010014.AA02328@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
><KFL> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 01:44:54 EST
><KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
><KFL> Subject: Reply to massive missive - part II of IV (continued)
>
>    I'd like to see NASA permitted to accept private investment or
>    donations to fund launch capability and perhaps major in-space
>    projects such as the space station. Would you agree?

	In a burst of perhaps misplaced generosity, I sent NASA a
$50 donation after the Challenger accident. Now I send $300/year to
the Space Studies Institute, instead. On my income, that's putting a
lot of money where my mouth is. Their budget is an insignificant
fraction of NASAs - but it's made up largely of private contributions
(until the time Geostar starts paying off), and what they're accomplishing
for the money is a hell of a lot more useful than what NASA would. 

	I predict any individual with significant amounts of money to spend 
on space is going to invest it in some operation that stands a reasonable 
chance of paying off BIG - either in terms of the breakout into space 
(SSI terminology), or financially, or both - not NASA.

	Think about how many private contributions would be required to make 
up even a tiny fraction of the Space Station budget ($12G? $20G? more?), for 
example. The numbers work a lot better for small, non-governmental outfits 
with clearly defined goals. For that matter, if NASA had a clearly defined
goal, perhaps they could regain some of their success in the '60s.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 87 10:50:01 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: NASA accepting investments and donations with strings attached?
Newsgroups: sci.space

Sorry for the length.  You pressed a button.

REM writes:
><KFL> Date: Tue, 10 Feb 87 01:44:54 EST
><KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>
><KFL> Subject: Reply to massive missive - part II of IV (continued)
>
>    I'd like to see NASA permitted to accept private investment or
>    donations to fund launch capability and perhaps major in-space
>    projects such as the space station. Would you agree?

NASA can accept donations, you send them to the computroller in
Washington DC and every year a small amount of money is received in this
way.  "Investments" are clearly illegal as this is the Government.
Unless you regard education as an "investment in the future," etc.

><KFL>   How do you distinguish between an investment and a donation?
><KFL>   They are already allowed to accept donations, but not donations
><KFL> with conditions on them, which is what an investment is.
>
>That should be changed. Donations with strings should be acceptable,
>providing they set the donation aside until such time as they are able
>and willing to obey the strings, and providing they don't obey the
>strings until and unless it is favorable to NASA policy and generally
>conducive to development of peaceful uses of space. Thus NASA should
>have these options:

>    Reject donation totally on the grounds the strings are ridiculous and
>      never will be acceptable.
>
>    Set donation aside, not acceptable now but within realm of
>      possibility in future.
>
>    Accept donation now and start working on project.

The reason why strings cannot be attached is a simple one.  It's to
prevent the US Government (in theory) from being brided, etc.  (That's
the theory).  This does not prevent lobbying on officials (Congressmen
as well, and there are degrees of lobbying from taking one to lunch to
(we'll leave it to you imagination).  If NASA had strings, you are
saying the government has strings, then other Agencies, etc.  Should
NASA branch off and become a non-Government institution? Show a profit?
Advertise?

The problem with well intended money is that any flight project is an
expensive endeavor and our eyes are quickly growing faster than our
technical means of getting stuff into orbit.  (Space elevators
excluded.)  The speeds and energies (O(s^2)) are tremendous.  The
vaccuum is quite powerful so keeping breathable air around is tough.
You can send electronics up, but the environment is just as harsh.
Anyway, back to donations and lobbying.

Re: lobbying.There was an attempt at Ames to start a space station
newsgroup to discuss design issues.  (Most people here working on the
station don't even use Email.)  One suggestion made two years ago was to
openly discuss things like this on the net.  This is clearly impossible.
Can you see the lobbying implications?  (I discussed this with Roger
Njoe who was working at the time for Rockwell).  Rockwell reads
something on one of our net discussions and rewrites a portion of some
contract base on an incomplete idea, then. company XYZ who is not on the
net is at a disadvantage. Etc.  You can elaborate on fairness, etc, or
free enterprise (tough beans), but that the way it is.  Maybe you should
put you money into companies like Rockwell [I didn't say that.]  who
have big space lobbying efforts?

Lastly on private funding. (As pointed out by Jon Leech) I wish industry
would do more.  Face it they are not.  They are not interested in
materials processing, it's typically more cost effective on earth.
There are those rare 0-G things, but they are not interested (only
companies like AT&T and SBS with communications interests). Remote
sensing (my original area in space) has shown as much promise as AI
{seriously}.  Lots of good intentions, but lots of big problems.
Surprise: a good basis of comparisons of two emerging technologies which
started at the same time.  Will one pull ahead and be more viable? Or do
emerging technologies take near constant time to get to market place?
We'll see.  The point is business is not interested.  There's thousands
of companies in Silicon Valley, few of which are interested in space.
NASA (in vein hope, a solution looking for problems) was hoping more
companies would be interested in using space.  At best most companies
want short-term 0-G not a week at a time. You don't see companies in the
45 second 0-G business, but I wonder if one could start?  A stepping
stone to longer 0-G?  Then this also means more Universities could use
0-G [perhaps, we need to allocated 45 second 0-G time to U's like
supercomputers?  or give it away for near free like Unix was initially?
(I say this seriously)] Or should we begin to develop an anti-grav
industry...

Typical industrial responses to using space are:

"no we are doing just fine on earth. thank you."
"no our market is here on earth, you know the home, the consumer."
"no the costs are too high (don't forget O(v^2), they're right,
they might be a 3 person company)"

Press your companies to think about trying things in space.  I liked a
friend's attitude about new immension cooling systems: he (a developer
of the Alto) wanted to take one of his current company's non-products
and dunk it into Fluorinert to see how it would react as a start to
using the technology.  This was a $100K piece of electronics we were
talking about tinkering with.  I think we need some thinking like this.
Is your company willing to take risks and how much and how far?

On my secretary's desk:
	"I'm with the Government, I'm hear to help you." ;-)

Mentioning names like Rockwell, AT&T, and SBS are not meant to endorse
those companies or their services.  Anyway, time to go, they just dumped
another proposal on my desk to evaluate, and I've written too much.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 87 02:07:18 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts)

> >   ... Mean while the congress is now trying to cut
> >2.1 billion out of NASA's funds.  Is that what we really want?
> 
> Excuse my obvious paycheck bias for a moment.  Yes, as a matter of
> fact, I do think a majority of people want this.

Actually, probably not.  My understanding, from people who have been
involved with polling on such matters, is that most people like the
space program and favor supporting it -- but do not give it a high
priority.  It's not that they want big cuts in NASA's budget, but that
they want the government to cut spending and don't get especially upset
if NASA is one of the victims.  Particularly when nobody tells them
about it.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 09:56:46 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Summary on "what we [US] want" and what to do [was USSR Mir]

Re: started with Mir announcement and we have numerous suggestions.
Below are the letters I have received in a week.

--eugene
==============================================================
From: Bill Janssen <janssen@MCC.COM>
Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts)

I don't know if there really is a solution.  Seems that when most people
have taken care of the short-term problems, they have a relatively small
amount of intellectual energy to spend on their current enthusiasm.
This is likely to be a personal hobby.  It seems that the real way to
muster national support in a democratic society, is to catch the
imaginations of the populace: create a hobby activity that directly
supports the activity you are interested in supporting.  I'd imagine
that a national lottery with a $10M prize for the first person to
optically spot and track all satellite objects visible with binoculars
from Arizona, say, would cause a great deal of interest, with articles
in Popular Mechanics!  Or proclamation of the `race for space' as a
great interest of theirs by the 5 top movie stars or pop singers...

Bill

===================================================================
The hobby idea sounds interesting.  I think many can understand the
problems of a Natl. lottery. --enm
===================================================================

From: Reid.A.Ellis@unicus.com

I like the idea of having a separate social group devoted totally to
space.  We'd need:
	1/10th the total pop of the US. [5/6ths of these would, no doubt,
		be support]
	Now remove all political extremes and make it look harmless to
		both the East and the West so as to allow maximum trust
		and minimum interference
	Hey, why not even make it a separate country?
		Give it a lackluster political system to tone down politics
		Put it up north, to isolate it geographically

Hey!  We've just invented Canada!

Reid Ellis, aka Clith de T'nir

=========================================================================
Reid has a neat solution!  I like this ;-).
=========================================================================

From: ames!ihnp4!uvacs!hsd (Harry S. Delugach)
Subject: Is this what we want? (Usenet news)

As another whose paycheck also comes (albeit indirectly) from NASA, I
wanted to offer my thoughts on whether space is worth it.

When I was a kid, astronauts were just starting to circle the world in
their tiny capsules, and I've had the space bug ever since. I remember
lots of talk about how space would be the new frontier: limitless
expanses of new territory to explore and settle. Unfortunately, the
analogy to the Old West fails in every respect. Instead of
self-selection, new "pioneers" are carefully selected in order to
maximize the support investment: if Horace Greeley had to say: "Here's a
million dollars -- go west, young man!" the young man would say: "Hey,
with this kind of dough, why leave?"

At this point I don't think we're trying to somehow complete our destiny
by going into space. As you pointed out, there are many tasks on earth
that need completing: food for all, peace, stability, good health, etc.
Many people, including some readers of sci.space, have forgotten them --
witness the indignant and frustrated reactions whenever space is NOT
someone's highest priority. Much as I have been excited by space during
most of my lifetime, I have to recognize that Earth and humanity are
intimately related.  Sci.space has discussed everyone's leaving Earth
eventually, but that is not a goal of mine, even if it were feasible.

Only a very few of us will ever travel to space, and this makes it hard
for the powers-that-be to keep tossing billions of dollars into it. Of
course, they continue to do so, but mostly because of lobbying and
pressures from those who make MONEY (on Earth) from the space program.
The Old West pioneers didn't just go west for the hell of it, either,
they wanted land, money, success, etc. that they couldn't get back east.
Space is different: it's much more expensive and complicated.

I am encouraged by other developments however. In the 60's, there was a
lot of talk as to what good was going to the moon when we had so much
misery on earth to take care of. Employees of Rockwell, Lockheed, etc.
weren't among the complainers however. And we ended up with a lot of
technology (both high and relatively low-tech) developed that we now
take for granted on earth.  The Space Station program promises some
similar benefits. I have seen some aspects of the SSIS architecture, and
its construction will have tremendous value to anyone developing a very
large, distributed, parallel, fault-tolerant, and real-time information
system. On Earth!

This rambling has probably gone on long enough. sorry this wasn't more
organized.

Harry S. Delugach   University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science
====================================================================

Subject: RE: Re: USSR adds...

Dr. Eugene:

My opinion on this matter is to adopt the "citizens advisory council
recommendations for space development" plans and privatize the US space
efforts.  You might have to move to a regulatory job, or join a new
startup company doing seat-of-the-pants booster development, but I think
the world would benefit in the long run.

I read "Flugreview," (German) and "Cockpit" (Swiss).  They have a
different perspective from AWS&T, and print mostly positive reviews of
the Arianne program (which I think is very poor at the moment).  The
europeans think that long-range commitment, and throwing more money at
the problems will overcome the 10 year lead the Soviets have.  I am not
so sure.  The US program needs an entreprenneurial spirit, like the
airplane manufacturers of the "50s.

Your (NASA's) space station plans after the Challenger disaster stink.
The politics of NASA Johnson in Houston versus NASA Goddard, NASA Ames,
and NASA Marshal are ugly.  I am disappointed in the US space program
leadership and share Richard Feynman's anger.  It is very frustrating.

During Apollo and Skylab, I was a real NASA fan.  I wanted to work for
you, build large space platforms, explore the solar system, and be a
part of the space movement.  I am a member of L5, and keep up somewhat
with sci.space.  However, STS was perverted by the military.  When I was
in Florida, they wouldn't let us near the VA building because of a
military payload.  This perversion is exactly the opposite of Apollo and
Skylab, when Nasa was a civilian agency.  STS is too big, costs too
much, was and is poorly managed, and is under-funded for its design
goals.

This message can be summarized as: GO PRIVATE!  for your summary to the
nets.

I welcome a response.  Sorry if this note reads somewhat like a flame,
but I feel a great frustration watching Mir.

-Mitch Wyle  (wyle%ifi.ethz.chunet@relay.cs.net)  or (wyle@ethz.uucp)

Mitchell F. Wyle          |csnet or arpa: wyle%ifi.ethz.chunet@relay.cs.net
Instituet fuer Informatik |uucp:          wyle@ethz.uucp ...!cernvax!ethz!wyle
ETH Zentrum / SOT         |telephone:     011 41 1 256 5235
8092 Zuerich, Switzerland |"Sic itur ad astra"
========================================================================
I like your honesty.
My only problem with going private is most private ventures are not into
planetary exploration ala Voyager.  It's more industrialization of
space [which we will need].  My personal interest is space science. --enm
========================================================================

I thought about editing notes down but decided against it.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #194
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22918; Wed, 15 Apr 87 03:03:42 PDT
	id AA22918; Wed, 15 Apr 87 03:03:42 PDT
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 87 03:03:42 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704151003.AA22918@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #195

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 87 03:03:42 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #195

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 195

Today's Topics:
	     robotics and men-in-space not contradictory
		       Start-up Space Colonies
		     Re: Start-up Space Colonies
		     Re: Start-up Space Colonies
		       Columbus and exploration
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #173
	      direct measurement of near-Sun environment
      Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts)
      Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 12 Mar 87 03:00:36 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 10 18:27:32 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: robotics and men-in-space not contradictory

<EM> Date: Mon, 23 Feb 87 09:56:48 pst
<EM> From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
<EM> Subject: Next 30 years in space (try this again)

<EM> it's amusing to see people who work on things like
<EM> robotics/computers push for getting people into space (sort of
<EM> cutting one's own throat in some ways).

I disagree. Although I have argued that for working on the Moon the 2.5
second speed-of-light delay in the servo loop would not prohibit some
kinds of telepresence (interactive-remote-control), it would still make
things difficult, requiring lots of training (others have claimed it
would make *all* telepresence totally impossible, no amount of training
could compensate), and for more remote locations such as Mars or
Ganymede the multi-minute/hour loop-delay would make telepresence
impossible even in my opinion. I have therefore proposed that we put
people in space, but keep them in orbit around the work site, where
there's only a few milliseconds of speed-of-light in the servo-loop
between the orbiting astronauts and the landed robotics.  Most of the
cost of moving heavy things like people with life support is in the
launch, not the maintenance of orbit nor even occasional change of
orbit. It's a lot more expensive to land people & support equipment on
Moon (or Mars, Ganymede etc.) and maintain them there, than to maintain
them in space while landing&maintaining robotics on Moon (et al).
Therefore the best prospects for robotics (telepresence actually) may in
fact include people in space. I see no reason to ridicule robotics
people for being in favor of the manned space program.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 87 11:42 EST
From: OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL        <OCONNORDM@ge-crd.arpa>
Subject: Start-up Space Colonies

    Most proposals I've seen to establish colonies in space or on other
planets in this system are enormously expensive.  Many now argue that
first we should build a space infrastructure, then we should build
stations and the like. This is very very expensive.  Expense ( and
wasting that expense ) is the primary objection most members of this
newsgroup have objections to most colonization plans.

    Historically, colonization was not done this way. No one came to
North America expecting to build cities the size of London or Paris (
much less New York ) there. People came and built ( at first ) very
modest communities, which grew because of the wealth of the new world.
Building an infrastructure first might ( slighlty humorously ) be liken
to the original colonist building intercontinental transport systems
first-thing, since the know they'll "Go West" eventually.

    The point is, can we colonize space CHEAPLY? If we can establish a
colony that is either slightly better than self-sufficient or a net
exporter, it will grow on its own.

    So, what's the cheapest you can build a space colony ( anywhere in
space : LEO, GEO, L5, .. ) that satisfies the above criteria?  What's
the cheapest you can do it on the moon? On Mars? If we could establish a
small but growimg colony in space for the projected cost of the Space
Station ( which does not satisfy the criteria ), which one should we do?

    Note that I don't care what this colony does; it's primary mission
is simply to SURVIVE and GROW. Useful stuff like science can come later
( or be part of the colony's export IF IT IS WORTH IT ).

    And no, I don't expect the colony to NECCESARILY have to pay back
the money that got it started.

				    Dennis O'Connor

------------------------------

Date: 15 Mar 87 02:44:42 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Start-up Space Colonies

In article <8703131642.AA19959@angband.s1.gov> OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes:
>	Most proposals I've seen to establish colonies in space or on
>    other planets in this system are enormously expensive.  Many now
>    argue that first we should build a space infrastructure, then we
>    should build stations and the like. This is very very expensive.
>    Expense ( and wasting that expense ) is the primary objection most
>    members of this newsgroup have objections to most colonization
>    plans.

The infrastructure is first because it is necessary given the resources.
The intelligence of cooperative and government programs is inverse to
the number of participants.  The only technologies that can be supported
by the government are those which have a political consensus, and such a
consensus isn't possible for new (esoteric) technologies.  This problem
is worse when international cooperation is involved even on a
"scientific" basis.  That is because "big physics" requires "hype" and
the same consensus is required to get it funded and keep it funded in
Europe, Russian and probably even Japan.

The difficulty with a Mars mission is that it is stuck with warmed over
and colossalized 60's technologies.  The same is true for fusion.
Fusion could be commercialized in ten years with our PLASMAK(TM)
technology and it is an ideal engine to handle the electric power, boost
phase and space propulsion needs of Mars colonization.  The cost to
demonstrate a commercial burn is a fraction of even today's lower fusion
budget, and the engineering costs of moving it into functionality could
be covered by Wall Street and a combined NASA-DOE-DOD effort.

Once it is operational, the technology WILL pay for itself.
Gravitational wells, that we earthlings can survive in, will be no
problem to negotiate cheaply with megapound payloads that we can move
from surface to surface.

Paul M. Koloc

------------------------------

Date: 17 Mar 87 17:54:21 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Start-up Space Colonies

In article <8703131642.AA19959@angband.s1.gov> OCONNORDM@GE-CRD.ARPA (OCONNOR DENNIS MICHAEL) writes:
>	Historically, colonization was not done this way. .....

>    ...  Building an infrastructure first might ( slighlty humorously )
>    be liken to the original colonist building intercontinental
>    transport systems first-thing, since the know they'll "Go West"
>    eventually.
>					Dennis O'Connor

The first colonists DID build an intercontinental transport system using
the most up-to-date technology of the time.

They used the components of the existing transport systems, (ships,
harbours, navigation, etc.) and extended their use. The original
colonies were funded by governments because moving supplies for two or
three years for two or three thousand people across the atlantic was not
something which was going to pay dividends quickly, if at all.

Once the colonies had been set up and people KNEW they could survive,
other groups of people followed.

Space colonisation at the moment is at the stage Columbus was at when he
returned from his first trip. People asked "what good is the place?
There is nothing there."
	Bob Gray.
	ERCC.

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 23 Mar 87 12:19:04 PST
From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: weltyc@csv.rpi.edu
Subject:        Columbus and exploration

> weltyc@csv.rpi.edu (Christopher A. Welty) states:

> 	Why was Columbus interested in sailing west?  Why did Louis
> and Clarke explore the Louisiana Purchase, why did any explorer ever
> go exploring?...
>                                ...  Sure, there are REAL humaninstic
> and monetary benefits from various space and exploratory missions, but
> that's just icing on the cake.  I believe that Columbus et al felt the
> same way - there was money involved, yes, but they probably would have
> done it for free....
>                                          ... In my view, exploration
> is ALWAYS justified, regardless of the cost.  In MY view.  I am glad
> there are others who share this feeling, but I wish there were more
> and that they were richer...

The point is not why THEY explore; each individual has his own reasons
for wanting what they want.  The point is what did the people who footed
the bills want?  Lucrative new spice routes to the East, or the sprit of
adventure??

Having started a business, and gone to someone for money to do so, I
know how unsavory it feels, given all I wanted to do was "revolutionize"
computing as we know it. For a while, I did work for free... BUT the
exercise of having to plan, plan again, prove, convince, sell, rehash,
and feel terribly responsible for someone elses money, sure tests the
mettle of ones ideas, and forces you to develop very efficient plans (or
cave in, and give up 'cuz you reeeeeally don't believe in your dream :-().

FLAME ON:

This is the MAJOR problem with government operations.  They don't need
to prove and I mean really PROVE that their plans are good, sound,
minimial risk operations, with lots of people giving 100% to get the
most for the least.  (In my case, every few dollars saved, ment more
time to keep the venture going).

WHEN GOVERNMENT NEEDS MONEY, THEY JUST GO AND TAKE IT!

The thing to fear in the future of our space program, is that the U.S.
Government will institute a "Space Industrialization Policy" and turn
the U.S. Space Program into a Soviet style, politico-military planned
economy, prohibiting individuals, ventures, and established companies
from pursuing their own interests in space.  Already, they are talking
about requiring U.S. Companies to get a "license" to operate their own
land sensing satillites (like French SPOT, which found out what was
really going on at Chyrnobyl) because they will pose a "threat to
national security"

Some day, when Japan develops a comercial launch capability, we can look
up, and see the "competition" using, developing, exploring space. I'm
sure some Americans, Europeans, Soviets will be along for the ride, in
the future Japanese Space companies....

FLAME OFF:

(bill)

William J. Fulco,

------------------------------

Date: 25 Mar 1987 11:50-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #173

Gary Allen:
	I'm not for Mars-first, but I do agree with you in this case.
What you say is very close to what I suggested in my testimony to the
Ntaional Commission on Space, namely that "If we decide to go to Mars,
lets leave something behind when we're done. Let's not say the project
is to put men on Mars, let's make it a project to build the first
interplanetary SPACESHIP, and then give it a test flight by taking it
to Mars..."

Goals are important. Apollo type goals are closed. Once you get there
it's over. I care not so much where we go and how we do it as I do that
we have open goals that lead us forever outwards instead of leaving
rusting dreams lying on the sands at Cape Caneveral.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 25 Mar 87 09:59:22 PST
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 March 25 09:53:19 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: direct measurement of near-Sun environment

It occurs to me that we've never gotten any measurements directly of
the particles etc. very close to the sun. All we've done is indirectly
measure the vicinity of the Sun via emissions (mostly electomagnetic)
that can be observed far far away (half an AU or more). What if we
launched a Venera/Galileo style probe consisting of a drone that dives
into the Sun and as long as it survives it transmits data to a relay
craft that is at a relatively safe distance? Would we learn a more
accurate model of the corona and surface of the Sun than we get by
very-remote sensing? How deep could a well-insulated probe survive,
and for how long would it be able to transmit to the relay craft
without the conductivity of the Sun's plasma damping out the signal?
(Could some particular wavelength get past the plasma better than the
obvious ons we use now? Could some non-photo method such as neutrinos
or pions etc. be used to communicate between drone and relay-craft?)

------------------------------

From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Date: 31 Mar 1987 1552-PST (Tuesday)
Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts)

"We do not live in a scientific society." R. P. Feynman.

In Glenn Chapman writes:
>   Again the USSR is moving ahead. Mean while the congress is now
>trying to cut 2.1 billion out of NASA's funds.  Is that what we really
>want?

>     Glenn Chapman
>     MIT Lincoln Lab

Excuse my obvious paycheck bias for a moment.  Yes, as a matter of fact,
I do think a majority of people want this.

I don't know this is a depressing topic when with Economic tradewars,
new tax forms, and the concern of a TV evangelical sex scandal making
news.  Students in college only worried about getting jobs which make
lots of money.  40% of of our society reads horoscopes fervantly.  We
have concerns about the so called Rust Belt while we burn petroleum at a
good rate.  The military space budget is growing.  Reminds me of the
Twilight Zone Episode "Third from the Sun" and the Outer Limits episode
"The Hinterlands (I think)."

In some ways, it would be neat of the "scientific" part of society could
divorce itself from the rest.  I thought about the new Science City in
Japan, but one could easily be branded a B. Arnold.  The problem is in
changing (expanding) everyone's short term bias.  Yes, we have to eat,
sleep, breath, drink water, and yes we have some longer term goals like
producing food and shelter (sound like things we would have to do in
space, too?). But what else do we do with our time?  Does going into
space require some type of totalitarian society or "obvious" political
consideration?  I would hope not.  The Chinese tried democratizing
intellect during the 1960s without success, and I doubt many netters
would enjoy spending time growing their own food, etc.  We want to reach
for the stars, but the box we are standing on is too small and too
fragile.

Much of industry does not want to go into space.  Face it, it's a
hostile place.  Distances are vast (really big!).  Lots of unknowns and
one false move and who knows?  Suggestions (besides writing
Cong-persons)?  Don't post, send mail, I'll summarize.  (We'll see who
reads this far.)

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 87 06:00:59 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts)

In article <8703312352.AA00525@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>In Glenn Chapman writes:
>>   Again the USSR is moving ahead. Mean while the congress is now
>>trying to cut 2.1 billion out of NASA's funds.  Is that what we really
>>want?
>Excuse my obvious paycheck bias for a moment.  Yes, as a matter of
>fact, I do think a majority of people want this.

	From time to time the pro-space organizations will put out
literature saying 'polls show the public support space...'.  What they
rarely do is show the poll in its entirety.  Here's a revealing one from
the March 30 Time (pg 37), in response to the question

	``Should Govt. spending be increased, decreased or kept
	  the same for the following programs?''
		               Inc.    Dec.  Kept Same
- Health programs for		78	2	18
   the elderly
- Enviroment			73	5	19
- Aid to homeless		71	5	21
- Health services for		71	5	22
   the poor
- Nutrition programs for	55	6	34
   mothers and infants
- Reducing acid rain		54	11	25
   pollution
- Low & moderate income		54	11	32
   housing
- Loans & grants to 		52	15	29
   college students
- Food Stamps			33	24	36
- SPACE PROGRAM			33	27	34	<-----
- Military			31	25	38
- Star Wars			23	35	26

	A public that wants food stamps more than a space program is not
going to support the recommendations of the National Commission on
Space, the NASA panel, or any other such group, as laudable as they may
be. A strong Free World presence in space is going to come about one of
three ways:

	- Military (ick!)
	- National prestige (Apollo-like)
	- Profit making private enterprises (yeah!)

	There is just no political base for the civilian space program.
With the exception of a few districts in Texas, Florida, and California,
there's no direct benefit. If we follows Murray and Sagan's suggestion
to make Mars the center of our civilian space efforts, in 20 years or so
we'll have landed men there - and be left with NOTHING again, just like
Apollo.

	Sure, I'll write my congresscritters. But my real hope for
getting into space in this lifetime is with organizations like the Space
Studies Institute and the university consortium which wants to make
shuttle external tanks into a el cheapo space station, not with the
gold-plated, ill-supported, and ill-defined NASA Space Station (one plan
has full operating capability at 1998 now... and, I have little doubt,
it's slipping).

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #195
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA26102; Thu, 16 Apr 87 03:02:52 PDT
	id AA26102; Thu, 16 Apr 87 03:02:52 PDT
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 03:02:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704161002.AA26102@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #196

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 03:02:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #196

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 196

Today's Topics:
 The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars
Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars
		      Ball Lightning Generators
		    Re: Ball Lightning Generators
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 05 Apr 87 14:15:29 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars

It is time again to stirup the Space Digest newsgroup with another crazy
idea.  I think it should be the national object of the United States to
establish a self sustaining and growing colony of 500 Americans on the
planet Mars.  I've been informed that 500 is the minimum number for a
self contained colony which avoids in-breeding problems.  These 500
Americans would be placed on the surface of Mars with a habitat and
sufficient tools to build new habitats and duplicate the original set of
tools.  Mars is rich in metals, and has all of the elements necessary
for life (unlike the moon).  This colony would be established for
ideological reasons and **not** for economic reasons.  This is where
O'Neal's L-5 colony idea fell flat.  You can't justify these space
colonies on economic grounds.  Perhaps after the Martian colony has
grown to over a million inhabitants then economics-of-scale will present
themselves.  This Martian colony should be built by first constructing a
space transportation system that can transport material into LEO at a
reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane.  At LEO and
geosynchronous orbit the United States should construct large space
stations for supporting the Martian objective.  The current whimpy space
station planned should be replaced by a larger facility.  An
interplanetary shuttle based on an Inertial Fusion Rocket (IFR) should
be constructed and designed for multiple reuse with refueling.  This IFR
shuttle will transport material either from the geosynchronous station
or from a lunar station (using lunar material) to another space station
on Phobos.  On Phobos using locally acquired material, atmospheric entry
vehicles will be constructed for shipping the colonists and their
equipment down to the surface of Mars.  Their journey to Mars will be
***one-way***, so concerns over long term effects of living in a 1/2 G
gravity are not relevant.  The project will be directed towards making
the colony independent of Earth supply.  That way the U.S. could once
again do this stupidity of throwing its space program into the trash
can, but the colony would still be there and growing. The key concepts
are: The project is motivated by ideology and not by hard nosed
economics.  It's a one shot deal that establishes a permanent presence
in space.  The project will develope an enormous space infrastructure
which can be used in the unlikely chance the Americans have brains
enough not to throw it away.  The project will have numerous spinoffs
that will aid in the politics of funding, i.e.  the LEO station can be
used for micro-gravity, hard vaccum applications; the geosynchronous
station would be a communications, weather monitoring platform; lunar
materials could be used to support terrestrial industrial and miliary
programs; the IFR shuttle could support many missions other than the
Mars program; the Phobos station could serve as a base for outer planet
missions; the Mars colony itself when not occupied with the problem of
survival could provide scientific data about Mars.  The colonists
selected should be chosen from regular citizens (NASA, USAF, and other
government employees excluded).  This will mobilize public support,
since the average citizen will see this as an opportunity to get himself
or his children to the new frontier.  The propaganda to support the Mars
colonization should be that the United States is repaying an ethical
obligation placed upon it by the earlier colonization of America by
Europe.  The project time duration should be on the order of 20-30
years.  It should be funded separately from NASA or DOD appropriations.
It should be purely an American deal, and not international.  Let the
French and Russians make there own colonies.

                           Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 87 00:13:29 GMT
From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars

I dunno about waiting for the aerospace plane.  Boeing's Jarvis booster
looks good.  Start now with the infrastructure (gack, what a word), if
things get cheaper later, well and good.

I saw a plan using an Earth-Mars shuttle.  The idea was that you would
place this shuttle in an elliptical orbit such that it approaches the
Earth and Mars cyclically (anyone have more info on this?  it seems to
me that it would work pretty well if the ratio of Mars's orbital period
and Earth's orbital period was pretty close to a rational number--like
5/3.  It's actually about 1.881, which is kind of miserable).

Regardless, if this would work, you could catch a ride on the shuttle
(meaning that you wouldn't have to lug all that 0-g stuff and life-
support around with you.  If the shuttle was used a lot, you could make
incremental improvements in it.  This shuttle might (probably would) have
a centrifuge.  You'd still need the delta-v to get to and from the shuttle,
though).

OK.  Somehow you get to Mars orbit.  Getting down shouldn't be much
problem.  What to do when you get there may be, though.  You need a
power supply.  Almost certainly it will be atomic, with all the problems
that entails (not engineering problems--political problems).  What's the
composition of the Martian atmosphere?  How do you do life support
(photosynthesis?  boil the oxygen out of the sand?  I read a week or so
back about some people trying to set up a closed environment dome on
earth.  The results of that will be very useful).

What equipment do you send with your colony?  Weight matters.  You will
want some areosynchronous (sp?) com/weather sats.  A couple more sats
closer in, to do minerological surveys and that sort of stuff.  You will
want to set your colony down in an area with a lot of readily available
ore-- iron ore especially.  You'll want some transportation (probably a
flyer of sorts).  Medical goods.  Hydroponics stuff.  Shelter.  Mining
equipment (note that this doen't necessarily imply bulldozers and
explosives, although they would help).  Too bad Mars doesn't have
trees--it'd make things a lot simpler.  Ceramics might work out pretty
well--maybe a lot of stuff could be made out of glass.

Until you get three or four settlements, an accident could easily wipe
out the entire colony.  Oops.

The colony ought to be extremely labor-intensive.  You won't be able to
afford the mass to send a lot of machinery.  The power source for the
machinery would also be difficult (presumably, you'll only have one or
two reactors.  the machines certainly won't run off of diesel--what
would you use?  flywheels?  fuel cells?  chemical batteries?  isotopic
batteries?).

Anyway, it is probably doable, even with conventional technology.
Certain advances in technology would help.  Fusion would help a hell of
a lot.  Problems are: getting all that mass into Earth orbit (the
Earth-Mars shuttle, fuel, the various Mars exploration craft, and
finally the colony equipment and the colony), life support for the
Earth-Mars shuttle (transit time would be roughly 9 months), life
support for Mars, and the colony itself.

I think the Earth-Mars shuttle, if it turns out to be doable, ought to
be called Bifrost.  You ought to have a lot of shuttles in this scheme.
The Earth surface/orbit shuttle.  The Earth orbit/transit shuttle
shuttle.  The Mars transit shuttle/orbit shuttle.  And the Mars
orbit/surface shuttle.  All of them will need to be fueled.  Until Mars
starts producing fuel, the fuel will have to come from Earth.
Expensive.

Your proposal said to make the Mars descent stages one-way.  That has a
number of good points--it gives the colony a source of metal, for one.
And you don't have to carry the fuel to relaunch.  On the other hand, it
might be cheaper to carry the fuel and have a real Mars shuttle.

A lot of this has doubtless been thrashed out somewhere else.  Anyone
have any pointers?  Is it in a readily-accessible book?


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 18 Mar 87 18:41:06 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!sslvax!bt@seismo.css.gov  (Brian Thompstone)
Subject: Ball Lightning Generators


In sci.space ....
Gary Allen (daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU ??) wrote:
>An interesting paper that crossed my desk was "A Model for Ball
>Lightning and Bead Lightning" (CMA-R11-86) by Karl L. E. Nickel of the
>Institut fuer Angewandte Mathematik, Universitaat von Freiburg, West
>Germany.  In the paper Prof. Nickel presents the theory that ball
>lightning is really an energetic plasma contained within a vortex ring
>or Hill spherical vortex.  [.............]  I have never
>seen scientific evidence to support this idea and for this reason am
>sceptical about the reality of ball lightning.  

Paul F. Dietz (DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ) wrote:
>If someone back in the 1700's could make ball lightning accidently,
>perhaps some interested amateur scientist with a small budget could
>do the same today.  Collecting natural lightning is not difficult, given
>patience, a lightning rod and a tall tower or building.  Making the ball
>lightning is more of a challenge.  Any idea what a lightning driven ball
>lightning generator would look like?  A pair of coaxial helical electrodes?
>An exploding coil of wire?  It can't be too complex, if it happened by
>accident.  Record the results with TV cameras & VCRs (shielded and battery
>powered).  Adventuresome experimenters might want to try different gases
>(deuterium could be very exciting).

Larry Johnson (larry@leo.UUCP) wrote: 
>While I was a student at UCSD one of my professors showed several
>photographs of ball lightning to the class.  [........]
>Anybody else ever seen a photo? A film would be even better. 


Well, have I got News for you. Last year New Scientest carried a story
about a Dutch school teacher who had come up with a theory as to what powered
Ball Lightning (BL). The theory suggested an apparatus which might generate
BL. The apparatus was being built. Since then, I have seen a TV documentary
which showed the apparatus working. The BLs produced were small and
short_lived, but hi-speed cameras appeared to catch them. Interested?

Details (as filtered through my foggy memory):
The theory was based on the idea that BL is powered by *fusion*, using
deuterium occuring naturally in water vapour.  (For stability, see above?)
Once started, the BL should survive as long as a steady supply of D is
available.

How to start BL: something to do with electo/magnetic eddies(?) created in
the neighbourhood of a suddenly terminated MASSIVE electric current - and
some fog. These conditions might be available in thunderstorms, but we want
this to work in any weather, preferably in the garden shed....

The inventor has built a mechanical switch which can (a) pass a large
current without frazzling (b) break very quickly. He put it into a circuit
where the power was provided by a lot of very big batteries - in fact, ALL
of the batteries from one (or was it two) scrap submarines! This all in a
large wharehouse in Amsterdam(?). A Dutch/Belgian TV crew went along to
film it, and by god it seems to work. Now, all the commentary for the
program was in Dutch, in which I am not exactly fluent, so maybe I missed
some details - any friends out there in the Netherlands rememeber this?

Before you rush out to rip the accumulator out of your car; you need a HELL
of a lot of current. The inventor was trying to scrape enough money
together to buy another submarine's worth of batteries, because of some
non-linear relationship between the current and the likelihood and/or size
of generated BL. And I'm sure some of this is patented: he has formed a
company to exploit the process, floated shares last year. 

Because, this could be BIG (if it isnt just a scam). A fusion generator
with BL at its heart is so simple that its very difficult to believe. 
A trigger power source. A switch. A bottle (+ magentic fields) to restrain
a little BL. Some damp air. 

Goodbye Tokomak/JET/lasers! 

All this of the top of my head: references possible if you want. 

I am posting this to several newsgroups:
1. sci.space              because thats where it was being discussed
2. sci.physics            because someone might like to comment
3. rec.arts.sf-lovers     because they will all WANT to believe this (I do)
in case of arguments: 
take this ball :-) and run in different directions of you like ....
(or mail to me and I'll summarize if I understand it).

BT

------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 87 02:37:14 GMT
From: husc2!chiaraviglio@husc6.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Generators

In article <518@ssl-macc.co.uk>, bt@ssl-macc.co.uk (Brian Thompstone) writes:
> Details (as filtered through my foggy memory):
> The theory was based on the idea that BL is powered by *fusion*, using
> deuterium occuring naturally in water vapour.  (For stability, see above?)
> Once started, the BL should survive as long as a steady supply of D is
> available.

	No way.  You would need to have concentrated deuterium and the
absence of anything heavier than helium for this to work.  Naturally
occurring water, including water vapor in the atmosphere, is only
something like 1 part in 5000 of deuterium.  This just doesn't cut it,
because it means that 4999 out of every 5000 collisions will be
nonproductive (actually even worse, because deuterium is heavier, and
therefore moves slower at a given temperature).  Also, atoms heavier
than helium are very efficient at radiating away energy, so even if you
had pure D[2]O vapor the oxygen atoms would radiate away all the heat
and thus quench the reaction.  Having no data on the experiment this
person did, I am not in a position to say anything about whether ball
lightning was actually obtained, but it is 99.9999..% certain that it
did not involve fusion.

> Because, this could be BIG (if it isnt just a scam). A fusion
> generator with BL at its heart is so simple that its very difficult to
> believe.  A trigger power source. A switch. A bottle (+ magentic
> fields) to restrain a little BL. Some damp air.

	You're not getting this with damp air, for the reason stated
above.  However, if you used pure deuterium, or a deuterium/tritium
mixture, you MIGHT get better results. . . .

> Goodbye Tokomak/JET/lasers! 

	Something cheaper would be nice. . . .

> All this of the top of my head: references possible if you want. 

If any of them are easily obtainable in the U. S., then yes please.

	I want to believe it, but I won't (for reasons stated above, and
because 1 source is not sufficient proof).

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius@tardis.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #196
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA29054; Fri, 17 Apr 87 03:02:51 PDT
	id AA29054; Fri, 17 Apr 87 03:02:51 PDT
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 87 03:02:51 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704171002.AA29054@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #197

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 17 Apr 87 03:02:51 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #197

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 197

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Ball Lightning Generators, fusion space power
		    Re: Ball Lightning Generators
	   World Space Foundation & Space Studies Institute
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Mar 87 20:11:56 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Generators, fusion space power

In article <518@ssl-macc.co.uk> bt@ssl-macc.co.uk (Brian Thompstone) writes:
>In sci.space ....
>Gary Allen (daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU ??) wrote:
>>An interesting paper that crossed my desk was "A Model for Ball
>>Lightning and Bead Lightning" (CMA-R11-86) by Karl L. E. Nickel of the
>>Institut fuer Angewandte Mathematik, Universitaat von Freiburg, West
>>Germany.  In the paper Prof. Nickel presents the theory that ball
>>lightning is really an energetic plasma contained within a vortex ring
>>or Hill spherical vortex.  [.............]  I have never seen
>>scientific evidence to support this idea and for this reason am
>>sceptical about the reality of ball lightning.

Ladikov also proposed this model with a poloidal field and Shafranov
found that a variation of it was stable with an additional toroidal
field and in the presence of a gas blanket which generated additional
external pressure.  Such things would have limited life since the
internal energy is marginal to be a good model for ball lightning, and
the toroidal field generating currents would have to operate at the
outer boundary of the plasma toroid where they would be scattered by
neutrals in a short time (much too short for BL).

The all plasma Mantle and kernel (PMK) or PLASMAK(TM) model we have
proposed for fusion and other applications gets around these problems,
and it would probably make a good model for BL.

P. Koloc and J. Ogden, "The All Plasma Spheromak: The PLASMAK," Proc.
U.S.-Japan Joint Symposium on Compact Toruses and Energetic Particle
Injection, Princeton Univ., 216, Dec. 1979 (No Relativistic
Corrections).

P. Koloc and J. Ogden, "The PLASMAK: Its Unique Structure, the Mantle,"
Proc. Third Symposium on the Physics and Technology of Compact Toroids,
LANL, LA-8700-C, 204, Dec. 1980.

Y. Ladikov, Izvest. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 4, 7, July-Aug. 1960.

V. Shafranov, "On Magnetohydrodynamical Equilibrium Configurations," J.
Exptl. Theoret. Phys., 33, 710, 1957.  Transl. in Soviet Phys.-- JETP,
6, 545, 1958.

>>....  . . .  . .. .  .  .  natural lightning is not difficult, given
>>patience, a lightning rod and a tall tower or building.  Making the
>>ball lightning is more of a challenge.

Actually, that would probably prevent it's formation because of the slow
rise time introduced by the stucture's inductance.  If you couple it by
an inductive means then the whole region must be ionized in the presence
of a pre-existing field which provides magnetic helicity.  Then if the
field generating currents are interrupted the plasmoid MAY be generated.
Usually such artificial BL's aren't too long lived, although when U MD
cyclotron shorted out in 1970, the ball that was produced (an eighty
MEGAJOULE inductive air discharge) lasted almost 20 seconds, was over a
foot diameter, rose to about four meters and drifted into a wall (steel
beam) at the same height about thirty feet away with a "champagne cork
opening pop". The ball's actually energy would have been only a few tens
of kilojoules.

>>Any idea what a lightning driven ball lightning generator would look
>>like?  A pair of coaxial helical electrodes?  An exploding coil of
>>wire?  It can't be too complex, if it happened by accident.  Record
>>the results with TV cameras & VCRs (shielded and battery

Forget it!  The fields of amateur lightning experimenters is strewn with
dead bodies... some professionals too!

>powered).  Adventuresome experimenters might want to try different
>gases (deuterium could be very exciting).

Yeah! a real bang and no lightning...  Then comes the NRC police, since
you can't possess (make) Deuterium oxide (heavy water) legally without a
license.  One of those loop holes.  What do you mean vision, hearing,
roof, etc.?

>Larry Johnson (larry@leo.UUCP) wrote: 
>>While I was a student at UCSD one of my professors showed several
>>photographs of ball lightning to the class.  [........]
>>Anybody else ever seen a photo? A film would be even better. 

Send his address and number, .. anyone?

>Well, have I got News for you. Last year New Scientest carried a story
>about a Dutch school teacher who had come up with a theory as to what
>powered Ball Lightning (BL). The theory suggested an apparatus which
>might generate BL. The apparatus was being built. Since then, I have
>seen a TV documentary which showed the apparatus working. The BLs
>produced were small and short_lived, but hi-speed cameras appeared to
>catch them. Interested?

His name Gerald Dijkhuis (dickhouse), and he met me a few years ago and
the next thing I knew was that the patent office was asking me if I was
aware that someone of that name was trying to file patents on a
variation of our concept.  His theory, as I gleaned from the meager
literature, depends on a "Bob Bass like" application of London's
equation, and he claims good things by having "negative and positive
MOLECULES" doing the work in place of electrons and ions.  So far so
good, until then he somehow comes out with terrifically high
temperatures (plasma regime) and internal pressures of 2000 atmospheres.
How could his "molecular plasma" idea work at those temperatures /
pressures? All this with a boundary confinement of one atmosphere of
appropriate gas. I do NOT think he quite received the picture of just
what and how the PMK worked. (heh, heh, heh)

The plasmoids he forms are NOT BL since they do NOT have life times of a
second or more.  When I called him last year, he was amazed to find out
that BL Jim Tuck had produced (Tuck is no longer with us) had a life of
more than a second and a half and that Tuck's high speed cameras were
only running at 48 frames per second and were not the ultra fast type he
was using.  He thought Tuck's BL was much shorter lived - (it wasn't I
have the film and Tuck's notes!).

>Details (as filtered through my foggy memory):
>The theory was based on the idea that BL is powered by *fusion*, using
>deuterium occurring naturally in water vapour.  (For stability, see
>above?)  Once started, the BL should survive as long as a steady supply
>of D is available.

Yes, deuterium oxide can be distilled from ordinary water and then
hydrolyzed to extract the pure deuterium.  THEN the pure deuterium can
be used to make fusion if the plasma pressure and time conditions can be
attained.

>How to start BL: something to do with electro/magnetic eddies(?)
>created in the neighbourhood of a suddenly terminated MASSIVE electric
>current - and some fog. These conditions might be available in
>thunderstorms, but we want this to work in any weather, preferably in
>the garden shed....

That fog is evident in the brains of the fusion program managers at DoE,
and they haven't been hit by lightning yet to test out the theory.  Soon
I hope.  :-) NO!  Water, methane, etc. is NOT necessary.  Sounds like
the brew "a mad scientist or witch" might craft.

>The inventor has built a mechanical switch which can (a) pass a large
>current without frazzling (b) break very quickly. He put it into a
>circuit where the power was provided by a lot of very big batteries -
>in fact, ALL of these batteries from one (or was it two) scrap
>submarines!

The "quick current breaking" is necessary to get the voltages (EMF)
necessary to produce the energetic electron currents necessary for
artificial ball lightning.  However, in this Dijkhuis theory, no such
animal exists!  My guess is he is just blindly following Tuck's
experiments in hopes he'll get something.  He is very uncooperative..  I
could show him how it's done.  The problem with his technique (as lucius
alludes to in another follow-up) is the presence of impurities such as
oxygen and other electrode material.  Those impurities will make it
impossible to "burn through" and get the temperatures necessary for
fusion.

>some details - any friends out there in the Netherlands remember this?

If they did can you send me a reference, .. perhaps I can get a copy of
the tape.

>Before you rush out to rip the accumulator out of your car; you need a
>HELL of a lot of current. The inventor was trying to scrape enough
>money together to buy another submarine's worth of batteries, because
>of some non-linear relationship between the current and the likelihood
>and/or size of generated BL. And I'm sure some of this is patented: he
>has formed a company to exploit the process, floated shares last year.

Dijkhuis tried to patent and failed because of my prior related art,
but has decided to patent "peripheral" technology.  More importantly he
has a business genius that has raised money for his work.  GD has a PhD
in physics from Stanford so he should know something.

>Because, this could be BIG (if it isnt just a scam). A fusion generator
>with BL at its heart is so simple that its very difficult to believe.
>A trigger power source. A switch. A bottle (+ magnetic fields) to
>restrain a little BL. Some damp air.

No the magnetic container is already provided by the plasma shell.  You
just need the plasma gun, a 20 to 40 kv energy storage bank, a cleverly
designed electrode set (actually a special plasma gun), the appropriate
gas, and a very heavy duty compressor.  ...  .  loads and loads of
sandbags if you try it with deuterium.

>Goodbye Tokomak/JET/lasers!  

These never had a chance to begin with.. but they surely keep a lot of
scientist busy beating their heads against an engineering impossibility.
That's fun??  These projects have created a "funding storm"

Just for a number, a PLASMAK(TM) generator will produce 10 gigawatts of
3 phase electric power out with at least a 90% efficiency burning 180
PMK's per second compressed to about the size of a plum.  That can get
you and another megapound of payload up there using only a few of pounds
(a lot of spillage) of Hydrogen Boron-11 fuel and some scooped
atmospheric fusion heated air.

>All this of the top of my head: references possible if you want. 

By email if you have them.  Thanks!

Paul M. Koloc

------------------------------

Date: 26 Mar 87 03:14:36 GMT
From: pyrnj!mirror!xanth!kent@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Kent Paul Dolan)
Subject: Re: Ball Lightning Generators

In response to an excellent discussion of ball lightening, too long to quote
here.

Conning the NOAA Ship Oceanographer Nothr from the Panama Canal toward homeport
in Seattle, off the west coast of Mexico, the activities of a fishing vessel
ahead of me gave, plus sighting a round object with a rod protruding from it
afloat in the water just ahead of me, game me reason to believe that I might
be about to run over a diver.  In hopes of washing him away from the ships
propellers (there was no time to turn), I threw the engines from full ahead
to full reverse in about one second.  Major error.  The Oceanographer is a
diesel electric vessel, with diesel driven generators providing power to
electric motors connected directly to the drive shafts, with pilot house
electrical control.  The vessel displaces about 3000 tons, so even though the
generators were supplying power to go astern, the propellors, driven by the
water and the ship's inertia, were still making turns to go ahead.  The
motors, coupled to the drive shafts, now became very effective generators
themselves, in opposition to the ship's normal generators.  All that
electricity had to go somewhere, and it did.  It formed a lightening plasma
ball about 0.5 meter in diameter, which emminated from the engineering
electrical power panels and flew across the engineering power control room,
narrowly missing the head of the third assistant engineer.

I was treated to a thirty minute session of highly inventive invective by
this gentleman.  I had no defense; I had been about to run over a tuna
fisherman's long line float!

Moral: making ball lightening is easy.  Explaining it is the hard part!

For the enjoyment of the net.  ;-)

    ARPA  :  kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu

Copyright 1987 Kent Paul Dolan.  All Rights Reserved.  Incorporation of this
material in a collective retransmission constitutes permission from the
intermediary to all recipients to freely retransmit the entire collection.
Use on any other basis is prohibited by the author.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Mar 87 22:46:51 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: World Space Foundation & Space Studies Institute

For a long time I've had the addresses of the World Space Foundation and
the Space Studies Institute in my desk. Since the latest issue of Omni
has an article and an ad on SSI, I thought this would be a good time to
post some info on each.

I personally contribute a fair amount to each group (I'm an SSI Senior
Associate), and think they both deserve your support.

Both groups raise money and solicit donations (like booster stages) for
projects that NASA can't or won't fund. Principle areas of interest are:
	WSF: solar sail construction, near-Earth crossing asteroid search
	SSI: mass drivers, processing of lunar material, SPS design

Note that the two groups are synergistic, not duplicative.

Here are the addresses:

Space Studies Institute
285 Rosedale Road, PO Box 82
Princeton, NJ 08540

World Space Foundation
PO Box Y
South Pasadena, California 91030

Although both groups publish newsletters, they are really just a series
of reports on current projects.

Dale Skran

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #197
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01975; Sat, 18 Apr 87 03:02:49 PDT
	id AA01975; Sat, 18 Apr 87 03:02:49 PDT
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 87 03:02:49 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704181002.AA01975@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #198

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 18 Apr 87 03:02:49 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #198

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 198

Today's Topics:
			  New space BBS list
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Mar 87 05:26:38 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!rwb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert Brumley)
Subject: New space BBS list
 
It's been a while since I first posted my space-oriented BBS list.
Since that time, there have been many additions and deletions, so
I thought I'd post the revised version to the net.  

Please, if you have any additional information let me know.  Feel
free to distribute this list, but please keep my name on it so 
that I receive any additional information.  Thanks.


     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  -*> Directory of Space BBSes <*-
     ++++++++++++++++++++++++++

 Last update: 3/20/87

 From: The Space Network, Alpha, and
       The Comm-post

 Compiled by: Robert Brumley



 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Alpha
 PHONE: (303) 367-1935
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Cyro Lord, Robert Galyen,
  Bill McGuire, Mark Felton,
  Robert Brumley
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: Tandy 6000 under Xenix 3.0
  w/ UNaXcess BBS
 COMMENTS: allows read access to
  space and ham related sections of
  the USENEXT network.  Type 'alpha'
  at login.  Only serious users
  accepted, no fake id's.  Also space
  and ham radio discussions within
  site.
 LOCATION: Colorado
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Amsat RBBS
 PHONE: (512) 852-8194
 HOURS: 24 hours/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300 - 7 data bits/even parity
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: RBBS
 COMMENTS: For amateur radio
  operators. Orbital elements for
  amateur satellites/space shuttles.
  Non-radio operators welcome.
 LOCATION: Southern Texas
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Apple Astronomy
 PHONE: (713) 526-5671
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: The Houston Museum of
  Natural History
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: Sections include: space
  novel, physics/scientific, visual
  guide to the sky, what's new in
  space, experimental/cosmology, 
  online astro news.  Many informative
  files in each section.  
 LOCATION: Houston, Texas
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Astronomer's RBBS
 PHONE: (305) 268-8576
 HOURS: 24 hours/day
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Chuck Cole
 SPONSOR: Cole Energy Systems
 SYSTEM: ?, RBBS
 COMMENTS: Large amount of astronomy
  info posted.  Only serious users
  are considered for charged, higher
  access.
 LOCATION: Ft. Lauderdale
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Celestial RCP/M
 PHONE: (512) 892-4180
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200 (8 Data/1 Stop/No 
  Parity)
 SYSOP: TS Kelso
 SPONSOR: None
 SYSTEM: TRS-80 Model 12
 COMMENTS: Caters to all areas of the
  Space Sciences including Astronomy,
  Astrodynamics, Celestial Mechanics,
  and Satellite Tracking.  Carries
  the MOST current NASA Prediction
  Bulletins (orbital elements) for 40+
  satellites along with AMSAT
  Newsletters and message system. Over
  two megabytes of space-related
  software and databases available for
  downloading.  While intended
  primarily for CP/M and MSDOS
  systems, source code is available
  for most programs.
 LOCATION: Austin, Texas
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: The Comm-post
 PHONE: (303) 534-4646
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Brian Bartee
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: Tandy 2000 w/ BBS-PC Ver.4.13
  w/ over 40 mB online.
 COMMENTS: SIGS include Astronomy,
  Tandy 1000, Tandy 2000, TI-Pro.
  Also jokes and open-forum
  discussion.  Astronomy and MS-DOS
  programs available for download.
 COMMENTS: SIGs include Astronomy,
  Tandy 1000/2000, TI-Pro, Critic's
  Corner, Restaurant and Recipes,
  and Open-forem discussion.  Many
  programs, especially MS-DOS.
  Also several space-related programs
  and files.
 LOCATION: Denver, Colorado
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Datalink RBBS
 PHONE: (214) 340-5850
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Jeff Wallach
 SPONSOR: The L-5 Society
 SYSTEM: ? w/ Fido version 14.1
 COMMENTS: specializes in topics
  relating to amateur radio, satellite
  tracking, decoding of telemetry of
  N.O.A.A. weather satellites.  Also
  dedicated to furthering the public's
  understanding and interest in the
  space program.  Supports
  color/graphics, doors, conferences.
 LOCATION: Dallas, TX
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Day's End
 PHONE: (303) 650-5636
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Chris Day
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: Epson Equity I PC w/ 20 meg
  and Fido version 11W
 COMMENTS: Astronomy SIG with many
  astronomy programs and files.  Also
  many other programs and MS-DOS
  utilities.
 LOCATION: Colorado
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Digital Newsletter
 PHONE: (612) 291-0567
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: ? w/ Information Retrieval
  System (I.R.S.) v 10.00.05
 COMMENTS: Supports space and amateur
  radio news.  Space: Soviet space
  news, NASA/USA space news, space
  shuttle audio information. Radio:
  GEARVAKF news, W5YI report, ARLL
  newsletter, packet radio newsletter.
  During space shuttle missions up-to-
  the-day schedules and general info.
 LOCATION: St. Paul, Minnesota
 VERIFIED: ?

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Galaxy Astronet
 PHONE: (707) 437-2352
 HOURS: 24 hours/day
 BAUD: ?
 SYSOP: Donn Gallon
 SPONSOR: Donn Gallon (JPL and IHW)
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: For a trial run, enter 175
  for the user ID and DASBBS for the
  password.
 LOCATION: Eureka, California
 VERIFIED: Down?

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: GAS-NET/ NASA
 PHONE: (301) 344-9156
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: ?
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: Goddard Space Flight Center
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: Primarily for Get Away
  Special (GAS) projects.  Non-GAS
  participants may browse.
 LOCATION: Maryland
 VERIFIED: Down until the shuttle is
  back up.

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: International Halley Watch BBS
 PHONE: (616) 342-4062
 HOURS: 24 hours/day
 BAUD: 300 8 data bits
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: Kalamazoo Astronomy Society
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: IHW amateur observer's
  bulletin and astronomy-related 
  programs posted.  Lists local
  planetarium show times and ticket
  prices. New users run HELP.
 LOCATION: Kalamazoo, Michigan
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: L-5 Galesburg, Il (Magie)
 PHONE: (309) 343-3799
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: Prairieland Computer Club of
  Knox County and the Midwest
  Information Systems of Galesburg,
  Illinois
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: several different SIGs.
  Network access to Telenet, Tymnet,
  C-serve, Genie, many others.
  Various computer SIGs and L-5 info.
 LOCATION: Galesburg, Illinois
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: L-5 Gateway (MYCROFTXXX Fido)
 PHONE: (412) 667-3984
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Jim McHale
 SPONSOR: The L5 Society
 SYSTEM: PC clone w/ Fido version 11W
  and 10 MB hard disk.
 COMMENTS: supports western PA space
  activist organizations. Information
  from the Space Studies Institute,
  the National Space Society and the
  L-5 Society.
 LOCATION: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: L-5 HQ BBS
 PHONE: (602) 622-0383
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: ? w/ FORA
 COMMENTS: Preregistration required.
  Call the HQ office at (602) 622-6351
  for an account.
 LOCATION: Tuscon, Arizona
 VERIFIED: Down?

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: L-5 Kansas City, MO BBS
 PHONE: (913) 788-3224
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: If you have more
  information, please let us know.
 LOCATION: Kansas City, Missouri
 VERIFIED: ?

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: L-5 Minnesota
 PHONE: (612) 920-5566
        (612) 927-9743 (voice)
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Scott Shjeffte/ others
 SPONSOR: L-5 Society
 SYSTEM: ? Leading Edge w/ RBBS-PC
 COMMENTS: color/graphics supported.
  Conferences. Many space bulletins.
  Sub directories: L-5 Minnesota, NASA
  press releases, AP news, ESA &
  Ariane space press releases,
  satellite info, shuttle status
  reports and more.  Files inteneded
  from Genie Spaceport can be sent
  from here.
 LOCATION: Minneapolis, Minnesota
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: L-5 SpaceNET
 PHONE: (408) 262-7177
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Bill Dale
 SPONSOR: California Space Development
  Council and the L-5 Society.
 SYSTEM: RBBS/ Molecular Kulge/ ZCMD
 COMMENTS: Supporting desktop
  publishing for all space and
  astronomy organizations with source
  text in the public domain. Genie
  Spaceport sysop Launch.CTRL runs
  this system.  Files/msgs can be sent
  to Genie Spaceport from here.
 LOCATION: Milpitas, California
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Naval Observatory BBS
 PHONE: (202) 653-1079
 HOURS: ?
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: Requires even parity
  (Format: 7/E/1)
 LOCATION: near Washington D.C.
 VERIFIED: Down for repairs

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: PERMANENT BBS
 PHONE: (703) 527-8464
  (PC Pursuit users use area code 202)
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Mark Prado
 SPONSOR: PERMANENT, Ltd.
 SYSTEM: ? w/ TCOMM ver. 2.1a
 COMMENTS: PERMANENT stands for
  Program to Employ Resources of the
  Moon and Asteroids Near Earth in
  the Near Term.  Much info on 
  employing the resources of the moon
  and asteroids.  The BBS provides
  the following services and
  products on the PERMANENT program:
  an executive summary and specific
  briefs, viewgraph briefings,
  videocassettes, slides, prints, 
  drawings, and flowcharts.  There
  are also bibliographic, people, and
  current research and organizations
  databases.  Also supported are
  computer conferences to discuss the
  PERMANENT program.  This BBS is
  action oriented and is only for
  serious users.
 LOCATION: Arlington, Virginia
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Scooter's Scientific Exchange
 PHONE: (215) 922-2541
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: ?
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: Tandy 1000 PC w/ 384 K ram,
  2 360K disk drives and 20 meg. hard
  drive.  Running COLLIE Bulletin
  Board Software ver. 1.20.
 COMMENTS: Collie Net Node 804/9.
  Designed to serve as a forum for the
  scientific community, incl. General,
  Biology, Chemistry, Medicine, 
  Mathematics, and Physics.  Offers a
  science conference which is
  networked to other boards.  Many
  computer programs that are helpful
  to scientists and researchers.
 LOCATION: ?
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Silent Side
 PHONE: (602) 962-7698
 HOURS: 24 hours/day
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Chris Mitchel
 SPONSOR: KUPD AZ radio station
 SYSTEM: ?
 COMMENTS: Sub-board for the Saguaro
  Astronomical Club, which posts club
  announcements and newsletter
  extracts.
 LOCATION: Arizona
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: The Space Network
 PHONE: (303) 494-8446
 HOURS: 24 hours/day
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Tom Meyer
 SPONSOR: The Mars Institute of the
  Planetary Society, organized by The
  Boulder Center for Science and
  Policy
 SYSTEM: Columbia, 10 MB, TBBS
 COMMENTS: Space exploration and
  development.  Mars missions,
  science, research, education, and
  contest.  Information from the
  Space Studies Institute, National
  Space Society, Mars Underground,
  World Space Foundation, NASA Ames
  Research Center, Jet Propulsion Lab
  International Planetarium Society,
  CALTECH, Mars Institute of the
  Planetary Society.  Also the
  publication list from the American
  Astronautical Society, this BBS list
  and more.
 LOCATION: Colorado
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Space Development Information
  Clearinghouse BBS (formerly NorthCal
  L-5 BBS)
 PHONE: (408) 778-3531
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Chris Winter
 SPONSOR: ?
 SYSTEM: Morrow MD-3 (CP/M w/ Z80-A)
  w/ Winterware BBS ver. 6.10
 COMMENTS: The purpose of SDI
  Clearinghouse is "to distribute
  information pertaining to the human
  exploration and development of
  space -- humanity's next frontier."
  Many space news bulletins.  L5
  society information, Mars
  Underground newsletter, list of
  space interest groups, list of
  periodical publications on space,
  shuttle manifest, aerospace
  database, and much more.
 LOCATION: Morgan Hill, California
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Star Board
 PHONE: (303) 455-3113
 HOURS: 24 hours/day
 BAUD: 300/1200
 SYSOP: Mark Johnson
 SPONSOR: Mark Johnson
 SYSTEM: TRS Model III w/ TBBS
 COMMENTS: Several astronomy related
  boards and publications.
  Astronomy-related computer programs.
  Additional information is posted by
  the Denver Astronomical Society.
 LOCATION: Denver, Colorado
 VERIFIED: Temporarily down

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Starport
 PHONE: (203) 698-0588
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200/2400
 SYSOP: Jim Bolster
 SPONSOR: none
 SYSTEM: IBM PC XT -- 60 megabytes
  PC-Board software
 COMMENTS: All computers welcome.
  Astronomy, Space, Science Fiction,
  ParaNet: UFO's, Ham Radio/Satellite,
  BBS support, Sysops, and Model
  Railroad conferences.  Home of
  ParaNet Theta.
 LOCATION: Old Greenwich, CT
 VERIFIED: Ok

 +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

 BBS: Yokohama Science Center BBS
 PHONE: (045) 832-1177  (in Japan)
 DTE ADDRESS: 440881406100
 HOURS: 24 hrs/ 7 dys
 BAUD: 300/1200  (8/1/0)
 SYSOP: Yoshiro Yamada (?)
 SPONSOR: Yokohama Science Center
 SYSTEM: ??
 COMMENTS: Satellite orbital elements
  list (some 50 satellites) and other
  space/astronomy news.
 LOCATION: Yokohama, Japan
 VERIFIED: ??


 =====================================

 I would like to thank all those who
 have contributed information to this
 list.  

 If you know of any additional boards,
 or have any additional information,
 please let me know.  Address messages
 to:


       Robert Brumley
 
 POST: 4661 S. Vivian St.
       Morrison, CO 80465
       (303) 978-1838

 UUCP: (isis,hao)!scicom!rwb
 
 Thanks.

 =====================================

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #198
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03062; Sun, 19 Apr 87 03:03:12 PDT
	id AA03062; Sun, 19 Apr 87 03:03:12 PDT
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 87 03:03:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704191003.AA03062@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #199

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 19 Apr 87 03:03:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #199

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 199

Today's Topics:
       Impressions of Pittsburgh SDC, Part I: Merger, speakers
		   SOLAR SAILS INFORMATION REQUEST
				Al2O3
			 Re: Livermore's IFR
       Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization?
			    Space Sailing
			  Re: Space Sailing
			     space dates
		Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel
		Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 APR 87 05:07-CDT
From: HIGGINS%FNALB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Impressions of Pittsburgh SDC, Part I: Merger, speakers

As readers of this digest know, Dale Amon and his cohorts in Pittsburgh
put a lot of effort over two years into throwing the 6th Space
Development Conference. They did a terrific job, and the SDC was even
more rewarding than I'd hoped.  I thought you might like a report on
some of the high spots of the conference.

We Chicago space activists have the job of throwing the 8th SDC, in May
of 1989, so we attended Pittsburgh with an eye to what it takes to put
one of these on.  For me the chief value of the SDC was the opportunity
to rub elbows with other people, bigshots and little, who are trying to
stir up pro-space activity in this country.  I soaked up their
experiences in solving problems like the ones we've got in Chicago,
talking about recruiting, mail campaigns, lecture series, socializing,
and of course politics.  For others, learning was more important, and
the mostly excellent programming on the commercial, technical, legal,
military, and even artistic aspects of space development filled that
need.  And the evangelists among us rose up to inspire the flock,
sending the assembled space enthusiasts home full of new conviction that
It Can Be Done and new resolve to work harder for what Dale Amon (a not
inconsiderable evangelist himself) calls "a return to the vision."


THE MERGER-- The merger of the L5 Society with the National Space
Society, which has finally happened (the vote was ~1100 for, 72
against), is a matter of great concern to members of these groups, and
evokes yawns from everybody else.  This was the first SDC of the
combined group, and there was a get-acquainted air to the proceedings.
To the single "National Space Society" L5 contributes its vigorous
chapter structure and a collection of fairly activist members; the old
NSS brings prestige (von Braun in the family tree), closer ties to the
aerospace industry, a quieter membership, and years of experience
operating in Washington.  The L5 headquarters staff are packing up for
the move from Tucson to the new townhouse NSS office in Washington.
Everybody hopes that the new organization, about 15,000 strong, will be
more effective.  But a couple of curmudgeons warn of "Washington
disease": The DC office will be a huge drain on resources, and while
NSS's leaders become fascinated with national politics and lobbying,
such vital activities as research, education, grassroots organizing, and
"keeping the dream alive" may be neglected. We'll see.

GOOD SPEAKERS-- Art Bozlee, one of that rare breed who analyze the
Soviet space program outside of governments, narrating rare video of the
Mir station. The "K-type," Saturn-V-class booster is *really* on the pad
this month, kids.  ("Art," I asked, "who assigns new Sheldon
designations, now that Sheldon's gone?"  "I DO!")  Bob Forward, visonary
physicist-engineer, examining starflight alternatives, and explaining
that "I need you people.  I need you to build me..." (A solar power
satellite & Fresnel zone plate for the Starwisp probe, a 7.2-terawatt
laser for his manned lightsail...)  George Koopman, of American Rocket,
showing us video of his static tests on full-sized hybrid engines, and
recounting dozens of payloads gathering dust, waiting to be shot into
LEO.  Koopman changed my mind on privately-developed launchers; maybe
they really do have a chance to succeed.  Certainly if a few payloads do
go up, money will materialize to back Amroc and its competitors for
further development.  Tom Rogers, External Tanks, Incorporated, giving a
charming and fascinating speech, but somehow avoiding talk about any
technical details.  He thinks he can develop and sell 'em, but he's
gotta get NASA to give him the tanks first, F.O.B. low Earth orbit.


(To be continued)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Mar 87 13:25:33 pst
From: matsumot@ads.arpa (Michael Matsumoto)
Subject: SOLAR SAILS INFORMATION REQUEST

I'd like to receive some pointers into the technical literature, if any,
on solar/light sails.  Outside of an Arthur C. Clarke short story I read
as a kid in Boy's Life, I've not seen much on the subject at all.

Mike Matsumoto

P.S. Does anyone remember the name of the story?

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 24 Mar 87 15:14:59 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Al2O3

(Geoffrey Landis) >>> . . .  If Al2O3 condenses into a solid at 2100C,
>>>then the adiabatic expansion (neglecting supercooling) STOPS at
>>>2100C... [and only a small fraction] of the thermal
>>>(undirected) energy of the gas has been converted into (directed)
>>>kinetic energy....

(Howard A. Landman) >> suppose you mix them?  If you use, say, 90% H2 and
>>10% Al, doesn't most of the heat from the Al2O3 get transferred to the H2O,
>>even when the temp falls below 2400K?
    Yes.  The formula will depend on the ratio of the specific heats.
>>Wouldn't the specific impulse of such a mixture be greater than that
>>of pure H2/O2?
     Probably not by much.  You can't use a whole lot of Al, or when
it condenses it will rob energy out of the H2/O2 reaction.
    Using H2 at all will be a problem for the original idea, which
was to make propellants from stuff available on the moon.  A better
idea (which I thought of a few days after making the previous posting,
but have been too lazy to work through numbers on) would be simply
to run the Al/O2 engine rich on oxygen.  The excess oxygen would
take much of the energy out of the cooling Al2O3 and convert it
into useful form.  Hydrogen or helium, of course, would be better--even
as inert reaction mass--because of its lighter molecular weight.
    If we assume that the Al203 serves only as a energy source,
and the excess O2 serves as the reaction mass, and call the mass fraction
of Al2O3 in the exhaust F; then the energy per unit mass of
propellant is proportional to F and the reaction mass per unit mass of
propellant proportional to (1-F).  If Al2O3 has lower heat
capacity per mass than O2; for a rough estimate assume all the energy
goes to the reaction mass and none is left over in the hot Al2O3.
Then Isp=P/M=SQRT(2*M(reaction)*E)/M=SQRT(2*(1-F)*M*F*M)/M
= SQRT(2*F*(1-F))
The optimum for Isp is found with equal amounts of
energy source and reaction mass.  Since Al2O3 is 29% oxygen
by weight, this means a fuel ratio of 35% Al and 65% O2.
SQR(F*(1-F)=SQR(.25)=.5 --> the optimum engine will be exactly half
the specific impulse of a "perfect" (no condensation) Al2O3 engine.
    This is a very very rough estimate--should be good to within a
factor of two with luck.

>> Is there a patent waiting for us here?
   Or maybe a paper for _Journal of Propulsion_ (or at least _JBIS_)

(Jordan Kare) >
>...these possibilities have been studied....
> practical difficulties of building tripropellant engines (Do you really
>want to build a pump -- or an injector -- that handles a suspension of
>aluminum dust in liquid hydrogen??) generally make the modest increase
>in Isp uneconomical.
     Obviously not a problem if the inert ingredient is more of the
same.  In fact, not a problem if the third ingredient is anything
that can be simply mixed in with one of the other two, such as
adding an inert gas to a H2/O2 engine (which would decrease the specific
impulse but increase the total impulse--useful if you are limited
not by mass but by the amount of H2 available)
    For the specific case under discussion, though, adding the H2 and O2
together is probably not a good idea!

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 24 Mar 87 18:31 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Re: Livermore's IFR

You (Gary Allen) wrote:

  This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will open up the entire
  solar system to exploration and commercial development. The major barrier
  is getting the lasers small, reliable, and efficient. However this is
  **exactly** what they're trying to do with SDI. Through SDI research, the
  military will **accidently** provide the key technology that will make
  the IFR viable.
  
SDI isn't looking at excimer lasers anymore, is it? I thought the efforts
had been diverted to things that might get sufficiently entrenched before
Reagan leaves, like kinetic kill weapons, and that the only optical laser
weapon much money was being spent on was the free electron laser.

  Talk about spin offs: The vehicle once made could be used for ***many***
  missions (and not just to Mars).
  
Here's a nifty spinoff mission: run the engine at lonw thrust while in
lunar orbit or while near an asteroid. A very intense, energetic neutron
flux will hit the asteroid or moon, producing gamma rays by a variety of
nuclear reactions. Detect the gamma rays in a set of directional gamma ray
spectrometers to get high resolution maps of elemental abundances. This
sheme should have far better statistics than the Lunar Prospector, which
depends on neutrons from cosmic rays. Is the martian atmosphere thin enough
for this, I wonder?

  This is exactly the sort of project that could excite the American people
  into backing a major Apollo type program and get us **permanently** into
  space.

It certainly is attractive, both to the layman and to us technophiles. A
real breakout is going to require a cheap way to get into orbit, though.
Maybe the work on laser launch systems can help. That could be an SDI
spinoff.

By the way, I assume when they talk about DT fuel they mean mostly
deuterium, with tritium mixed in at the center to assist ignition.
Tritium's not cheap.

------------------------------

From: warlord@athena.mit.edu
Date: Sun, 29 Mar 87 13:27:14 EST
Subject: Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization?

Subject: Re: Fusion Rockets (IFR) key to space industrialization?

In article <1200@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes:
>In article <8702261258.AA06415@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>[Quotes excerpts from a rather showy article describing an Inertial Fusion
>Drive]

>> This is **it** guys.  This Inertial Fusion Rocket is the idea that will
>> open up the entire solar system to exploration and commercial
>> development.  The major barrier is getting the lasers small, reliable,
>> and efficient.

>	The problem is trying to get ANY kind of fusion reactor to work.

	I showed the postings to a friend of mine here at MIT, a grad
student in nuclear engineering.  I thought the IFR idea sounded like a
good solution, but then I'm only an EE.  My friend looked through the
comments on IFR and was laughing his head off.  He wanted to know if
this was serious!  I assured him that this was SPACE and not SF-Lovers.
Then he went through a quick explanation of ICF (Inertial Confinement
Fusion) and showed me the problems.  He basically said that yes, the
problems was the lasers; no, it won't work because we were talking about
several orders of magnitudes...  Made it sound like the same problem the
Bussard ramjet had with interstellar fusable hydrogen concentrations.
He did agree that funding was a problem for fusion, but he thought most
of the fusion proposals can't break even in the next half-century anyway
(he laughed at MCF, too): "You can build reactors... study the nuclear
reactions and make the military happy...  but generate net power?!  Come
on!"  About the only idea he didn't laugh at was aneutronic...

Edison Wong

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 87 18:28:17 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Space Sailing

Hmmm, a few weeks ago I woke up about 4 AM with the image of a solarsail
probe in LEO (Low Earth Orbit) and I was having a devil of a time trying
to sail the bloody beast out of orbit. After waking up a little it
became obvious that LEO is a hell of a place to be trying to sail a
probe. But even upping the orbit to GEO (Geosynch Earth Orbit) unless
the sail produces enough change in momentum to simply "fly" out of the
ellipse, your going to have to orbit the Earth a few times to acquire
sufficient velocity to change to cruise off. These orbits are going to
require constantly changing angle of attach between sail and the Sun. In
fact, during part of the orbit your going to have to "luff" the sail so
that it produces no momentum change.

So, what I havn't been able to figure out is how do you steer the
critter?  Do you have to carry AUX thrusters or can you do the complete
maneuver with clever positioning of the sail?

[BTW don't know how to sail a boat so its not surprising that I can't
figure out how to sail a space probe. I'm also not responsible for my
dreams, I never have been able to control them.]


					Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 87 01:58:51 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Sailing

> So, what I havn't been able to figure out is how do you steer the
> critter?  Do you have to carry AUX thrusters or can you do the
> complete maneuver with clever positioning of the sail?

You can do it with the sail, pretty much.  To control roll (around the
payload-sail axis), you need a vane or two on the sail that you can
shift.  On the other two axes, you could use vanes, but depending on the
design it may be simpler to shift the payload-sail axis with respect to
the thrust line (which is perpendicular to the sail) by changing lengths
of shroud lines.

As I recall, the World Space Foundation sail project has two vanes for
roll control and uses axis-shifting for pitch and yaw.

Maintaining control while in shadow, or luffed (sail roughly edge-on to
Sun) might involve some problems.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 31 Mar 87 09:07 EST
From: Chris Jones <clj@sapsucker.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: space dates
To: Dave Rickel <pyramid!amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@decwrl.dec.com>,
        Space@angband.s1.gov

    Date: 27 Mar 87 01:58:06 GMT
    From: pyramid!amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@decwrl.dec.com  (Dave Rickel)

Some corrections...
    0/2/27/1967 Gus Grissom, Roger Chaffee, Ed White die in Apollo I fire.
January, not February
    0/5/20/1976 Viking 1, Mars landing.
July, not May
    0/2/24/1986 Voyager 2, first Uranus flyby.
January, not February

------------------------------

Date: 27 Mar 87 19:12:20 GMT
From: mcnc!ece-csc!uvacs!hsd@seismo.css.gov  (Harry S. Delugach)
Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel

In article <889@laidbak.UUCP> gerryg@laidbak.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes:
> We certainly shouldn't clutter up LEO with junk, so
>that it becomes more dangerous than it already is, not to mention how bad
>it is to move warfare off the planet.  I for one am interested in colonizing
>space, and I would much rather it remain peaceful.
>
>Does anybody know if space junk is/will be a problem, just how big is near
>space?

The latest issue of Air and Space Smithsonian has an article about
NORAD's tracking of space junk. It contains a picture of damage to the
Solar Max satellite caused by collision with a paint chip. There is also
some mention of the fact that Shuttle windows have been scratched by
debris, and there is a possibility that a space suit could be punctured
during an EVA.  The article is mostly about NORAD's tracking task, and
how much junk there is.  I found it interesting that NORAD doesn't
actually objserve its thousands of objects simultaneously -- once an
orbit has been determined, its computers keep track of it assuming no
change in orbit. Every so often, an object is spot-checked, just to see
if it's where it's supposed to be.

Harry S. Delugach   University of Virginia, Dept. of Computer Science
                    UUCP: ..!cbosgd!uvacs!hsd  or ..!mcnc!ncsu!uvacs!hsd
                    INTERNET: hsd@uvacs.cs.virginia.edu

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 87 01:41:20 GMT
From: pyramid!necntc!adelie!munsell!infinet!rhorn@decwrl.dec.com  (Rob Horn)
Subject: Re: Space junk, Safety of space travel

In article <310@ka9q.bellcore.com> karn@ka9q.UUCP writes:
>  ...  Space isn't
>THAT full of junk, at least not yet.
 [...]
>with practical antennas.  Once a satellite dies, it disappears from its
>slot as far as the allocation is concerned, although it is of course
>still up there physically.

Basically correct.  The slots are driven by antenna capabilities.  But,
shortly before dying, the last few pounds of the satellite's fuel is
used to boost it into a non-synchronous permanent parking orbit.  When
left without fuel or regular operational control, the satellite will
normally start sweeping back and forth due to the effects of the
non-sphericity of the earth.  The risk of collision is higher than the
extra cost of pushing it a few hundred miles away.

				Rob  Horn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #199
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04231; Mon, 20 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT
	id AA04231; Mon, 20 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704201003.AA04231@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #200

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 20 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #200

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 200

Today's Topics:
		  Re: space sailing (solar sailing)
			   What's Geostar?
		    Kaon Oscillations, Black Holes
	  Ball Lightning? Fusion Experiments and Investments
				 AAS
			    Terra-forming
			    Terra-forming
			       Glossary
	       Observing Low-Earth Satellites Visually
		  Another Russian space achievement
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Apr 87 13:37:54 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: space sailing (solar sailing)
Newsgroups: sci.space

All this solar sailing posting is interesting (I've always like the
idea).  But I wonder how many people would trust a solar sail made by
some one who did not sail?  How much intuition (right word?) is
involved? I note that I just started sailing a year ago to better
understand fluid dynamics (lots of fun, too.) I mean I know there
are noted oceanographers who schooled in Boulder, or chemists who
have never been in a lab (theoretical molecular types, formerly physicists).

Re: those tacky bumper stickers:
Computer people simulate it. (you know what)

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 87 23:48:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: What's Geostar?

What is Geostar?

         --Peter

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 4 Apr 87 14:29 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Kaon Oscillations, Black Holes

I wrote:
	
>>		   perhaps there are contributions from quantum gravity that
>>might cause antimatter to experience a stronger attraction to the earth
>>than normal matter (this will be tested soon at CERN).

Matthew P Wiener replied:

>To date, this has been best tested within the K0-anti-K0 system, which
>undergoes strangeness changing oscillations much like the conjectured
>baryon-number changing oscillations.  I don't have the numbers handy,
>but the limits are stringent.

I don't understand. Why should the neutral kaon system test for baryon
number dependent forces? K0 and K0-bar both have one quark and one
antiquark. I could understand the system testing for a force that couples
to hypercharge (indeed, supposed anomalies in neutral kaon data were one of
the original motiviations for reexamining the Eotvos experiment), but I
understand that's been ruled out in its simplest form by charged kaon decay
experiments.

>The best way to change baryon number is to have a good-sized black hole
>handy, all set to explode.  But given that, you could turn an asteroid
>into fuel for a ship, always keeping the mini black hole at a critical
>mass, constantly radiating energy. 

No, because of the problem of getting mass *into* the hole. If it's light
enough to radiate appreciable power, it will be an impossibly small target
(radius of a black hole is proportional to mass) and the pressure of
outgoing particles will prevent anything from being absorbed anyway.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 87 08:42:10 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Ball Lightning? Fusion Experiments and Investments

In a previous posting <577@prometheus.UUCP> Gerald Dijkhuis's company
Convectron with its variant of ball lightning fusion was discussed, and 
now from Holland there is a news report on the latest developments.  
---------start
Netherland Newspaper article: "Convectron has money for ball lightning"

AMSTERDAM, 28 March -- Convectron N.V. [=Ltd.] has attracted enough money
with its recent stock offering to proceed with the most important parts of
the plan to build a small scale nuclear fusion reactor, so the enterprise
has declared in a press statement.

   In April last year, when the business last made itself heard, it was
stated that the offering, already extended once, had only yielded three
million of the goal of five million guilders.  Dr. [=Master of sci/eng?]
K. W. Wevers of Convectron declared yesterday, when asked, that since then
little has been added, even though the offering is still open.

   The press statement states that the offering has yielded enough "in
spite of vociferous opposition from various sides."  That points mainly to
a scientific report by Professor Braams that tears to shreds the theory
developed by Convectron about nuclear fusion in artificially generated ball
lightning and fire balls.  According to the enterprise "an unambiguous
proof of principle"  of the Convectron concept for controlled nuclear
fusion is now in the near offing.

   The experimental set-up in the Rotterdam Waalhaven [Waal harbor], with
which artificial fire balls were generated in the first project phase, has
now been enhanced with a second complete submarine accumulator battery.  At
the end of December the short-circuiting experiments were resumed with the
new set-up.  In the same month the pressurized gas equipment was delivered
with which the conditions and chemical composition of the fire balls are
brought to the desired values.  Each of the two separate installations
is working now according to the specifications, and Convectron is preparing
for combining them in the decisive experiments of project phase 2.
(ANP)
-----------  ende
-- translated L. Meertens seismo!mcvax!cwi.nl!lambert (Lambert Meertens)

Professor Braams is probably:	C. M. Braams
				FOM-Instituut voor Plasmafysica
				Edisonbaan 14,
				NL-3439 MN Nieuwegein
				Netherlands

Since our patents were written broadly, they cover this technology.  The
physics theory of the two concepts differs and we agree with Prof.  Braams
that Dijkhuis's experiment will not work as described in his technical 
papers.  Still he is way out front, having raised the investment money to 
do some serious work.   We are green with jealousy on that point.

====

>In article <1200@husc2.UUCP> chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) writes:
>>	The problem is trying to get ANY kind of fusion reactor to work.

In article <8703291827.AA14598@TEELA> warlord@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Edison Wong)
writes:
>	I showed the postings to a friend of mine here at MIT, a grad
>student in nuclear engineering.  I thought the IFR idea sounded like
>...comments on IFR ..laughing . ... won't work because we were
>talking about several orders of magnitudes...  . . .

>..but he thought most of the fusion proposals can't break even in the
>next half-century anyway (he laughed at MCF, too): "You can build
>reactors... study the nuclear reactions and make the military happy...
>but generate net power?!  Come on!"  About the only idea
>he didn't laugh at was aneutronic...

From an engineering and biological point of view burning aneutronic fuels
is a big advantage ----  the lack of or huge reduction in damaging neutron
radiation.       B U T ...  such fuels require much more stringent plasma 
parameters to ignite in the first place.  On the other hand, the adiabatic
compression and thermal scaling in the PLASMAK(TM) generator is such that
the fully compressed plasma achieves parameters which are ideal from the 
point of view of very high burn densities ( ==> compact ) and for use as
a sixty hertz electric or propulsion power driver. 

There are only two candidates that may burn aneutronically, without a
"neutronic fusion" booster stage,  namely, Maglich's MIGMA and our
PLASMAK generator.  

The Air Force Review Board has been presented with these concepts, as
well as background on the current state of fusion energy, and is  
currently considering the final report.  There has been objection to the
report by the contingent from Princeton.  (Tight competition for shrinking 
fusion funds, and the danger of a premature announcement of an "outside
technological breakthrough" could bring the budget crashing down to a
fusion liaison function.)  The recommendation will be to move into 
Phase II and broaden the search to include advanced fuels (that would 
include fuels that reduce neutron emission by only 50%, such as deuterium).  
Phase II would get a handle on the development time and costs of a wider 
range of concepts, and then the recommendation to go into Phase III 
would be for funding of one or two low cost but very high pay off 
concepts in order to get some early exploratory results. 

Incidentally, Spheromak work at Princeton will be stopped under the
rule that "start a new machine must toss out an old one".  They have 
to keep burning some money so they must charge ahead with the building 
of a "CIT (Coppi's basic version) Compact Ignition Torus.  BUT.. the 
Spheromak is a tough one to give up, even the fluffy version at Princeton, 
because it can direct the applied pressure to the plasma so very much 
better than a tokamak.  They are attempting to quickly do conversions 
in order to do a compression and check its scaling, then show the DoE 
that they may be throwing away a "super" winner.  The University of 
Maryland is cranking up its second generation Spheromak.    

| Paul M. Koloc

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 9 Apr 87 17:01 EST
From: KGEISEL%cgi.com@relay.cs.net
Subject:  AAS


Does anyone know how I can reach the American Astronautical Society?
I seem to have misplaced everything with their address or phone number
on it!  Better yet, do any net readers have anything to do with the AAS?

I ordered proceedings from the October conference and haven't seen them
yet.  I dare say they are overdue.  I have heard of some proceedings taking
a long time to prepare, but this is ridiculous.  Anyone have any insight?

- KGEISEL%cgi.com@relay.cs.net

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 87 01:11:10 GMT
From: ihnp4!laidbak!gerryg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Gerry Gleason)
Subject: Terra-forming

In article <8704071302.AA10182@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>Earth-like worlds would be nice, but are "pie in the sky", not worth
>worrying about. Plenty of ugly horrible worlds we can make nice, and
>lots&lots of empty space with just debris and energy we can harness.

Come to think of it, wasn't the earth ugly and horrible before life
evolved.  We have just begun to realize that our actions can effect
climate, etc. over the long term, although most of the effects seem to
have been negative so far.  Anyone care to speculate about how to
convert Mars or Venus into planets that can support life?

gerry gleason

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 23:54:33 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Terra-forming
Newsgroups: sci.space

Gerry G. asks about Terraforming Mars and Venus.

There are several sci-fi stories including most recently the film Aliens
which talk or show a little it about it.  Carl Sagan also notes it in
his Cosmos TV series.

Terraforming Mars would be considerably easier than Venus, but I will
address both.  Basically, you want to make either planet more earth-like
(hence the Terra).  So where do you begin?  First, you need a more Earth
like atmosphere (roughly 78% N2, and 20% O2, and other gases), but this
is harder to achieve on a smaller planet (less gravity) like Mars than
say Venus.  Jon Leech at Caltech might give a description of the
planetary atmospheres class he took.  The composition only has to be
close so you can breath it, but you also need adequate partial pressures
as any people who have been above 8,000 feet could tell you.  An
atmosphere must do things like shield you from radiation (UV, strong IR,
and other particles from solar wind, etc.).  It also keeps longer wave
radiations (IR) in.  Note there are different theories about how
atmoaspheres came to be (straight condensation) to volcanos, etc.  Mars
has a good portion of CO2, but very low partial pressures.  Venus has
the problem that we don't have good samples of the atmosphere and you
would have to get rid of the H2SO4 which is detectable.  As well as the
excess heat.  (I posted a little something about this in sci.astro:
energy balance models of atmospheres.)

On the more long term, you will need water.  I like the way Sagan points
out that a lot of Terraforming can be done with plants (like green)
rather than the mechanical contraption in that popular summer movie.
You have to use plant succession first starting with lichens, and move
upwards, and you should be patient (after all the Earth was not formed
in a day 8-).  You should realize you have to keep the water in a liquid
form.  There is more to Terraforming than this.  There are other
problems, these are exercises left to the reader.

There is also a longer-term problem with Mars.  Sagan and other
planetary people point this out.  We have samples from two data points
on Mars.  Life there is still inconclusive.  Much of the planetary
community points out that if there is life on Mars, even if it is only
small microbes.  Those life forms should be allowed to exist
undisturbed.  The crust of Mars is not some mineral rich planet which
you will just go to excavate.  It's a lot like the desert surface of the
earth consisting of lots of Feldspar and SiO2.  Let's not make some of
the mistakes in space that we made on earth for us and our children's
children's children.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 87 15:46:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: Glossary


  We need a glossary for this newsgroup. 
  What is 'nanotechnology'?  

                             --Peter

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 87 01:44:25 GMT
From: turtlevax!weitek!wallis@decwrl.dec.com  (Bob Wallis)
Subject: Observing Low-Earth Satellites Visually


With the arrival of spring, the best time (in the northern hemisphere) for
observing low earth satellites visually is approaching. I have a few questions
for any satellite observers out there:

(1) Has anyone attempted to compile a catalog of the NORAD #s for the
most visually "interesting" satellites (i.e. bright, tumbling,
disintegrating, etc.)?

    I recall seeing a posting from Don Barry (sp?) of GIT about such an
    undertaking a while back, but haven't seen anything since then. 

(2) Does anyone know of an on-line source for NORAD orbital elements? 

    There is a BBS in Austin Texas (512-892-4180) run by T.S. Kelso
    which maintains a large number, but most are of interest only to
    ham-radio enthusiasts, and not very exciting to watch visually
    (except for the Russian space stations, and the Japanese
    mirrorball). I've heard rumors that NASA intends to put its
    prediction bulletins on a BBS eventually.

    Even though the chances of success are minuscule, I'd love to catch
    a satellite re-entering. The only hope would be with predictions
    derived from a list of fairly current elements for big objects with
    high decay rates.

(3) What sorts of public domain tracking software is available? 

    I downloaded a copy of NORAD's very accurate SGP4 (Simplified
    General Perturbations) program from the aforementioned BBS is Texas
    and converted it to C. It works very well.  However, I have a
    problem selecting favorable orbital passes in which the satellite is
    in sunshine and the observer is in in darkness (the obvious brute
    force approach is too slow). I'd be interested in hearing from
    anyone who has an efficient method for doing this. The scheme I use
    is very fast, but not very reliable, since it sometimes permits
    favorable passes to escape detection.  The final result of my
    tracking software is a "finder chart" on a graphics display with the
    predicted trajectory across a start chart plotted from the Yale
    catalog.  When everything works properly, it is quite satisfying to
    watch the satellite appear and eclipse exactly as predicted.

Bob Wallis

UUCP {turtlevax,pyramid,cae780,apple}!weitek!wallis

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 02 Apr 87 15:33:27 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Another Russian space achievement

Here is an interesting bit of trivia for the group's amazement.  What do
the following satellites of the Russian Cosmos series have in common:
156, 209, 367, 402, 469, 516, 626, 651, 654, 723, 724, 785, 860, 861,
952, 954, 1176, 1249, 1266, 1299, 1365, 1372, 1402, 1412, 1579, 1607,
1670, 1714, 1736, 1771?  Here's a clue:  A satellite from this group,
Cosmos 1402 decayed from low Earth orbit and scatterd radioactive
material in a remote spot in Canada.  Two other satellites from this
group (Cosmos 954, and 1714) also reentered.  The astonishing answer to
this question is:  All of these satellites have a nuclear reactor on
board with 49 kilograms of transuranic fuel plus assorted highly
radioactive fission products.  This comes to a total of 2917 lbs of
glow-in-the-dark radioactive waste that is currently flying over head
in spacecraft that are mostly defunct and uncontrolled.  The Russians
are currently launching new nuclear reactors into orbit at a rate of
two per year.
                           Gary Allen

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #200
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05974; Tue, 21 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT
	id AA05974; Tue, 21 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704211003.AA05974@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #201

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 03:03:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #201

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 201

Today's Topics:
		Re: Another Russian space achievement
	    Big problems with Soviet Space Station docking
		     re: Troubles with MIR/KVANT
     Re: Soviet module dock to Mir & Russian Reuseable Spacecraft
      Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts)
		      Soviet EVA saves Mir/Kvant
		   Re: superconductor applications
		      Re: The Cold Rush of 1987
		      Re: The Cold Rush of 1987
		       Superconductors in space
Another (and better) impossibility proof against Sky Hooks (space elevators)
	       Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations
		  Re: Emergency evacuation of planet
		  Re: Emergency evacuation of planet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 87 14:48:13 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Re: Another Russian space achievement

The spacecraft described in the previous article do contain fission
reactors, but they are contructed in an unusual manner.  The reactor is
in a separate container on the top of the satellite, with a small solid
rocket motor attached under it.  When the satellite's orbit decays, the
solid fires, boosting the reactor up to a safe high orbit.  This
mechanism obviously failed on the satellite that reentered over Canada.
The Soviets never intended the reactors to reenter the atmosphere.

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 10 Apr 87 07:35:09 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Big problems with Soviet Space Station docking

     The Soviets have big problems on their space station.  The 20 Tonne
Kvant module has docked with Mir, but the docking was very bad (there
were some indications of that yesterday).  The rear docking port, where
they are connected, cannot be pressurized.  The umbilical connections
between the two systems are also not connected.  You can tell it is bad
when they use the phrase "the situation is complex" - a key phrase for
problems in all Russian press releases.  They say that the engineers are
studying the problem.
    Now they have two 20 Tonne systems which are not correctly
connected.  Have they damaged the rear port - that could cause major
problems with Mir.  At least they have remained open in their statements
- the report of the problems was less than 12 hours after the initial
docking statement.
    I was wrong yesterday.  This may become a major set back for the
Russian program.

                                        Glenn Chapman
                                        MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 87 15:42:06 GMT
From: monstr.dec.com!hughes@decwrl.dec.com  (Dyslexics have more fnu!)
Subject: re: Troubles with MIR/KVANT

Regarding Glenn Chapman's observations on Mir & KVANT, some British
magasines I was reading last night showed the module docked at the rear
port (diagrams) like the previous Star modules which made me wonder a
little. I had assumed it would be using the multiple docking adaptor (to
steal a phrase). The module apparently has solar panels which may be a
workaround to the battery limitations.

Soyuz docking systems are not androgynous, i.e. there is a polarity to
the ports, as there was with Apollo. An androgynous docking system was
developed for ASTP but neither side adopted it after the ASTP flight.
Since the rear port of the Mir will accept a Soyuz, the KVANT module
must have the Soyuz side of the docking mechanism so I doubt a Soyuz
could dock with the front of KVANT. If there is a rear port accessible
(unclear, but the article implies that there is one but it is occupied
by the return module) the Soyuz TM-2 or a Progress could dock with it
and the assembled KVANT/Progress or KVANT/Soyuz TM could possibly dock
under control of the Progress or Soyuz TM guidance. The new Kurs
guidance system may be capable of being reprogrammed to deal with this.
Maybe they would have to abandon the return module of KVANT to do this.
Their demonstrated rapid launch capability gives them a few options.

It is interesting that they are so open instead of the old 'is glorious
success, meeting all test objectives' approach. They must be fairly
confident of getting something to work. I suspect the pressure is on to
make it work given the amount of instrumentation from other countries on
board KVANT. Plus, NASA have shown that the ability to recover from this
sort of failure is good PR and it would demonstrate that the Soviets are
getting closer to routine operations in space.

Gary Hughes

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 87 18:32:27 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: Soviet module dock to Mir & Russian Reuseable Spacecraft

Glenn Chapman writes:
....... much deleted .......
> The Soviets take their space problems in stride and work to overcome them 
> as quickly as possible. This country should be doing the same thing with 
> its program.  Otherwise we will be left behind.
                             ^^^^
			     !!!!
A "space station" in orbit for, what?, years?  Frequent, successful manned
launches.  A re-usable vehicle program, apparently well under-way.

Will ??  Perhaps ARE is more accurate.

John M. Pantone
jnp@calmasd.GE.COM

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 87 06:21:45 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!lasibley@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: USSR adds addition to Mir space station (budget cuts)

In article <2185@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes:
> Sure, I'll write my congresscritters. But my real hope for getting
> into space in this lifetime is with organizations like the Space
> Studies Institute and the university consortium which wants to make
> shuttle external tanks into a el cheapo space station, not with the
> gold-plated, ill-supported, and ill-defined NASA Space Station (one
> plan has full operating capability at 1998 now... and, I have little
> doubt, it's slipping).

     This is great for you Americans, but what about we Canadians who
     support your space program? We have, as you are no doubt aware, a
     *pitiful* space program.

     Now, before my fellow Canadians flame me to death, face the facts.
     We have had one man in space (Marc Garneau) and we have a few
     satellites, thanks to organisations such as Telesat, and probably
     Bell Canada and Environment Canada as well.

     What can we do to help?

     Lance A. Sibley

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Apr 87 07:22:13 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet EVA saves Mir/Kvant

     The USSR today (Saturday) ran an EVA that saved the Mir/Kvant
complex (see previous postings for details of the problems).  The 20
Tonne Kvant addition to Mir had docked on Thursday, but immediately they
had difficulties - the docking port would not take air and the
electrical systems would not interconnect.  Starting 7:00 pm EDT the two
cosmonauts ran a 3.5 hour EVA to try and repair this.  In this space
walk they had ground control move the Kvant module back several
centimeters so that it was suspended on some hooks.  The cosmonauts
found a "plastic alien object" stuck in the docking port, removed it,
then with the EVA still on they observed the docking.  The mechanical
and electrical connections were correctly made this time.  By the way
this EVA was given hourly updates on the shortwave in the spirit of
glasnost.  In one interesting coincidence this EVA was run on Apr 12th
in Moscow, the 26th anniversary of Yuri Gagarin's space flight.

    The Russians fell, but they recovered in a few days.  I wish we
would do the same with the shuttle.

                              Glenn Chapman
                              MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 31 Mar 87 17:37 EST
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: superconductor applications

Superconductors might also make a lunar mass-driver shorter and/or
cheaper.  Most of the materials in these new ones are (I believe) found
on the moon.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Mar 87 16:56:59 GMT
From: dayton!rosevax!carole@rutgers.edu  (Carole Ashmore)
Subject: Re: The Cold Rush of 1987

240K!  -27F!  My God, man, I'm from Minnesota; and around here that IS
room temperature.  Well, almost.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 87 05:52:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: The Cold Rush of 1987

That's a superconductor in "ambient space", like Low Earth Orbit behind
a sun screen!

        -- Ken Jenks

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 08 Apr 87 19:20:22 SA
From: Tero Siili <FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Superconductors in space


The real reason, why it would be EASIER to use usuperconducting materials
and components in space is that vacuum is the best thermal insulator
existing. If you surround a superconducting cable with a coating with
high emissivity(Al, for instance) and perhaps with two layers, the
need for heat removal is much smaller than in Earth conditions, where you
may have to worry about conductive heat transfer much more. Sun can
really be isolated thermally with reflective coating.

TS.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 01 Apr 87 11:49:58 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Another (and better) impossibility proof against Sky Hooks (space elevators)

I've been watching the debate on sky hooks (space elevators) with some
dismay.  This is a concept that was proven impossible about 20 or 30
years ago.  Proving the impossibility of a sky hook of uniform area, in
a uniform gravitational field is a standard homework problem for a first
year graduate structure's course.  Dave Chassin has already proven
impossibility of sky hooks with an exponential area function in a
uniform gravitational field in his posting of Vol. 7, No. 178.  I will
now prove impossibility for a sky hook in a 1/r**2 gravity field with an
area function of r**2.  It so happens that this area function is
analytic which is why I selected it.  If someone can **prove** what the
optimal area function is then I'd be glad to see it, and will perform
the numerical calculation for it as well.

----------------------------------------------------------------------
      Skyhook Impossibility Proof for the r**2 Area Function
----------------------------------------------------------------------

let the area function be:  A=As(Y/Ys)**2                   equ(1)

Where Y is the altitude, A is the sky hook cross section area at
altitude Y, "As" is the cross section area at geosynchronous altitude,
and Ys is the geosynchronous altitude.

The ODE to be solved is:

  dF/dY = rh*mu*A/((R+Y)**2)                                equ(2)

Where F is the force at altitude Y, rh is the density of the sky hook's
material, mu is the gravitational parameter, R is the radius of the
Earth

Integrate equ(2) from Y=0 to Y=Ys and nondimensionalize the solution.
The result is:

     K = ((1+x)/x)-((2/(x-1))*ln(x))                         equ(3)

Where the nondimensional parameter x is the ratio of the geosynchronous
radius divided by the Earth radius:
                               x=(Ys+R)/R                    equ(4)

The nondimensional parameter K shall be called the "skyhook number".  It
is defined as:
                               K=Ys*F/(rh*mu*As)

This skyhook number must have a value greater than or equal to the value
defined in equ(3), otherwise the structure will fail.  The value for
x is easily calculated and is x=6.6 .  The limiting value for K is found
by pluging x=6.6 into equ(3) giving K=0.47756 .  We now calculate
skyhook numbers for different materials:

                  Steel:  K = 7.98E-4
                  Kevlar: K = 8.66E-3

We observe that steel's skyhook number is three orders of magnitude
smaller than the minimum allowed.  Kevlar is two orders of magnitude
smaller.  Materials based on "whiskers" which are based on materials
like silicon carbide and other diamond hard substances have skyhook
numbers only slightly higher than Kevlar.  We may treat 1E-2
optimisticly as the skyhook number upper bound.  Noises about
"nanotechnologies", "atomic bond materials", and similar twattle should
be restricted to the SF-LOVERS newsgroup.  There is no material in
existance today or likely to come into existance that has a skyhook
number of greater than K=0.47756.
                                     Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 87 18:19:19 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!psu-cs!omepd!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Howard A. Landman)
Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations

In article <1020@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes:
>As some of you might know I recently posted an article about the
>absolute limit on the length of a cable. That was, for a non-varying
>cross section, 2.7 miles. Here is the solution for the perfect cable
>(one that only supports what is necessary): [derivation deleted]

>	A(x) = W/Ft.e**(r.x/Ft)		plug in the values of
>					steel Ft=50000, r=.29

Steel?  Excuse me while I barf!  The important quality for such a cable
is the ratio of tensile strength to density.  Steel is just too heavy;
this has been well known for decades; ever notice how people build
airplanes out of titanium and so forth?  For a somewhat realistic
substance that we may be able to make in the near future, try
monofilament diamond fiber.  No, that's too exotic.  How about graphite
whiskers, which we already make?

	Substance	Density		Ultimate Strength
	---------	-------		-----------------
	Steel		  7.8		225,000 - 600,000
	Graphite wh.	1.7-2.23	    3,000,000

The strength to weight ratio of graphite is 17 to 61 times better than
steel, depending on which numbers you choose above.  Let's assume 40
times.  That reduces your area by, let's see, 40 * e**40, I think?  Is
that practical yet?

Copyright (c) 1987 Howard A. Landman.  Transmission of this material
constitutes permission from the intermediary to all recipients to freely
retransmit the material within USENET.  All other rights reserved.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Apr 87 01:47:25 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@locus.ucla.edu  (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet

In article <1240@kolvi.UUCP> jku@kolvi.UUCP (Juha Kuusama) writes:
>I admit knowing about nothing about spaceship building, but I do know
>something about humans!

>My bet is that even if we assume cooperation between nations, the
>answer is either zero or all, and that means zero. Humans are
>infinitely jealous.  The rescued group is obviously limited. No project
>as big as that can be completed in arised social situation.

I think that the first step in a project to evacuate the earth would have
to be to kill enough people to get the population down enough so that
everyone remaining can leave.  Then there wouldn't be a problem of
jealousy over who gets to go and who has to stay.

This raises interesting moral questions.

Tim Smith

------------------------------

Date:  1 Apr 1987 16:44-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet

I expect all of the soviet leadership and politically pure science and
engineering personnel would escape on an series of Orion rockets. They
could certainly be built in a year.

No one from America would make it because they'd never get the
environmental impact statement done in time. And even if they did, it
would take years to legislate the appropriate affirmative action quotas
for the ships.

If everyone actually did cooperate, even the ones who weren't going,
probably several millions could be lifted off in one year. AN Orion is
DAMN EASY to build: just a lot of steel and a bunch of mini nukes. It's
not high tech, it's brute force. Each ship can raise about 10KT(?) to
escape velocity.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #201
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07898; Wed, 22 Apr 87 03:02:48 PDT
	id AA07898; Wed, 22 Apr 87 03:02:48 PDT
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 87 03:02:48 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704221002.AA07898@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #202

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 22 Apr 87 03:02:48 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #202

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 202

Today's Topics:
	       Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations
Re: Another (and better) impossibility proof against Sky Hooks (space
		   Tethered Satellite contract let
		  Re: Emergency evacuation of planet
			   Orion reference
		  Re: Emergency evacuation of planet
		  Re: Emergency evacuation of planet
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 87 04:31:18 GMT
From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu  (Doug Miller)
Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations

In article <1020@rpics.RPI.EDU> chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes:
  
[...*excellent* articles on math of long cables, though he did use those pesky
     English units :-) ...]

In article <544@cpocd2.UUCP>, howard@cpocd2.UUCP (Howard A. Landman) writes:
> Steel?  Excuse me while I barf!  The important quality for such a cable
[...explains that steel is bad, other things are better (I wouldn't know,
personally)...]
> No, that's too exotic.  How about graphite whiskers, which we already make?
> 
> 	Substance	Density		Ultimate Strength
> 	---------	-------		-----------------
> 	Steel		  7.8		225,000 - 600,000
> 	Graphite wh.	1.7-2.23	    3,000,000
  
I'm guessing that the units you are using here are gm/cc for density and
tensile strength in psi.  Seems about right, though I don't understand
where you got that "Ultimate Strength" for steel. 

> The strength to weight ratio of graphite is 17 to 61 times better than steel,
> depending on which numbers you choose above.  Let's assume 40 times.  That
> reduces your area by, let's see, 40 * e**40, I think?  Is that practical yet?

  Curiously, no it isn't.  Let's do the math.  I'll assume everybody got
  Dave's article in which he derives the equations I am going to use.  I
  looked at it myself quite closely, and I, for one, am convinced.

  A = area, T = tensile strength, r = density, g = 9.8 m/s^2, and
  geosynchronous orbit is x = 5.76E+7 meters (I got this from Dave's
  article, is it right?)  I'll assume a one kilogram weight (ridiculously
  small) at the end of the cable.  W = 1 Kg * (9.8 m/s^2).
  From Dave Chassin's article,

       W
  A = --- exp( r g x / T )
       T

Convert T = 3,000,000 psi to ~2.0E+10 N/m^2, and r = 1700 Kg/m^3

Now we just plug and chug:

A = 4.9E-10 exp(1.7E+3*9.8*5.76E+7 / 2.0E+10)

and blammo....

A = 4.9E-10 * 6.88E+20 m^2, hence  A = 3.37E+11 m^2

That's about 3 x 10^5 Km^2, giving us a diameter of 656 Km, or just
under 400 miles.  You tell me whether or not this is practical.

The mass of this object is not trivial either, though the integral to find it
is (hope I did it right, someone is sure to point it out if I didn't. :-)

A = A0 exp( a x ), where A0 = W/T = 4.9E-10 m^2, and a = r*g/T = 8.33E-7 m^(-1).

                 /\
                 |
Then integrating | r A dx = S[0,5.8E+7] (r*A0*exp(a*x)) (from 0 to 
                 |                       x = geosynchronous orbit)
                \/                       S = pitiful integral sign

we get a mass of about 6.9*10^20 Kg, which can comfortably be described
as "hefty".  A sphere of equal mass composed of graphite whiskers would
be 550 miles across.  Truly, an engineering exercise of astronomical
proportions.  We are talking about a doohickey 100,000 *times* more
massive than a cube with each face as high as Mt. Everest.  While I'd
never dream of stepping down from the ivory tower of theory to the 
grubby world of practical considerations, I do think we've got a ways to
go before building this sort of thing becomes commonplace.

Doug Miller

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 87 11:16:09 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Another (and better) impossibility proof against Sky Hooks (space

In article <8704010951.AA26673@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> elevators)
> 
> I've been watching the debate on sky hooks (space elevators) with some
> dismay.  This is a concept that was proven impossible about 20 or 30
> years ago.

Have you a reference?

> ....   I will
> now prove impossibility for a sky hook in a 1/r**2 gravity field with an
> area function of r**2. 
>  ...
> let the area function be:  A=As(Y/Ys)**2                   equ(1)

This IS the wrong function...  why?  Because a good design uses the proper
amount of material for the job - so area (by design) should be proportional
to force.

> The ODE to be solved is:
> 
>   dF/dY = rh*mu*A/((R+Y)**2)                                equ(2)

  No it isn't.  The earth turns, and that's why there IS such a thing as
geosyncronous altitude.  You have to add a centrifugal acceleration
term.  You get an equation of the form

    dF/dY = (rh*F/tensile.strength)*( mu/(R+Y)**2 - omega**2 *(R+Y))
                                                      amended equ(2)

omega is Earth's rotation speed in radians per second.

Multiply both sides by dY/F and integrate to geosync, and you get

 F.geo  = F.surface * exp( (rh/tensile strength) * (
        mu/Rs + 0.5*(omega*Rs)**2 - 1.5*(mu*omega)**(2/3) ) )
						      new equ(3)
Again, by design, the area is proportional to the force, so we can plug
in Earth numbers and get:

 Area.geo = Area.surface * exp( (rh* 9.8m/s2 * 4930Km /tensile.strength) )
						      new equ(4)

defining support length as 

Ls == tensile.strength / ( density * 9.8 m/s2 )       new equ(5)

we get

 Area.geo = Area.surface * exp( 4930Km / Ls )         new equ(6)

Support length for Kevlar 49 is about 190 kilometers.
(p.s. it's 3 am.  please check my math!)

----
There is no "impossibility", though for materials that are now
commercially available there is "impracticality" .  Better materials are
being worked on in the labs.  I suspect Ls=1000 Km is likely to appear
before the end of the century, which would result in a taper ratio of 140.

As has already been mentioned, there are better structures than passive
skyhooks. Such beasties could be built with presently available
materials, but the simple skyhook still makes an interesting and
revealing thought experiment.

> Noises about "nanotechnologies",
> "atomic bond materials", and similar twattle should be restricted
> to the SF-LOVERS newsgroup.  There is no material in existance today
> or likely to come into existance that has a skyhook number of greater
> than K=0.47756 .
>                                      Gary Allen

Be careful about using the label "twattle" in the presence of other
technical folk; some may be offended and demonstrate where the term
really belongs, with damaged reputations resulting.

Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 2 Apr 87 10:31:04 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Tethered Satellite contract let

For those interested in space elevators: the press release just went
out for the granting of the Tethered Satellite (A first step).
The grant was given to a mixed team headed by Banks at Stanford.

--eugene

------------------------------

Date:  2 Apr 1987 13:58-EST 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: scubed!sdcsvax!calmasd.GE.COM!jnp@seismo.css.gov (John Pantone)
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet

Imagine a giant (>100m or maybe it was 500m?) spherical iron chamber
with a hole in one end and a thick push plate on the other, with tons
and tons of payload beyond it.  Drop small nukes into the chamber at
rapid intervals and time the to explode at the center of the chamber. A
few Kt each. I'm sure Gary or Paul would have the exact sizes and
yields handy. I don't have any papers on them because I was only about
9 or 10 when it was being talked about seriously.

The only good rendering I ever saw was a color two page spread in Life
magazine circa 1959-60.  (Same picture showed an artists conception of
a solar sail also, but that was pretty far off base)

Small scale non nuclear tests of the Orion concept were done in the
late fifties out in the desert. Just a few explosions, but it works. So
I was told by someone who was there. And it goes like a bat out of
hell.

The project was killed by Kennedy because it was being done by the USAF
at a time that JFK wanted to put a civilian face on space to counter
balance his massive missile buildup. The build up was necessary because
he had run for office on a phony missile gap, and had to do something.
I think the soviets actually had about 0 ICBM's, but even given their
secrecy, JFK knew they didn't have more than a hand full.

Nonetheless, the choice was made for a massive deterence philosophy
with arms control as an adjunct to answer soviet propaganda. The
combination of the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty and the banning of
weapons of mass destruction in space made orion untenable although not
quite illegal. I seem to remember that the Soviets made sure that the
use of nuclear explosions for geophysical and contruction purposes
remained legal. And the charges used for an Orion are not necessarily
legally weapons of mass destruction and more than any rocket. But I'd
hate to try to convince the media of that...

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 02 Apr 87 16:03:06 EST
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Orion reference

bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa>
>I saw your posting about Orion. I am interested in this, as it is the
>ONLY existing technology that has any chance of getting us somewhere in
>space in the near future. It is also the only technology that we have
>for getting a lot of stuff up into low earth orbit quickly, although I
>would only use it in an emergency, for obvious reasons.  What issue of
>Physics Today was Dyson's article in?

   Freeman Dyson, "Interstellar Transport", Physics Today, Oct., 1968.

This is also, of course, the title starship of the book "The Starship
and the Canoe" by Kenneth Brower (which is a book about George and
Freeman Dyson, not a technical book); and is featured in "The Curve of
Binding Energy" by John McPhee (which is a book about Ted Taylor, who
wrote the article about bombs just refered to.)
     The Dyson article gives a few further technical references.  There
are not very many, unfortunately.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 87 05:23:50 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet

In article <544388303.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Imagine a giant (>100m or maybe it was 500m?) spherical iron chamber
>with a hole in one end and a thick push plate on the other, with tons
>and tons of payload beyond it.  Drop small nukes into the chamber at
>rapid intervals and time the to explode at the center of the chamber. A
>few Kt each....

	Assuming this is supposed to be a description of the Orion
spacecraft, it is partly correct.  The pusher plate would be
flat to hemispherical; there is no "spherical chamber" as such
(although building a steel sphere to contain a small atomic explosion
is perfectly feasible; that's one of the problems with verifying
a nuclear test ban...)

>The only good rendering I ever saw was a color two page spread in Life
>magazine circa 1959-60.  (Same picture showed an artists conception of
>a solar sail also, but that was pretty far off base)

That's rather remarkable, since the project was classified until 1964....
But I guess if Aviation Leak can do it, why not Life?

>Small scale non nuclear tests of the Orion concept were done in the
>late fifties out in the desert. Just a few explosions, but it works. So
>I was told by someone who was there. And it goes like a bat out of
>hell.

>The project was killed by Kennedy because it was being done by the USAF
>at a time that JFK wanted to put a civilian face on space to counter
>balance his massive missile buildup. The build up was necessary because
>he had run for office on a phony missile gap, and had to do something.
>I think the soviets actually had about 0 ICBM's, but even given their
>secrecy, JFK knew they didn't have more than a hand full.

>Nonetheless, the choice was made for a massive deterence philosophy
>with arms control as an adjunct to answer soviet propaganda.

Whatever one may think of Kennedy's politics, it is unlikely that he
personally killed Orion.  Freeman Dyson has discussed the demise of
Orion in print several times.  By coincidence, I just yesterday came
upon his first such discussion, in Science, 9 July 1965, V149 #3680
p.141, titled "Death of a Project".  [By an even better coincidence, I
found this article while looking up an article by Luis Alvarez on the
true probabilities of unlikely "psychic" coincidences, like thinking of
an old friend just before hearing from him -- or thinking of an old
project just before finding an article about it :-) :-)] The article is
too complex to summarize here, but basically he attributes the failure
of Orion to its failure to find a constituency: it didn't fit into the
plans/budget/mission of any powerful individual or group, so it was
dropped.

>combination of the Atmospheric Test Ban Treaty and the banning of
>weapons of mass destruction in space made orion untenable although not
>quite illegal.

>I seem to remember that the Soviets made sure that the use of nuclear
>explosions for geophysical and contruction purposes remained legal. And
>the charges used for an Orion are not necessarily legally weapons of
>mass destruction and more than any rocket. But I'd hate to try to
>convince the media of that...

Actually, under the terms of the treaties involved both testing and
flying an Orion spacecraft would almost certainly be strictly illegal.
Not weapons of mass destruction?  I'd hate to try to convince the
Russians of that....

Treaties would naturally be irrelevant if we really _needed_ an Orion...

Incidentally, Dyson has long since noted that, given that the fallout
from an Orion (even an Orion starting in Earth orbit) would cause some
small number of cancer deaths, it is perhaps just as well the project
was cancelled.  Alas...

For the curious, Poul Anderson's book "Orion Shall Rise" involves a
well-described Orion spacecraft, as does "Footfall" by Niven and
Pournelle.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Mar 87 02:10:46 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Emergency evacuation of planet

>      Given a catastrophic need, how many space ships could be built
> and how many people could be evacuated from earth within the next
> year? ...

While you're at it, to grasp what we have lost, make the same evaluation
for twenty years ago, when such a project could use the Saturn V.  My
first guess is that the correct answer for today is "none" and for
twenty years ago is "maybe a handful".

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #202
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13378; Thu, 23 Apr 87 03:03:06 PDT
	id AA13378; Thu, 23 Apr 87 03:03:06 PDT
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 87 03:03:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704231003.AA13378@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #203

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 23 Apr 87 03:03:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #203

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 203

Today's Topics:
     Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!)
	     The new superconductors and launching loops
   Re: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!)
	   Re: The new superconductors and launching loops
   Re: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!)
     Space elevators (synchronous skyhooks), Final (?) equations
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 87 17:53:58 GMT
From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu  (Doug Miller)
Subject: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!)


                  SPACE CABLE PROBLEM, PART II: 
      In Which I Eat Humble Pie, (But At Least I Cooked It Myself)

Looks like I was a shade premature with my last posting.  I was working
under the assumption that gravitational attraction = constant, but for
the space cable, that doesn't seem appropriate.  What follows is a
derivation with the inverse square law for gravity thrown in, and the
results are surprising, to say the least.  In fact, I'm not sure I
believe them. Many thanks to Dave Chassin for pointing out some of my
more bone-headed errors during our private correspondence, and to my
girlfriend Debbie Callahan (Hi, Debbie!), who also caught some of my
errors.

A = minimum area, T = tensile strength, F = force on the cable, rho = density
G M = grav const * earth mass = 4 *10^14 Newton-meters^2-Kg

From the physics of the problem we get:

                                     rho G M A(r) dr
A = F/T, and F = S[0,geosynch orbit] ---------------- 
                 ^                          r^2
		 |
	   integral sign

differentiating both sides of both equations, 

dA/dr = (1/T) dF/dr, and dF/dr = rho G M A(r) / r^2

    d A(r)   w A(r)
So, ----- = --------, where w = rho G M / T, for steel w = 9.83E+9 meters
    d r       r^2               (rho = 8400 Kg/m^3 and T = 3.43E+8 N/m^2).

The solution is  A(r) = A0 exp( w [1/Ro - 1/r] ), where Ro = earth radius. 


It is clear that we need a boundary condition.  At the earth's surface
we pick the area we need to hold up some load.  I'll pick a 1000 Kg
object.  Earth radius is 6.38*10^6 meters, so...

A0 = A(6.38E6 m) and we know that the area we need is

A = F/T = (1000 Kg * 9.8 m/s^2) / 3.43 * 10^8 Newtons/meter^2 

  = 2.85 * 10^(-5) m^2, so A0 = 2.85E-5 m^2.

  
A(Rgeo) = A0 exp(w [1/Ro - 1/Rgeo]), which for steel gives

A(Rgeo) = (2.85E-5 m^2 )*exp(9.83E+9 m * [1/6.38+6 m - 1/5.76E+7 m ])

Alas, A(Rgeo) ~ 10^563 m^2, which doesn't seem practical.

But Howard Landman puts forth a material called graphite whiskers (I'd
never heard of it before, but then this isn't my usual area).  He tells
us that it has a density of 1700 Kg/m^3 and a tensile strength 3,000,000
psi which gives T = 2*10^10 N/m^2.

With this stuff we get very different numbers.  Using the same 1000 Kg 
mass, the area at the earth is

A(6.38E6 m) = F/T = 9800 N/ 2*10^10 N/m^2 = 4.8 *10^(-7) m^2

The w for this stuff is   w = 3.4*10^7 m.

From which we get an A(Rgeo) of

A(Rgeo) = 4.8E-7 * exp(3.4E+7 m * [1/6.38E+6 m - 1/5.76E+7 m ]) = 5.8E-5 m^2 

That's less than one square centimeter at the top.  And that's as big as
it ever gets, it tapers all the way down.  The mass of the thing is
*under* 6*10^6 Kg, which is not prohibitive (i.e., it is within the
realm of reason to produce this much building material).  Frankly, I
don't know that I believe it.  I'm not an engineer.  What do y'all
think?  Please note that this does not cure any of the vibration
problems, nor a plethora of other difficulties--it merely suggests that
tensile strength may not be a limiting factor.  If I've missed something
here, I would greatly appreciate someone coming forward to set me
straight.

Doug Miller   doug@ngp.utexas.edu  ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!doug

------------------------------

Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
Subject: The new superconductors and launching loops
File-Id: Munck.Office-AT.space.1619
Date: Fri, 03 Apr 87 16:52:30 EST
From: Bob Munck <munck@mitre-bedford.arpa>


In all the discussions of the possible uses of the new high-temp
superconductors, I've seen no mention of the "launching loop" or
"Lofstrom (sp?) loop" (haven't I seen traffic from someone with that
name from Tektronics?).  In case you don't know what I'm talking about
(or I don't), I'll try to describe it:

The loop is an iron or steel hoop approximately 2 cm thick, 10 cm wide,
and 3000 km (NOT cm) in circumference.  It's suspended magnetically in a
narrow oval along the Equator and spun to a very high speed.  The
"U-turns" at each end of the oval are wide enough relative to the 2x10cm
size of the hoop that flexing is insignificant.  When the hoop gets up
to a speed on the order of 8 kps (18,000 miles/hour), the east-bound
side, with the assist of the Earth's rotation, is moving faster than
orbital speed at that altitude.  If part of it is not held down, it will
rise (!) to the right orbital height for its velocity, possibly as high
as LEO.  We can now couple a payload magnetically to the loop at the
western end such that it is accelerated along it and up into orbit.  An
orbital escalator!

Sounds like a fine idea, A Mere Matter of Engineering that maybe would
be a lot easier and cheaper with the new superconductors.  Is there some
"spoiler" or basic flaw in the concept that I haven't heard about?
Maybe just too freaking much kinetic energy in that piece of iron to
handle?  If not, anyone interested in investing in the idea?

                  -- Bob Munck

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 87 21:30:56 GMT
From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu  (Doug Miller)
Subject: Re: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!)


You just can't let some problems go, you know?  I've been playing around with 
the mass function for the space cable.  This is the latest version, in which
the area of the cable as a function of height is

A = A0 exp(w[1/Ro - 1/r]), Ro = earth radius, 
			   A0 = area of cable at earth's surface
			   w  = density G M / T

The mass is then the integral of the area times the density times over
the distance Ro to Rgeo, Rgeo being the 36000 miles to geosynchronous
orbit (which I still haven't checked--36000 miles *is* the right number,
isn't it?).  It turns out that this must be done numerically (or at least
*I* couldn't do it analytically :-)

Mass = S[Ro,Rgeo] rho A0 exp ( w [1/Ro - 1/r])

We take A0 out of the integral for reasons that will be abundantly clear
later.  Using the value for w that one gets using the graphite whiskers
first mentioned by Howard Landman, ( density = 1.7 gm/cc, T = 2E+10
N/m^2) we get w = 3.4E+7 meters.  Doing the integral numerically for
this value of w, we get

Mass = A0 * 5.67*10^12 Kg/m^2.  

Think about that.  The area at the bottom of the cable depends on how
much mass you want to support, according to A = F/T.  The mass increases
only linearly with increased area, but the multiplication factor is six
trillion.  So, if you want to support a mass of 1000 Kg with the carbon
whisker cable you only need about 3 million kilos of carbon whisker to
do it, but if you want to hang something substantial on, like an
elevator, well that is quite a different story.  If we assume a mass
that seems more reasonable to me, say that of a small ship, about 5000
tons, then we need billions of kilos of material.  Is this still
reasonable?  What are modern production capacities?  Any of you
practical types know?

Doug Miller   doug@ngp.utexas.edu  ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!doug

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 87 22:17:58 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: The new superconductors and launching loops

Yes, I'm out here.  Still grinding away on Launch Loop.  Working on
stability problems (mathematically) and position sensors (in the lab).
Sure takes a while.  Any polynomial mathematicians or control theory
types out there with some spare time?  Anyone have some 1 cm, .1%
resolution-and-drift, 10 KHz non-contact position sensors.

In case anyone is wondering what a Launch Loop is, find a copy of the
December 1983 Analog magazine.  A more mathematical description can be
had by requesting such via Email (perhaps a couple of times, I lose
things).

----

I considered superconductors for the turnaround magnets at the ends of
the Loop, but a breached cooling system worries me far more than the
energy loss in normal copper-wound magnets (25-100MW depending on the
design).  I would want to see a superconductor that stayed
superconducting up to 100C or so, and I suspect we'll have to wait quite
a while for that.  There would be no major effect on system cost, unless
the material turns out to be cheaper to use than copper.

Most of the cost of the Loop is power switching systems (I need to
switch on and off about 10GW in different places).  Josephson devices
are lousy power switches, which is why they are such dandy computer
elements.  They might be useful as sensors, but there's that dependence
on cooling again.

One other possibility that could easily use higher temperature
superconductors is a power storage loop - a Launch Loop buried
underground, storing energy from the electrical grid.  Superconductors
could make one of these VERY efficient and quite cheap.  Since there
will be cooling and other failures, it has to be buried hundreds of
meters deep to contain the pieces when it breaks.  Cheap superconducting
magnets would allow this system to be scaled down, perhaps to the point
that the tunneling becomes affordable (it isn't now).  A similar scheme
using a ring (darn physicists are always drawing circles) is being
promoted by John Hull at Argonne Labs.  Since his design requires a
"rotor" cooled by paramagnetic cooling and black body radiation, a 10x
improvement in temperature should yield a 10,000x improvement in ease of
cooling.  I imagine he is turning cartwheels these days.

Well, back to the math.  Anyone have some good guidelines for
stabilizing a fourth order nonlinear differential equation with eight
degrees of freedom, with real-world accuracy and digitizing constraints?
I'd settle for inexpensive source for a good symbolic math program...

Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 6 Apr 87 07:31:28 GMT
From: ubc-vision!van-bc!sl@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Stuart Lynne)
Subject: Re: Space elevators may not be impossible (see the math, live!)

In article <4948@ut-ngp.UUCP> doug@ut-ngp.UUCP (Doug Miller) writes:
>trillion.  So, if you want to support a mass of 1000 Kg with the carbon
>whisker cable you only need about 3 million kilos of carbon whisker to do
....
>reasonable to me, say that of a small ship, about 5000 tons, then we
>need billions of kilos of material.  Is this still reasonable?  What are
>modern production capacities?  Any of you practical types know?

There is no current north american source of flake graphite although
there is a mine scheduled to open in Ontario later this year or early
next year ('88).  Projected production will be between 10,000 and 15,000
tons per year.

Flake graphite sells for between $800 and $1200 US per ton. The current
supplies come from Korea, Sri Lanka, Norway, China.

Amorphous graphite production is quite a bit higher than flake, but I'm
pretty sure that flake is what is used for material mentioned (carbon
whiskers).

All of these figures are off the top of my head, from a presentation I
saw about a year and a half ago. If anyone is REALLY interested I can
get more accurate ones, the company that owns the mine is based here in
Vancouver.

Stuart Lynne

------------------------------

Date: 2 Apr 87 06:21:01 GMT
From: pyramid!amdahl!ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@decwrl.dec.com  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Space elevators (synchronous skyhooks), Final (?) equations

In message <1020@rpics.RPI.EDU>, chassin@rpics.RPI.EDU (Dave Chassin) writes:
[comments about previous post deleted]
>        We have two equations:
>
>(1)     A(x) = (W + W(x))/Ft    where A(x) is the area function
>W is the load we wish to carry,  W(x) is the weight of the cable function
>Ft is the yield stress
>        and
>(2)     W(x) = S[0,x] rA(x)dx   where r is the density of the cable
>S is a pityful impersonation of an integral
>so integrating (1) and (2) we get
>(3)     dA/dx = 1/Ft dW/dx
>(4)     dW/dx = rA(x)
>juggle (3) and (4) and we get
>        A(x) = A(0)e**(r.x/Ft)  where A(0) = W/Ft

Okay, Dave, I have some arguments with your analysis.  To wit:

1.)	You assume that the weight/mass ratio (acceleration) is
	constant.  It is not; the equation for the radial acceleration
	of a point suspended in a 24-hour orbit decreases with
	increasing radius, according to this formula (r = kilometers,
	a = m/sec):
	a = -4.02e8 * (r^-2) + 5.29e-6 * r.  (coefficients approximate)

	The inverse-squared component is gravitational, while the
	proportional-to-radius component is the omega-squared-r
	centrifugal force from the rotation of the skyhook.

	If you fill in r = 4.23e4 km (6400 km radius of earth plus
	22,300 miles * 1.609 km/mile), you get approximately zero radial
	acceleration (a geosynchronous orbit).  You have to use this
	formula in your exponential, not your constant weight figure.

Notice that this complicates the computations considerably!  The rest of
your computations go into the garbage after this, so I'll fill in with
my own later.  But first, about materials:

>I think this sufficiently prooves the impossibilty of such a cable. I
>would also add that Kevlar is not a better choice for two reasons.
>First it is heavier for its yield stress (Lmax=.79 miles; steel
>Lmax=2.7miles) Second elasticity is a SEVERE problem. If you think
>vibration due to the coriolis force is a problem try elastic
>oscillations. Even in steel they're severe at any great length (this is
>what limits bridge span among other things).

I think you're using the same density for Kevlar as for steel.  This is
*emphatically* not the case!  Here's a table of strengths and densities
for you.  I don't have any figures for strength of graphite fibers
handy, so I'm going to assume that they have the same relationship to
whisker strengths that steel wire does to iron whisker strengths.  I
have no figures for Kevlar, unfortunately.  All figures are from the CRC
"Handbook of tables for Applied Engineering Science", 2nd ed, page 182,
hacked to MKS units for convenience.

Material		Ultimate strength,	Density,
			N/m^2			kg/m^3

Cr 0.18 stainless 	1.24e9			7.8e3
steel, heat-treated
High-carbon steel,	4.14e9			7.8e3
fine wire
Graphite fiber		6.90e9			1.4e3
Graphite whisker	2.07e10			1.4e3

Note that graphite fiber is stronger than the strongest steel wire, at
less than one-fifth the mass.  This changes the ratios *a lot*.

Untapered rods of the above materials, under 9.81 m/sec^2 acceleration,
can support these lengths: steel, 1.62e4 meters (10 miles), steel wire,
5.41e4 meters (33.6 miles), graphite fiber, 5.02e5 meters (312 miles),
graphite whisker, 1.51e6 meters (937 miles).  This length is equal to
strength/(density*acceleration).

Your comment about oscillations only applies to structures which are
poorly damped and exist in a fluid flow.  Presumably we can damp
oscillations against the earth's magnetic field or in some other manner
(moor the bottom end to a buoy and use viscous damping, or even active
damping).  In any case, only the first ten miles or so have problems
with wind oscillations.  Coriolis acceleration is only a problem if the
cargo mass moving up and down is both large and not symmetrical.  This
can be avoided.

Back to the math...

The required area of the cable at any point is equal to the force
transmitted divided by the working strength of the cable.  Assuming that
we're using some working strength Sw for the cable, we get:

A(x) = F(x) / Sw	where Sw is the working strength of the cable,
			A(x) is the area function, and F(x) is the
			force (tension) function.
dF = A(x) * Acc(x) * D	where Acc(x) is the acceleration function
			above, and D is density of the cable.

Combining terms, we get:

dF = (D/Sw) * F(x) * Acc(x)

	Dividing by F(x), we get:

dF/F = (D/Sw) * Acc(x)

	Integrating both sides...

ln F = (D/Sw) * (-4.08e14/r - 2.65e-9*r^2) + C, or

	(using Iacc as shorthand for the integrated Acc function)

F = K * exp([D/Sw] * [Iacc(r) - Iacc(r0)])

Basically, this means that the ratio of forces (and cable diameters
between the ends) is proportional to the exponential of the integral of
the acceleration times distance over the cable length, and that the
ratio is also proportional to the exponential of the density to strength
ratio (double the density and the ratio *squares*).  In this equation, K
neatly becomes F(r0), and we're off.

Okay, we can plug in some numbers.  For the range of r from the surface
of the earth (6400 km) to geosync (42,300 km) the integral of Acc is
4.95e7 m^2/sec^2.  Using a working strength of 80% of the ultimate
strength for our materials, the ratios are:

Material		Ultimate 	  Density,    Area
			strength, N/m^2	  kg/m^3      ratio

Cr 0.18 stainless 	1.24e9		  7.8e3       1.08e169
steel, heat-treated
High-carbon steel,	4.14e9		  7.8e3       4.25e50
fine wire
Graphite fiber		6.90e9		  1.4e3	      283000.
Graphite whisker	2.07e10		  1.4e3           65.7

Note that things which are utterly impossible with steel, even with the
strongest steel wire, become child's play with materials as strong and
light as graphite whisker.  Even graphite fibers, at a working strength
of 800,000 psi, may be marginally practical, and our labs can make these
*today*; what will tomorrow bring?

If the cable is designed for a tension of ten thousand tons (approx.
1e8 newtons) at the bottom and is made of graphite fiber, it would have
an area of 1.81e-2 square meters at the bottom (181 square centimeters)
and an area of 5,120 square meters at the top (about 72 meters square).
Such a cable could support many 2-ton elevators crawling up and down,
carrying passengers and cargo.  All we need is the ability to make
enough strong fibers, and we can build it.  But we must be in orbit
*first*, because this thing has to be built in space!

For rotating skyhooks, the integral of acceleration over length is
much smaller than for synchronous skyhooks, and the ratio of areas
is also much smaller.

(I guess I should mention here that I worked this up in an evening, that
 I love working with things space-related, and that I'm looking for a
 job in the field if I can find one to replace my current consulting.
 I'm designing an OTRAG-like el cheapo booster as a mind-stretcher.
 Anyone out there need a computer-physics-rocket buff?)

>chassin@csv.rpi.edu

|  Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #203
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15439; Fri, 24 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT
	id AA15439; Fri, 24 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704241002.AA15439@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #204

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 24 Apr 87 03:02:56 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #204

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 204

Today's Topics:
			   RAM accelerator
			 Re: RAM accelerator
      Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble
    Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble
	       Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations
		  Colonizing space/environmentalism
			    ELV companies
			 Re: RAM accelerator
	   Re: The new superconductors and launching loops
		   Hollow tubes for space elevators
    An additional proof that bulk antimatter storage is impossible
  Re: An additional proof that bulk antimatter storage is impossible
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Apr 87 18:51:35 PDT
From: ota@galileo.s1.gov
Subject: RAM accelerator

I attended a very interesting seminar this morning given by Abraham
Hertzberg from the University of Washington at Seattle.  He reported on
the results of a relatively small scale research program exploring the
properties of a ramjet-in-a-tube concept.

The basic idea is to inject a projectile the shape of a normal air
breathing ramjet core into a tube filled with a premixed gaseous fuel
and oxidizer mixture.  The tube acts as the ramjet cowling and the
projectile and burn region travel together down the tube with nearly
uniform acceleration.

He has obtained experimental results in which a 75 gram hollow, aluminum
projectile about 1" by 3" in size was accelerated from about 1 km/s to 2
km/s.  They have achieved excellent agreement between measured and
calculated performance.

He claimed to be working on a modification that would allow supersonic
combustion.  It would be most interesting to see how this work
progresses.  Is anyone from UW on the net and able to keep the space
digest apprised of progress there?
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 87 22:48:04 GMT
From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: RAM accelerator

In article <8704090151.AA04770@galileo.s1.gov>, ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes:
> The basic idea is to inject a projectile the shape of a normal air
> breathing ramjet core into a tube filled with a premixed gaseous fuel
> and oxidizer mixture.  The tube acts as the ramjet cowling and the
> projectile and burn region travel together down the tube with nearly
> uniform acceleration.

Anyone read The Inventions of Daedalus (or perhaps see the original in
The New Scientist?).  This seems to match exactly one of his inventions.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 5 Apr 87 04:10:15 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble

I don't think the math on the cables is all that important.

None of these cables are very strong when it comes to stress
perpendicular to their axis.

A space elevator, stationary wrt the Earth, would eventually be smashed
into by almost EVERY BODY IN ORBIT.  The only things that wouldn't hit
it would be satellites with precisely timed orbital precessions.

Some would take a while, some would be soon.  One would be enough.

Could we really clear all of space from 26,000 miles on down?
(geosynchronous orbit would be OK, that would not hit)

Would we want to?  It might be worth giving up all satellites for a
space tower, but it's a tough call.

What if we miss something?  How big does it have to be?  What about new
bodies, specks of sand, captured by the Earth?

You can't just blast with a fancy laser.  Momentum remains the same.
You can't blow them up.  Each body would have to be diverted away from
the Earth or into the atmosphere.

It's an old SF cliche, but what about meteors?  Hit kevlar laterally at
30 miles/second with a tiny pebble and what happens?

Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 87 17:20:20 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble

In article <776@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP writes:
> ...
> A space elevator, stationary wrt the Earth, would eventually be smashed
> into by almost EVERY BODY IN ORBIT.  The only things that wouldn't hit
> it would be satellites with precisely timed orbital precessions.

If you know where the satellite is, you "simply" give the ground end of
the cable a shake to the side at the appropriate time.  A large ripple
propagates up the cable and passes the collision point at the same time
the satellite does; that is, the cable moves aside.  If this is done
slowly enough, the payloads won't shake off the cable.  The cable is
tapered, and lossy, and over long distances a dispersive medium; well,
this is a "mere engineering detail" as physicists are wont to say when
the answers get messy.

> ...
> It's an old SF cliche, but what about meteors?  Hit kevlar laterally
> at 30 miles/second with a tiny pebble and what happens?

This is what "meteor bumpers" are for; say an outer covering a
millimeter thick, about 3 centimeters away from the load-bearing cable.
The meteor hits the outer covering, punches a hole, and vaporizes.  Yes,
the vapor is still moving, but the momentum is negligable.  Meteor
bumpers are used on some present-day satellites.

Again, I don't think the space elevator cable concept will be used
because I think there are better ways to do the job.  Nonetheless,
certain problems with skyhooks do have semi-plausible solutions.  The
solutions, which may have application to something more practical, are a
good justification for thinking about things like this.

Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 87 18:13:06 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space elevators, Final (?) equations

> ... A hollow pipe has more vertical strength (so I am told) than a
> solid rod, assuming the same amount of material per unit length is
> used for each.  If this is really the case, I think it would also
> allow us to sustain longer elevators...

This is an accident of the properties of some materials, not a
fundamental fact of physics.  Things like steel are generally stronger
at their surfaces than in bulk, so maximizing surface maximizes
strength.  (For the same reason, steel wire is much the strongest form
of steel.)  The structural material for a space elevator is likely to be
thin filaments anyway, so the gross shape of the composite made from it
probably won't be much of a consideration.

"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 14 Apr 87 19:30:29 SA
From: Tero Siili <FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Colonizing space/environmentalism


Someone commented on the desirability of space colonization, so that we
can leave Earth alone. Nice thought, but it just may be oversimplified:
space colonization - even start of - may require too much of Earths
resources to fulfill the aim, you're talking about.

TS

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 87 06:36:48 GMT
From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: ELV companies


	As a result of a discussion last night, I have become interested
in the companies that are pushing private commercial launches. Who are
the major companies these days who are preparing for private launches,
are they public or private corporations, where can I find out more about
them, etc.? How close are some of them to launching? Five years? Ten?

--Rod

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 87 17:44:00 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!seiffert@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: RAM accelerator

Anyone read The Inventions of Daedalus (or perhaps see the original in
The New Scientist?).  This seems to match exactly one of his inventions.

david rickel

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 87 19:54:14 GMT
From: ulysses!gamma!mb2c!edsdrd!edstb!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: The new superconductors and launching loops

In article <9943.544485150@mbunix> munck@MITRE-BEDFORD.ARPA (Bob Munck) writes:
[describes launch loops]
>Is there some "spoiler" or basic flaw in the concept that I haven't
>heard about?  Maybe just too freaking much kinetic energy in that piece
>of iron to handle?  If not, anyone interested in investing in the idea?

As I understand it, the difficulty with launch loops isn't the kinetic
energy, it's the stability of the system.  In order to stabilize the
loop against "kink" instabilities, the loop tension must be very high;
enough to hold it down to earth, in other words.  Active stabilization
may work, but I've heard that we can't do it yet.

This only applies to the guided portions of a loop, which are the
portions in which the ribbon is held to a track.  However, such sections
are required for the runs up and down through the atmosphere (sigh).
The 2000-mile in-space run could be trackless, but being able to aim the
ribbon at the target bending magnet, 2000 miles away, with an inch or so
of error, doesn't seem like it's any more tractable a problem than
stabilizing a track-borne ribbon.

Jacob's ladders and skyrails appear to have the same or similar
difficulties.  <<deep sigh>>

Russ Cage

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 87 18:51:31 GMT
From: itsgw!csmbox!rpics!chassin@tcgould.tn.cornell.edu  (Dave Chassin)
Subject: Hollow tubes for space elevators

Someone recently posted a response saying that hollow tubes are stronger
than solids. Since we were discussion a tension member I must remind
people that this is not true. It is true that hollow tubes are stronger
than bulk members (for equal material) when we are discussing
compression, bending, or torsion members because these involve the
moment of inertia (the geometry) of the member. The strength of a
tension member is not affected in any really important way by the shape
of the member, only the cross sectional area.

David P. Chassin

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 03 Apr 87 12:39:35 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: An additional proof that bulk antimatter storage is impossible

In Vol. 7, No.182 Geoffrey A. Landis responded to my early treatment on
the impossiblity of antimatter storage.  Geoffrey checked and verified
my eariler calculation (thanks Geoffrey) and made the interesting
observation that tungsten outgasses at about 1 atom/universe.  In my
Gedanken experiment I used diamond which has an even lower outgassing
rate than tungsten (check a CRC handbook if you don't believe me).
However one should remember that these low rates are only true if the
diamond or tungsten is cold.  Local heating due to an antimatter
reaction will liberate more atoms.  Both tungsten and carbon will
vaporize if you throw enough heat at it.  Also we don't really know what
the partial pressure of tungsten is at 1 deg. Kelvin.  Current vacuum
measuring techniques are limited to pressures many orders of magnitude
higher than what we are talking about. It is quite possible that quantum
limits place minimum tungsten partial pressures at above the 1.0E3 value
that I mentioned.  However this is a lame response to Geoffrey's point.
I shall demonstrate that a perfect vacuum is impossible in a fuel tank
based on a cosmic ray argument.  Cosmic rays because of their energies
are almost impossible to shield against in a space ship.  Cosmic ray
intensities on the surface of the Earth are 45E-3 Rad/year.  Assume a
cylindrical fuel storage tank made of tungsten that has a diameter of 2
meters, a height of 1 meter, and walls 1 mm thick.  Assume that only
singly charged particles are produced by a cosmic ray interacting with
the container.  By knocking off one electron, the cosmic rays will
produce 3.81E12 ions/day.  Assume that only 1% of the ions escape the
tank's walls and half go in and half go out.  The flux of ions going in
is 1.91E10 ions/day.  However the number of particles necessary to fill
the conatiner with a gas density 1.0D3 particles/cc is 3.14E9 particles.
Therefore the container will reach this gas density starting from a pure
vacuum in a little less than 4 hours.  At that point my earlier
calculation showing antihydrogen melting and storage failure could be
employed.  The conclusion stands: Antimatter storage is impossible.
                           Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 4 Apr 87 19:52:49 GMT
From: decvax!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wayne Throop)
Subject: Re: An additional proof that bulk antimatter storage is impossible

> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET (Gary Allen)

> [...cosmic rays impact containment vessel, generating ions...]
>     [...] the number of particles necessary to fill
> the conatiner with a gas density 1.0D3 particles/cc is 3.14E9 particles.
> Therefore the container will reach this gas density starting from a
> pure vacuum in a little less than 4 hours.  At that point my earlier
> calculation showing antihydrogen melting and storage failure could be
> employed.  The conclusion stands:  Antimatter storage is impossible.

Far be it from me to claim that antimatter storage is just a SMOE at
this point.  But surely everyone caught the flaw in this "proof"?  We
are assuming that we are all sitting around on our metaphorical thumbs
while the gass pressure in the containment is building up until...
BLOOIE.  So, an ionized plasma is building up on there, right?  Well, we
are already granting technology to reach "perfect vacuum" (or, perfect
enough), right?  The limiting factor is thus how fast we can pump the
plasma out (with magnetic fields or whatnot, handwave, handwave).

Again, I stress that I am NOT claiming that it IS possible.  Just that
this rather odd scenario where we pump out the container, put the
antimatter in there, and then just put our pump away and watch the
pressure climb until all our hard work is lost, doesn't "prove" diddly.

Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!dg_rtp!throopw

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #204
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17141; Sat, 25 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT
	id AA17141; Sat, 25 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704251002.AA17141@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #205

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 25 Apr 87 03:02:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #205

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 205

Today's Topics:
		  Comments re antimatter propulsion
		       Is Antihydrogen Stable?
		  Re: Kaon Oscillations, Black Holes
      Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion
      Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 05 Apr 87 14:40:39 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Comments re antimatter propulsion

cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu >
>>  A combination of a long ship and shadow shielding can get the
>>mass down to where it's manageable.
>Down to where it's manageable?  Hahaha.  Now *why* is this man laughing?
    I don't know.  The proposal I saw was for a ship with the engines
in front, pulling the crew compartment on a kilometers-long tether
(engines appropriately angled so that the exhaust doesn't impact the
crew compartment, of course)  With this geometry, a very small shield
close to the engines can shield a very large area of ship.

>>                      I've seen a properly-shielded
>>proposal for an antimatter-powered ship capable of 90+% of the speed of
>>light.
>Why do I hear people throw off .9c without blinking?  Grr, it worries
>me.  You say this ship is capable of .9c?  Do you know what this
>entails?  Have you done the physics?
       .9 c seems a little high for practical ships.  The mass ratios
get excessive, and the acceleration times very long.
And yes, I have done the physics.
>(For the lazy, just look it up in
>J Ackeret "Zur Theorie der Raketen" Helv Phys Acta 19:103 (1946))
  there are better places to look if you want to find it in
English, although very few with all of the equations in the
same place.  See the references in my recent posting on starflight.

>In units where c=1, to obtain final velocity v, assuming utter
>perfection energy-wise, the ratio of payload to entire ship is
>sqrt((1-v)/(1+v)).  Assuming one wants to decelerate back to zero at the
>end, one must square this quantity.  This gives 5.26%.
    I figure the mass ratio for apollo is about 5000, so the ratio of
19 you calculate here doesn't seem too improbable.  Of course this
is a ratio of 19:1 where the 19 consists of 50% *antimatter*, which
is a lot harder to hold in tanks than liquid hydrogen...

>travelling at constant acceleration a, the distance travelled is
>(cosh(aT)-1)/a).  (T here is proper time...)
Your note
made it sound as if in some cases you were considering travelling
at a constant 1g--ie, no coast time between accellerating and
decellerating--note that this is a very very inefficient use
of mass ratio.

>If fraction eff of emitted energy is useful, and the rest is just dumped
>(this includes inefficiencies and stage separations, etc), we must raise
>this ratio to the 1/eff power...
>... payload ratio becomes .00004% for eff=.2, and .000000000016% for
>eff=.1.  Frankly, I think anyone seriously expecting eff>>.2 to be
>achieved is a raving lunatic.
    Efficiency for an antiproton propulsion drive should be 66.7%.
Antiprotons annihilate into pions with essentially equal probability
of pi plus, minus, and zero (this is not obvious, but it is true);
the pi plus and pi minus can be channelled by magnetic fields.
(Due to time dilation, their lifetimes are long enough to do this.)
    I don't know if there is a good reason to expect other losses
to lower the efficiencies, about the only other loss I can think
of is leaky magnetic nozzles or partially unburned antimatter.
I think both of these losses should be able to be kept low.

>Now, if one were planning to return ....
    Yes, the mass ratio squares again.  There is a BIG problem if
you want to carry fuel to get back, and I think it unlikely that you
will be able to make an antimatter factory at the destination.
For the forseeable technology, star travel must be one way.

>One is going to have to practically *crawl* through the Oort cloud.
  The word "Cloud" is a misnomer.  If you define one "solar system
volume" as the volume of space contained in a sphere with a radius of
the sun-pluto distance, the density of comets in the Oort "Cloud" is
on the order of one per solar system volume.  One would be unlikely
to hit one.

>Note that I don't think interstellar travel is impossible.  Just a lot
>harder and far more expensive than I think most of you want to realize.
   I agree with this
>Nothing less than planetoid-sized and extraordinarily slow arks seems
>feasible according to known physics.
   But not with this.  0.1 to 0.3 c seems feasable; this is not
   "extraordinarily slow".

>>suggestion that at really low temperatures--like 0.0001 K--antimatter
>>could be handled with normal matter, because the wave functions don't
>>overlap enough to produce a reaction.  I'm not enough of a physicist to
>>check that one.
>I'm not enough either, but it sure sounds like wishful thinking.
   This seems unlikely to me, too; there is no Pauli exclusion principle
to repel, and all the ordinary forces (correlation energy, electrostatic,
van der Waals) are attractive.
    I've seen this speculation promulgated by somebody at Brookhaven who
ought to know better, but I still think it's pretty damn unlikely.
    I've also heard the speculation that it may be possible to store
antihydrogen in crystals.  This seems more likely; many=body effects
allow both positive and negative potential minima in crystals.
To prevent the positrons from annihilating, you'd have to use ionized
antiprotons, not antihydrogen.  I still think electrostatic containment
sounds simpler.

>>          The studies funded by outfits like the USAF have concluded
>>that storing the stuff is not an insuperable problem; low temperatures,
>>hard vacuum, and handling by magnetic or electric fields will suffice.
>Someone should tell the physics community!
     The physics community is aware.

>>             the proton-antiproton reaction does *not* yield
>>gammas immediately.
>But does this make a difference?
   Yes.  Gammas are uncharged and cannot be channelled by magnetic
fields.  Charged pions can be.

>>              A large fraction of the energy is temporarily in the
>>form of charged particles, which a magnetic nozzle can handle.
>A "magnetic nozzle"?  Now what is that?  And how can it handle reaction
>times on the order of 1e-23 to 1e-10 seconds?  (You did say
    Where did these numbers come from?  Lifetime of a charged pion
(which is the reaction product of proton-antiproton annihilation)
is about 25 nanoseconds, increasing to 70 ns due to relativistic
effects (they are produced at high energy)
>"temporarily"?)  And just how does it aim a mixture of positive and
>negative particles of various masses and momenta in the same direction?
   A magnetic nozzle is a magnetic mirror such as has been
proposed for fusion reactors, essentially a configuration of magnetic
field such that the field density is higher in the direction where you
don't want the particles to go.  Since charged particles' trajectories
curve in a magnetic field, regardless of whether they are plus
or minus, they are reflected back the way they came from.  Since
this has a lower field density, the particles can exit.

>Yes indeed, this sounds like a classic way to revolutionize all of
>modern high energy physics.  Perhaps they should tell someone....
    I don't understand your comment.  This is the stuff plasma
physicists deal with every day.

>>                                     Please read some of the work that
>> has been done before denouncing it as impossible.
    A good reference is R. Forward, "Antiproton Annihilation Propulsion",
in _Journal of Propulsion, 1:5, Sept-Oct 1985, page 370.

>Note that I don't think the storage of vast amounts of antihydrogen is
>impossible.  Just very very difficult, with nothing exotic about it
>either.
    Agreed.
>Humph.  I've got a much more practical suggestion for getting to the
>stars.  First, find a good-sized black hole (say this big --->> . <---)
   Black holes do, in fact, produce energy very efficiently.  But
they may be even harder to handle than antimatter.
In particular, very small black holes emitting Hawking radiation
have cross sections too small to be efficiently "fed" matter
to keep the things from blowing up.

     If I get some time I'll see if your derivations are any different
from mine; I'm a bit swamped at the moment.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 07 Apr 87 09:18:58 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Is Antihydrogen Stable?

> is it "reasonable" to say that the chemistry of antihydrogen will be
> just like hydrogen's?  Probably, but I can imagine charge conjugation
> symmetry violations that show up and effect the long term stability of
> antihydrogen.
    Yes, it is reasonable.  Keep in mind that antimatter is *NOT*
something new that has been recently discovered--the positron was
discovered over fifty years ago.  Many experiments have been done.
There are very very stringent limits on how much the electromagnetic
interaction can violate parity, and the amount is *small*.  Atoms are
only affected by the electromagnetic interaction.  Even the "strong"
interaction is too short range to have any effect on atomic stability,
and that is parity invariant too.  The weak interaction is the only one
that does not conserve parity, and it is very very very weak, and short
range.
    Also, note that CPT invariance says that an antihydrogen is like
looking at a hydrogen in a mirror and playing the videotape backwards
(with the charges labelled backwards too).  If you try this, you will
find that the hydrogen atom is still stable viewed in the mirror.
   CPT invariance is very fundamental.  It's hard to believe that it
would be grossly violated by something as simple as an antiproton plus a
positron.

>In other words, a lot of basic research is going to be needed when
   Right
>we start investigating antimatter in detail, and much of it is going to
>confirm the expected, but little kinks will have to be looked for.
   Yes. but unlikely something as dramatic as this.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 87 15:13:35 GMT
From: cartan!obnoxio@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Obnoxious Math Grad Student)
Subject: Re: Kaon Oscillations, Black Holes

>>>		   perhaps there are contributions from quantum gravity that
>>>might cause antimatter to experience a stronger attraction to the earth
>>>than normal matter (this will be tested soon at CERN).	[Paul F Dietz]

>>To date, this has been best tested within the K0-anti-K0 system,	[me]

>I don't understand. Why should the neutral kaon system test for baryon
>number dependent forces?  [...]					[PFD]

Huh?  You were discussing possible gravitational differences between
matter and antimatter, and so was I.  Yes?

>>[stuff about black hole powered propulsion]

>No, because of [...]

That was a joke, son.

Honest.

	 "That's what particles and fields are all about.
	  Dum dee dum.... here come's the Brahms gang..."
+-----------------------------------------------------+--------+
| Matthew P Wiener, President  (415) xxx-none         | BLACK HOLE PROPULSION
| Brahms Gang, UnLtd.; Berkeley, CA 94720             |  this  |
| ucbvax!brahms!weemba  weemba@brahms.Berkeley.EDU    | decade |
+-----------------------------------------------------+--------+

------------------------------

Date: 7 Apr 87 19:38:03 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!dand@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Duval)
Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion

In article <8704061043.AA07702@angband.s1.gov>, usenet@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU (USENET News Administration) writes:
> ...  The following are the basis for my
> position that 50 light years is the upper bound for interstellar travel:
> 
> 1) The surface of a sphere grows as r**2 while the volume grows as r**3.
> 2) Because of the speed-of-light limitation, star travel is expensive
> and travel time from one star to another takes about a century.
> 3) Worlds producing starships will eventually be insulated from the
> frontier by nearer colony worlds created through earlier star missions.
> 5) The home worlds will change significantly as the radius of
> colonization expands.

For the sake of keeping this under ten thousand words/lines/pages, I'll
grant you these. 1-3 are physical laws, 5 is intuitively clear (stagnant
civilizations die.)

> 4) Star travel will be ideologically motivated and will provide no
> economic return.

This may or may not be true. Citing an example:

In the 1830s and 1840s, Texas was not producing huge herds of cattle for
sale to end up as steaks in the East, because of the transportation
problem.  When the railroads reached the towns of Kansas (places such as
Wichita, Dodge City, and the like), suddenly there was a market for beef
on the hoof in Kansas, so herds of cattle were built up, driven to
Kansas, and sold to brokers who used the trains to get beef to the East
for sale.  This particular segment of the economy didn't really exist
until the transportation system existed (Granted, there was some beef
moved by sea, but never of the magnitude of the cattle baron days.)

Suddenly coming to mind is yet a better example. In the Dark Ages, food
was bland. Local herbs provided the only means to add a bit of spice to
food.  Part of the rise of cities during the period 1200 to 1450 came
about due to the spice trade through the Near East. Here were some
commodities never before seen in Europe which suddenly became the way to
become rich. Again, due to a transportation link that didn't exist
before.

Now I can't claim that there will be some wonder beyond the next star
that will be so valuable that even the expense and time of
fractional-light travel is reasonable, but then did anyone in Europe
expect the spice trade? Or the tea trade? Or maybe someone in New York
anticipating the cattle boom? If Terra were the only planet in the
universe with anything interesting on it, I'd be happy to grant you this
point, but I haven't yet run across anyone who can make that claim with
any credibility. The thing is that we don't know. Economics can be real
funny, such as when IBM can set a world standard based on something as
brain-damaged as an 8086 (yep, I stepped in it there. Send flames to me;
I'll ignore 'em.)

> Please do not waste my time and other reader's time with boring
> sermons about Christopher Columbus.  The Santa Maria didn't cost a
> trillion dollars nor did it take a century to get to a America.  If
> someone can come up with a counter-argument recognizing the above five
> points then the discussion will be worthwhile.
>                          Gary Allen

Don't poo-poo Columbus. A trillion pounds sterling today is the entire
wealth of some small nations. A trillion pounds in 1492 was many times
the entire wealth of the planet. Value is relative. At a modest
inflation rate, a trillion dollars will not quite buy a loaf of bread in
a thousand years.  If you recall, there is a non-trivial portion of our
government that is seriously talking about spending a trillion dollars
on a space defense system. That's merely one nation of many on the Earth
(though it is one of the richer ones.) And the several month voyage
across the Atlantic was many times longer than any of those crews had
ever been out of the sight of land before. All this stuff is relative.
Sending a message to Australia should take no longer than a few seconds
today; a century ago it was a four month sail from the West Coast.
Relative worth is hard to predict into the future.  Anyone want to buy
an Edsel?

Dan C Duval
ISI Engineering
Tektronix, Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Apr 87 19:34:37 GMT
From: voder!kontron!cramer@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Clayton Cramer)
Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion

> Suddenly coming to mind is yet a better example. In the Dark Ages, food was
> bland. Local herbs provided the only means to add a bit of spice to food.
> Part of the rise of cities during the period 1200 to 1450 came about due to
> the spice trade through the Near East. Here were some commodities never before
> seen in Europe which suddenly became the way to become rich. Again, due to
> a transportation link that didn't exist before.

I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on this.  The transportation link
did exist before -- the Crusades created an awareness of commodities (like
spices) that weren't previously known.  The transportation systems improved
in response to a commercial need to have such a link.

Once again, war, for all its evils, had some positive benefits.

Clayton E. Cramer

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #205
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18430; Sun, 26 Apr 87 03:02:44 PDT
	id AA18430; Sun, 26 Apr 87 03:02:44 PDT
Date: Sun, 26 Apr 87 03:02:44 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704261002.AA18430@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #206

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 206

Today's Topics:
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #188
			   50 L.Y. limit??
      Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  8 Apr 1987 22:32-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #188

Gary Allen has stated five assumptions. I don't agree that they are all
valid, but even if they are it doesn't matter. We still fill the galaxy
in a finite time. The equations I have included are to indicate the
general direction of a more formal enquiry and are not intended to be
the last word. They simply make it easier for me to state my arguments.

1) The surface of a sphere grows as r**2 while the volume grows as
r**3.

This presumably means that the number of starships in existance at any
given t is bounded by a lower limit of:

	kr^2

where k is the number of starships built per unit surface area per
'generation'.

If we assume that generation ships are not discarded but are always
reused and none are ever destroyed (it takes a lot to destroy or cause
the discarding of a several kilometer diameter vessel worth the
proposed large portion of a GNP) then the number is more like:

	kr(t0)^2 + kr(t1)^2 + .. + kr(tn)^2

where tn is the generation. This assumes that a world never produces
another starship again, even after 500 years and a brand new culture
takes over.

A more likely scenario, given Gary's very high costs per unit, is that
worlds build starships at a relatively low constant rate over time.
Perhaps they build 3 and then no more for 500 or 1000 years. So we say
that every world turns out 3 starships/1000 years. Too many? Make it
3/10000 years then. Doesn't matter much to me. We still have the number
of starships at any given time as at least:

	k1 * r^3

Where k1 is the number of starships produced per unit volume per
generation.

	k1 * r(t0)^3 + k1 * r(t1)^3 + ... k1 * r(tn)^3

Is the upper bound to the number of starships existing at generation n.

If we are going to propose a limit of 50 light years, we must propose a
means for getting rid of an awful lot of very big ships; ie we must
propose a consumer process that grows faster than the producer process.
I have seen no such process described.

2) Because of the speed-of-light limitation, star travel is expensive
and travel time from one star to another takes about a century.

The assumption is not too unreasonable except for the expense part. I'm
not sure that a culture of 1000 years from now will consider the
building of one of these vessals to be a significant expense. And once
built the ship is by necessity self supporting. The cost to operate is
zero to the builders once it has fired it's engines for the outward
trip, particularly if it uses a fuel technology that allows the ship to
refuel from a convenient comet, asteroid, ice moon or atmosphere of a
gas giant.

3) Worlds producing starships will eventually be insulated from the
frontier by nearer colony worlds created through earlier star missions.

True. And if star travel is as Gary says, every millenium or so, the
new civilization on each planet will dream of ancient glories and do it
all over again, assuming there is no handy ship hanging around from the
last visit someone paid. There will be a slow but continuous creation of
ships in the interior worlds which will diffuse outwards via brownian motion.

4) Star travel will be ideologically motivated and will provide no
economic return.

Even if true it is irrelevant. Any given world will have the appropriate
ideology once every few thousand or tens of thousands of years.

5) The home worlds will change significantly as the radius of
colonization expands.

They will change, decay, rebuild, forget. After a few thousand years
most of them won't even know where the 'center' is. I agree that as
time goes on there will be more and more ships travelling within the
existing volume. But a few of the thousands or millions of ships are
bound to head outwards and that is all it takes to guarantee we will
eventually fill the galaxy.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Apr 87 04:37:11 PDT
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 09 03:33:29 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: 50 L.Y. limit??

<ESG7> Date: Mon, 06 Apr 87 11:40:45 MEZ
<ESG7> From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<ESG7> Subject: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion

<ESG7> I'm going to give the 50 light year limit argument one more try ...

<ESG7> 1) The surface of a sphere grows as r**2 while the volume grows as r**3.

Yes, but that's moot for your question because the subsequent starships
come not from the center but from the edge. Fact #1 does mean that we
have a "fairy ring" effect, the center is dead, only the frontier is
alive, after sufficient time has elapsed.

<ESG7> 2) Because of the speed-of-light limitation, star travel is expensive
<ESG7> and travel time from one star to another takes about a century.

I'd say half a century if stars are 5 LY apart (at 0.1 C most of the
trip; rapid acceleration to 0.1 C, then coast for 50 years, then
aerodynamic braking), but maybe 0.5 C is the best that is feasible so
I'll accept your limit on speed.

<ESG7> 3) Worlds producing starships will eventually be insulated from the
<ESG7> frontier by nearer colony worlds created through earlier star missions.

I disagree. Worlds formerly producing starships will transfer
starship-making duties to their colonies once bootstrapping of
technological infrastructure is complete. Since the purpose of making
colonies is primarily survival through children, it's analagous to
elderly people letting their children have children instead of
continuing to make children themselves, except here the limit is
physical (fairy ring) rather than biological (deterioration of bodies).

<ESG7> 4) Star travel will be ideologically motivated and will provide no
<ESG7> economic return.

If the drive to survive is an ideology, yes. (Gee, does that mean you
consider bacteria to have ideologies, because they have the drive to
survive?)

<ESG7> 5) The home worlds will change significantly as the radius of
<ESG7> colonization expands.

Yup, they become proud parents watching their children go off on their
own, then grandparents, etc. until they die out due to their star dying.

<ESG7> All of my conclusions leading up to the 50 light year limit are based on
<ESG7> these five points.

The fault with your logic is that you assume the colonies remain
dependent on the central civilization, that they develop the ability to
survive semi-independently on remote stars hundreds of years from home,
yet never develop the technological infrastructure to do things truly on
their own like build starships. That's like assuming after Columbus
discovers America and people move here and start clearing forests and
growing food and running industry, they never ever ever build sailing
ships because somehow they are just colonies and unable to build their
own ships. (True, generation ships are a lot more expensive than sailing
ships, but indeed America not only build sailing ships, but it went on
to build things never built by England France or Germany such as Apollo
and STS, once it built its technological infrastructure to be a world
leader in technology.)

<DW> Date: 7 Apr 87 05:47:09 GMT
<DW> From: cullvax!drw@xn.ll.mit.edu  (Dale Worley)
<DW> Subject: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion

<DW> The underlying question is "generation time"--how long does it take from
<DW> colonization of a planet until it can send out its own colonizing ships?

Yes!

<DW> Is this short enough that the culture doesn't change completely between
<DW> colonizations?  I would think only a couple of hundred years if the
<DW> culture and technology of colonizing new worlds is well developed.

200 years from first reaching a particular star system with a colony
ship, until the colony has grown to the point where it can build its own
ships. Perhaps. Maybe it takes longer, like 300 years. So the scenerio
may be that 300 years after a colony is established, it sends out its
own ships, which are refueled at outer colonies which have the
infrastructure to refuel ships but not to build their own, until the
ship reaches the colonization front, where it asks the local systems for
directions to a star system not yet occupied nor with occupants en route
to it, makes that one last hop, and sets up a colony there. If the
hop-by-hop trip visiting existing colonies to take on supplies proceeds
essentially at 0.5 C (layover isn't significant), we may find colony
ships passing by any given colony nearly as soon as it is colonized, and
the critical delay might not be bootstrapping at the colony that
generated the colony ship but rather waiting at the next to last stop
for that colony to build a refueling station to permit the last hop.
Perhaps the rate of expansion may be nearly 0.5 C overall.

Anybody have more carefully thought-out guesstimates on overall critical
path to permit calculation of true effective rate of expansion?

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 87 21:45:37 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!dand@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Duval)
Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion

In article <1511@kontron.UUCP>, cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
>> Part of the rise of cities during the period 1200 to 1450 came about
>> due to the spice trade through the Near East. Here were some
>> commodities never before seen in Europe which suddenly became the way
>> to become rich. Again, due to a transportation link that didn't exist
>> before.
> 
> I'm afraid I'm going to have to disagree on this.  The transportation
> link did exist before -- the Crusades created an awareness of
> commodities (like spices) that weren't previously known.  The
> transportation systems improved in response to a commercial need to
> have such a link.

We can travel in space now. Making a round trip to a star system of your
choice is nothing more than an improvement on an existing capability, if
you want to look at it that way. Yet, I would not want to downplay the
time, expense, and effort involved in the star trip, any more than I
would downplay the efforts put out by the Italians in establishing the
necessary political changes to allow a full-scale trading business
through the Near- and Middle-East, not to mention the expenses in
building ships, establishing brokers in the appropriate markets, and
beating back pirates, tax collectors, and other assorted thieves.

The situations are exactly parallel. The Venetians knew they could build
ships, even though hideously expensive at the time, as we know we can
build starships, though hideously expensive. Italian ships initially
made their crossings in order to drop Crusaders off on the coast of
Palestine/Israel; our starships will be dropping off settlers -- in
other words, the initial purpose for building the ships was not for the
purpose that many of them end up fulfilling. A commodity was found at
the other end that had economic value among the teeming masses back home
(though I'm speculating on the possibility for the starships) and,
rather than bring them all there, they took the commodity back home.

Rather than quibbling about which analogy might be valid and which not
(for whatever reason), I'd rather worry a lot more about some of the
other possible parallels. You see, the spice ships also brought the
Black Death to Europe. I'm not sure how the rest of you folks feel, but
a case of Denebian Dysentary would ruin my whole day. Or how about the
mighty states of the 12th Century that were rather quickly bypassed by
the states become rich in the spice trades. 15th Century Spain was
recovering from the effort of pushing the Moors back into Africa, when
they got a lock on the wealth of the Americas. 16th Century Spain was a
much more powerful animal with which to deal.

My original point was to deny the contention that there would be no
economic value in building starships. The thrust of that point is that
one would be foolish to assume there is no economic value to be gained
from whatever is in the next gravity well, any more than if one made the
same assumption about the next valley over, without some idea about
what's actually over there. The independant states of Italy and the
French throne made that mistake in the late 15th Century and Spain got
all the gravy.

I don't deny that demand is as important as the transportation link,
but, in the case of starships, that is more of a reason not to build
1000 freighters in the hope of finding a commodity to haul than to
decide not to ever go more than 50 lights away from Earth. The point
still is, that unless your Ouija board is much better than mine, denying
that there may ever be an economic value to interstellar travel is just
plain foolish.

(By the way, it might be better to continue this by mail. I'll be glad
to talk history with just about anyone, except Lyndon LaRouche; but it's
cheaper to do it via email than the net.)

Dan C Duval
ISI Engineering
Tektronix, Inc.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #206
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21139; Mon, 27 Apr 87 03:03:31 PDT
	id AA21139; Mon, 27 Apr 87 03:03:31 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 87 03:03:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704271003.AA21139@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #207

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 207

Today's Topics:
		      Antimatter; Gary's Claims
		       Re: colonization of Mars
				 Gold
	       Class M Near Earth Asteroids Discovered
		 Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova
			     Orbital Art
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 10 Apr 87 08:56 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Antimatter; Gary's Claims

Some more responses to Gary Allen...

Gary Allen acknowledged that he had overestimated the energy deposited
in a tiny piece of solid antihydrogen by annihiliation products. He then
recalculated the equilibrium temperature, assuming 10% of the energy
would be absorbed as heat.  He argued he had made many assumptions
favoring cooling.  However, even 10% energy absorption is much too high:
if annihilation radition travels meters in antihydrogen, and the pellet
is microns across, perhaps 1E-6 is a better estimate to the heating
efficiency.

Gary also only considered thermal radiation as a means of cooling. There
is at least one other: sublimation. This would be inappropriate if the
pellet is to be stored indefinitely (unless the escaping vapor could be
trapped, cooled and recondensed) but a continuous flow of antimatter is
desirable in a starship. One has to run the engines, after all. Is the
heat of sublimation of solid hydrogen high enough for this to be
important?

Gary stated that the best vacuums attained on earth were around 1E10
cm**-3, but electron storage rings typically operate at a nanotorr or so
(about 3E7 molecules/cc). It is also not clear why vacuum conditions
attainable on earth are at all relevant to conditions attainable in
space.  He stated that the thermal velocity of a carbon atom at 1 deg. K
is 1 m/sec; it is actually about 37 meters per second (did he mean a
millikelvin?). I expect the vapor pressure of many solids to be nil at
low temperatures, and radiation from annihilation will mostly be
absorbed deep in the structure (or go right through), so it won't
sputter many atoms.  More of a worry would be adsorbed gas, but that can
presumably be baked off in space.

>> Gary Allen claimed interstellar colonization was impossible.
>I've never claimed that interstellar travel is impossible. 

I said colonization, Gary, not travel.  Gary claimed colonization beyond
50 light years was impossible.

Gary's 50 light year colonization limit has an immediately obvious flaw:
stars move! Even if Gary's scenario is correct and colonization runs
into a wall at 50 light years, the stars in that colonized volume will
continue moving relative to one another. At 30 km/sec (and some nearby
stars move faster than that relative to us), a star will move 50 light
years in 500,000 years. I suppose Gary is assuming that the
civilizations around all the colonized stars will die out or stagnate
permanently in less than O(1 million) years.

>>>    The basic assumptions are that starships can never travel faster
>>> an than ten percent of the speed of light, and are enormously
>>> expensive.
>>We've already handled the first.  About the second, expense is
>>relative to the capabilities of a society.
>Paul has not handled the first problem.  In arguing for anti-matter
>rockets and Forward's light sails, Paul has not demonstrated
>feasibility nor has he shown the capability of relativistic velocities.
>Expense is relative, but a trillion bucks is still a trillion bucks.
>If you divide a [trillion] dollars over the entire American population
>you will be giving every single person $4000.  Would you pay $4000 so
>someone elses grandson could make it to Tau-Ceti?  I'd pay $4000 for my
>grandson (and $40,000 for myself). However I'm a space fanatic.  From
>John Q. Public, you'd be lucky to get forty cents.

I have handled the first problem, in the sense that I have shown that
Gary has not proved light sails to be impossible. I'm not saying they
are certainly feasible, only that they don't contradict the laws of
physics as we currently understand them (as FTL does), and don't seem to
require theoretically impossible materials (as the original ramjet
does). Gary seems to be taking the position that unless we can
demonstrate now how to solve all the engineering problems, the problems
are inherently unsolvable.  Gary's attitude would be appropriate if
someone were proposing to build, right now, a relativistic starship, but
is inappropriate when attempting to set limits on what will be
technically feasible in the far future.

Gary's comment about $4000 per person is plain obfuscation. Gary assumes
that the starship would be built by a civilization of size comparable to
the current American population. This assumption is absurd -- even
today, the US population is only 5% of the world population. The solar
system can support many orders of magnitude more people.

If, for example, a 2.5 trillion person economy builds one starship per
year, and that starship costs $1E12, that's 40 cents per person per year
-- just the level Gary said I'd be lucky to get from John Q. Public.
Even today, NASA's yearly budget is around $40/US citizen, some 100
times this figure, and future productivity and real incomes are likely
to be much higher.  What data we have shows that Gary's claim about the
likelihood of obtaining funds (at least from the government) is simply
false.

Is my assumption about 2.5 trillion people living in space optimistic?
Hardly! Assume each person requires 1000 tons of material for living
space, associated productive capacity, and so on (a quite generous
assumption).  That's 2.5E15 tons of material, or, if that material has a
density of 2 gr/cc, a cube of material 110 km on a side. The large
asteroids could easily supply that; very much larger populations are
possible if the material in moons and planets can be fully exploited (I
think it eventually will be; a planet is a terribly inefficient way to
use matter). I assume materials are efficiently recycled.

Is my assumption about 2.5 trillion people necessary? No! Assuming we
can bring the world population to 10 billion people, at an average
per-capita income 10x that of the current US level. Scaling NASA's
("WASA's"?) current budget proportionally, that budget would be some $4
trillion per year.  Scaling the Soviet space program would give an even
larger figure.

> Paul, you're the one that's wrong.  It's clear that I meant these
> stars couldn't evolve life.  Of course they can support life that
> travels to it, but what idiot civilization would send a star ship to a
> barren system?  We got plenty of dead worlds in the solar system, and
> it costs a whole lot less to stay here.  The extreme expense of star
> travel is justified only if you can go to an earth-like world.

Gary is showing his planetary chauvinism. Why should a system without
life bearing planets be considered "barren"? If the vast majority of
persons in the starship building civilization are living in space
habitats, would they consider the lack of a lifebearing planet a strong
argument against colonization?  We certainly have many dead worlds in
this solar system, and they will be studied and used.  But why should
this prevent colonization of other "barren" systems?

Gary asks: why should an "idiot" civilization colonize a system without
lifebearing planets? Many reasons: to determine if it really is lifeless
(how would you tell for sure without visiting?), to gain further data on
the formation, evolution and properties of stars and planets, to conduct
large scale engineering projects in an unpopulated star system, to
conduct experiments in terraforming, as a stepping stone to more distant
systems, as insurance against disaster, for political prestige, for
ideological reasons, to prevent others from colonizing the system, for
military reasons, etc.

Gary again claims the cost of building a starship is extreme. Nonsense!
To a large space-inhabiting civilization utilizing the resources
available in this solar system, the per-capita cost of building one
starship is TRIVIAL.  It could very well be the case that the capacity
would exist to build many more starships than there are reachable target
stars, in which case arguments about the undesirability of "barren" star
systems lose credibility.

> No, but they could (and probably will) do something much worse.  A
> society could regress and become no-growth.

How Gary can make such pronouncements about the probable behavior of
civilizations is beyond my understanding. We can't make any such
predictions about our species, let alone hypothetical aliens about which
we have zero data. If Gary insists on doing so, it would be
intellectually cleaner to just assume that all civilizations destroy
themselves or stagnate before any starships can be sent out.

An equally valid (that is to say, entirely speculative and unsupported
by evidence) prediction about the future behavior of civilizations is
that they would become less materialistic and more concerned with the
gathering of knowledge.  Such a civilization would eagerly send
colonists to on interstellar trips for the knowledge such trips would
provide.

> If someone can come up with a counter-argument recognizing the above
> five points then the discussion will be worthwhile.

Gary's point 1 [volume of sphere increases faster than the surface area]
is true but I don't understand what it has to do with anything. So what
if there are many more interior systems than frontier systems? There is
no claim being made that all population growth on interior systems need
be exported, and there is no plausible motivation for sending ships only
to already colonized systems. Moreover, assuming starships have limited
range, once the colonization sphere becomes large enough most of the
interior systems are unreachable from the frontier. In the limit the
radius of curvature of the colonization sphere is much larger than
starship range, 1/2 of the systems reachable from a frontier system will
already have been colonized, and each frontier planet need colonize only
1+epsilon new star systems to keep the wave going.

Point two is really two points: starships tax the resources of a star
system (doubtful) and starships are inevitably slow (not proven, and,
indeed, not provable, unless Gary is willing to correctly predict all
relevant future technological and scientific advances.)

Point three [that systems producing starships are eventually insulated
from the frontier] is true, but irrelevant (see point 1 above and point
5 below).

Point 4 [that star travel is ideologically motivated and will provide no
economic return] may be true, but there could be other reasons
(political, for instance), and the relative cost will be so low for a
large civilization that the lack of economic return wouldn't be
important (after all, what's the economic return from particle physics?
from today's space programs? from organized religion?). Enough of
today's government spending (and personal spending, for that matter) is
ideologically motivated that this is no counterargument.

Moreover, point 4 is sensitive to the level of interest rates. In an
economy with low interest rates it may well be economically feasible to
send colonists to nearby star systems. The export from the colony would
be information: scientific, or even entertainment programs.  That the
original investors would not live to see the project completed is not an
objection, since stock can be traded before that point.

Point five [that the home system will change significantly as the radius
of colonization expands] is irrelevant. Once a system is far from the
colonization front, what it does is unimportant to the progress of the
wave, since it is no longer a source of starships. As an explanation of
the Fermi paradox, this hypothesis is also methodologically dubious:
lacking a scientific theory of alien sociology, such explanations cannot
be proved, and in the absence of observation of alien societies no such
theory can be formulated.

Paul Dietz

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 87 23:23:26 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: colonization of Mars

Graham Bromley writes:
> Colonization of Mars is a silly idea for the forseeable future,
> because it would be enormously expensive, and there would be no
> immediate economic return at all.  ... more description of the "silly
> idea" ...

Notions like this never cease to amaze me.  Less than 85 years ago the
newly demonstrated heavier than air flying machine was hailed as a
curiosity; Little value, surely no real use.  Now, as we routinely fly
thousands of miles in hours, we complain because the food served is not
high enough quality.

A governmental body (I wish I could remember which one) decided in the
late 1940's that computers would never become a major industry - surely
only a handful would ever be needed.

Steel ships would never float, and if they did they would be too
expensive.  Steam-powered railroads? Why not just use the canals?
Steamships, Television, radio, telephone, telegraph, etc. etc ad
nauseam.

I believe that it was Issac Asimov who said (or maybe just repeated):
The only thing that can accurately be predicted about future technology
is that it will far exceed your wildest prediction.

I don't for a minute doubt that my children will be traveling
interplanetary space, almost as routinely as we catch the night-flight
to the east coast.

John M. Pantone

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 11 Apr 87 09:35 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Gold

Gary Allen said ERPM has 6 gram/ton gold ore, cheap labor, but is still
losing money, so any ET ore would have to be at least that rich. Russ
Cage wrote:

> This assumes that you're using the same technology to separate the
> gold from the asteroid metal that the ERPM is using.  I really doubt
> this.  I would imagine that large-scale electrolytic refining could
> yield economic amounts of gold inexpensively, particularly if you
> are also refining silicon for solar cells (which you might) and have
> practically unlimited sunlight available (which you would).

It find it hard to believe that an industrial process that would require
complete melting and electrolytic processing could compete with the
cyanide leaching techniques used to extract gold from terrestrial ores,
especially when terrestrial ores have already been concentrated by
natural processes.

Russ repeats the oft-heard non sequitur about unlimited sunlight ==>
cheap electricity. Have you heard of capital costs, Russ? Solar cells
are not cheap; with technical advances, they may make electricity in
space at costs somewhat below (but not many orders of magnitude below)
terrestrial costs, ASSUMING we can make, deploy and maintain the cells
in space as cheaply as we could on earth (a big assumption, requiring
the presence of a large space infrastructure). The cost of power on the
space station will be something like $90/kilowatt-hour, a thousand times
higher than the cost of power on the ground.

------------------------------

Date:     Sat, 11 Apr 87 15:55 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Class M Near Earth Asteroids Discovered

E. Tedesco and J. Gradie report (Astrophysical Journal, 93(3), March
1987) the detection of the first two M class near earth asteroids.
Colorimetry, visual and IR photometry and 10 and 20 micron radiometry
were used to classify the asteroids 1986 DA and 1986 EB.

1986 DA's orbit crosses Mars but not Earth, making it an Amor object,
while 1986 EB's orbit crosses Earth (and Venus) and has a semimajor axis
< 1 AU, making it an Aten object:

	1986 DA		a = 2.811 AU	q = 1.166 AU	(MPC 10628, 1986)
	1986 EB		a =  .974 AU	Q = 1.247 AU	(MPC 10625, 1986)
 (a = semimajor axis, q = perihelion, Q = apohelion, MPC = Minor Planets
  Calendar)

Both are about 2 km across. Class M asteroids are believed to be mostly
metal. Radar observations of 16 Psyche, another class M asteroid with
similar spectra, are indicative of a largely metallic body.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 87 01:44:25 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!ism780c!tim@oberon.usc.edu  (Tim Smith)
Subject: Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova

In article <2164@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@bek-mc.UUCP (David Palmer) writes:
<They not only expect another supernova this year, there has already been one.
<I expect the discoverer is rather peeved because his one shot at fame is
<overshadowed.  (It is not really a shot at fame, over a dozen are found
<each year, but most of them, including 1987b, are so far away that they
<never get to be naked eye objects.)

Wasn't 1987b discovered by an amatuer who has discovered several
supernovas already?  In particular, doesn't he have the record for most
supernovas discovered?  If so, he probably isn't peeved.

Tim Smith

------------------------------

Date:     Saturday 11 Apr 87 3:29 PM CT
From: <BWCHUGPB%UIAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  Orbital Art

   The discussion about the orbital-art seems to be losing its grip. Art
isn't really a precedent for advertising space. I can understand where
there is concern over losing our night sky to the PR committee, but such
displays as the famous "Real Thing" wave of Coca-Cola will not be a
reality for a bit.  However, when they do bcome feasible, I agree that
they shall be an eyesore.

   Again, if whatever object we end up with gets into orbit, won't it
have a prescribed orbit just like everything else? Then astronomers will
be able to avoid it just as they avoid the moon. If I remember
correctly, the French design will break up after a while, so it will not
be a problem for long.  But, such forceful sights as billboards and
Funeral Satellites, Inc., which shall demand non-overlapping orbits,
could fill up the sky, and will be designed to last for decades. These
should be outlawed, or given a special polar orbit for advertising only.
Can you imagine NASA & ESA & Russia assigning orbits the way the FCC
assigns radio wavelengths?

   Another thing: What if an AdSat interferes with an astronomical
observation at the moment of best observation. "Sorry guys, we missed the
eclipse because of that !#?$%! AdSat." That would be intolerable.

Jacob Hugart -- University of Iowa

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #207
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23667; Tue, 28 Apr 87 03:03:47 PDT
	id AA23667; Tue, 28 Apr 87 03:03:47 PDT
Date: Tue, 28 Apr 87 03:03:47 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704281003.AA23667@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #208

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 208

Today's Topics:
		 Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova
			   Re: frozen stars
			      AdSats etc
			      Re: CSICOP
		     Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit
			 More on MMU plumbing
		       re: colonization of Mars
			Life on Mars or Venus
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 87 09:43:32 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watnot!ccplumb@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: NASA Press Release on SuperNova

In article <764@viper.UUCP> dave@viper.UUCP (David Messer) writes:
>In article <2164@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@bek-mc.UUCP (David Palmer) writes:
>>Time magazine had an interesting quote, which says a lot about
>>journalists' ability to comprehend orders of magnitude.  Quoting from
>>memory "The supernova makes Mt St. Helens and Krakatoa look puny by
>>comparison."
>
>Are you saying it doesn't?  :-)

I think it's more like "there's no comparison."

What is it, about 10 orders of magnitude?  I remember a nice chart in a
time-life book that went from a fly's wing-beat to a supernova, but it's
in a different city.  Perhaps someone who knows can tell me - I'm not so
hot with numbers this big, either.

Wait a minute!  I can approximate this myself!  How about comparing the
kinetic energies of the debris produced?  Time for elementary physics:

Frist, what is a solar mass?  No idea, but...
- G=6.0*10^-11
- radius of earth's orbit=1.5*10^11 m
  (93 million miles * 5280 * 12 * 2.54 / 100)
- circumference of earth's orbit=9.4*10^11 m
- period of earth's orbit=3.2*10^7 s
  (365.24 days * 24 * 60 * 60)
- velocity of earth=3.0*10^4 m/s
- centripetal acceleration due to the sun=5.9*10^3 m/s^2
  (a=v^2/r)
- Thus, mass of the sun=2.2*10^30 kg
  (f=G*m1*m2/r^2, so a=G*m/r^2, so m=a*r^2/G)

Thus, assuming 4 solar masses (I have *no* idea if this is accurate,
but I think it's in the right range), mass of supernova=10^31 kg.

Now, what was the mass of Krakatoa?
I heard the figure `5 cubic miles' somewhere, so
- Density of rock = 3g/cc (another guess)
- 5 cubic miles=2.1*10^16 cc (cm^3 if you're fussy)
  (5 * 5280^3 * 12^3 * 2.54^3)
- mass of Krakatoa=6.3*10^13 kg

I've also heard that a supernova throws away "most" of its mass, so that
means that a supernova throws away about 1.5*10^17 times as much mass a
Krakatoa did.

However, a supernova also throws it away faster.  Let's take 10*speed of
sound as an upper bound on Krakatoa's outburst, and .01*c as a lower
bound on the expansion rate of the new nebula, giving

- Speed of sound=335 m/s
 (1100 ft/s * 12 * 2.54 / 100)
- c/100=3*10^6 m/s

Since kinetic energy goes as the square of the velocity, this puts the
ratio between the two of (kinetic energy/mass) at 8.0*10^7.

Thus, the ratio of kinetic energies is at least 1.6*10^25, and probably
a lot higher.  Oops.  10^10 is off.  I hope I redeemed myself by working
it out.  I hope even more that I didn't screw up.

Anyway, "puny" is not the word.  "Nonexistent" is more like it.

	-Colin Plumb (watmath!watnot!ccplumb)

------------------------------

Date: 3 Apr 87 18:43:06 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!jmlang@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: frozen stars

In article <870402092920.00001A93.AJFE.VE@UMass> Cyberma@UMASS.BITNET (Andy R. Steinberg) writes:
>The is one thing that has been bugging about black holes for a long
>time. A black hole can only have 3 properties, mass, charge, and
>rotation. A static black hole has 1 event horizon, whereas a charged or
>rotating black hole has 2 event horizons. I don't understand how there
>can be 2 places where time stops(relative to an outside observer) and
>the escape velocity = c. I have heard somewhere that the outer event
>horizon is the ergosphere, but I don't know what an ergosphere is and
>can't find any reference to it.

At the risk of doing a gross oversimplification:
An event horizon is a boundary through which you cannot come back:
  i.e. any thing that goes in cannot go out even light (hence the black
  in the name Black hole).

The ergosphere is somewhat different. It is a region in which you cannot
 stand still with respect to (say) the distant stars.  Let me elaborate
 a bit.

A non-rotating black hole (the first type that was discovered ) has an
 event horizon : anything that goes in cannot come out.  You can,
 however, stand still w.r.t. the distant stars, provided you are outside
 the event horizon.  It will take some expenditures in energy though,
 you have to counterbalance gravity. It is like stopping a satellite in
 the sky - i.e. prevent it from orbiting - and yet keep the rockets
 firing to prevent the satellite from falling down.

For a rotating black hole however, things are a bit more interesting.
 You still have an event horizon, as before, but this time it is
 distorted a bit as compared to the non-rotating BH. -- nothing magic
 here, it is similar as to why the Earth has a bulge, you can think of
 it as the effect of the centrifugal force. There is something new in
 this case however.  Remember the picture associated with a BH, i.e.
 that of a ball distorting a sheet of rubber -- hence the popular
 "gravity wells" that are sometimes printed on t-shirts. Now set the
 ball rotating around (say) the vertical axis. The rubber sheet is
 dragged along with the rotation, that is, it rotates with the ball.
 (Well up to a certain point, this is only an analogy). Something
 similar happens around a rotating black hole. The space-time is dragged
 along with the rotating black hole. Now, lets get back to that
 satellite, or rocket. Not only does it have to fight against the
 downward gravity to lay still w.r.t. the distant stars, but in addition
 it has to fight against the rotation of the space-time itself.  The
 problem is, can it succeed. The ergosphere is the region where even
 with infinite energy, the rocket fails to maintain a fix w.r.t. those
 stars.  Note: it does not mean that you cannot get away from the
 ergosphere.  Provided you are outside the event horizon, you can still
 get out, even if you are inside the ergosphere.  As an interesting side
 effect, it also means you can steal energy from a rotating black hole,
 by stealing some of the energy stored in that rotating space-time. (You
 don't have to go in the ergosphere to do it). -- A yeah, quantum
 gravity also predicts energy can be emitted from any BH through
 Hawking's radiation.

This is already long enough. I hope this clears up a few hazy notions.

I choose the stars.

Je'ro^me M. Lang

------------------------------

Date:     Sunday 12 Apr 87 2:05 PM CT
From: <BWCHUGPB%UIAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  AdSats etc

   I can understand why people are complaining about adsats and other
non-scientific packages in orbit. I do not agree with sending up such
light shows when it comes time for astronomy, but I must confess that
the thought of such a naked-eye sight as a circle of lights with an
apparent diameter equal to that of the moon does sound interesting.

   In terms of avoid adsats by good timing: yes, I see the difference
would be a tremendous pain. But if adsats ever get off the ground, it
will become a reality we shall have to face. I apologize if I seemed to
be in favor of the adsats, for I understand what a problem they could
be.

   Why do I think people are complaining? I know why; the question is
Who should they complain to? Whom must we convince if we are to stop
adsats? If you recall, I mentioned a joint NASA/ESA/Russia group that
would probably end up assigning orbits to adsats. Does such a group
exist now, with the power to say something about this?

BWCHUGPB@UIAMVS.BITNET
Jacob Hugart -- University of Iowa
Data Base Consulting Group, Weeg Computing Center

------------------------------

Sender: "James J. Lippard" <Lippard@his-phoenix-multics.arpa>
Date:  Tue, 14 Apr 87 14:07 MST
From: Lippard@mit-multics.arpa
Subject:  Re: CSICOP
Reply-To: Lippard@mit-multics.arpa
To: <@MIT-MULTICS.ARPA:Space@angband.s1.gov>

> Date: 7 Apr 87 22:10:31 GMT
> From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
> Subject: CSICOP (sic)

> Yes, I know that the Committee for Scientific Investigation of Claims
> of the Paranormal uses the acronym CSICOP.  But those of us who have
> had "encounters" with their people or their tactics prefer the name
> PSICOP, for Pseudo-Scientific Inquisitors of Claimants of Paranormal.
> (There I was in Austin, feeling like the Devil at a revival meeting,
> with ASTOP going full blast: loud, rude and strident.)

ASTOP has no affiliation with CSICOP.  ASTOP is an autonomous local
organization with similar aims.
   The "PSICOP" acronym does not represent the stated goals or methods
of inquiry endorsed by CSICOP.  I have never seen any evidence that
CSICOP has engaged in any witch hunts.  Perhaps you would care to back
up your statements with some facts?

> How strange and puzzling that otherwise seemingly calm, educated and
> intelligent people froth at the very concept of extraterrestrial life,
> at unidentified aerial phenomena, at subtle talents of the mind.

This is also a misrepresentation.  Members of CSICOP do not "froth" at
those ideas.  They simply desire to see the evidence for them
investigated thoroughly and scientifically, rather than by crackpots and
charlatans.
   Over the last several years, CSICOP has developed very good relations
with some leading parapsychologists such as Charles Honorton, Helmut
Schmidt (who spoke at last year's conference in Boulder), and John
Beloff.  These people support CSICOP's attempts to improve the quality
of parapsychological experimentation and eliminate sources of fraud and
error.
   CSICOP takes no position whatever on the existence of
extraterrestrial life.  The recent CSICOP conference in Pasadena (April
3-4) had a panel on "The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence".  Two
of the three speakers were from the SETI Institute.  One of them, Frank
Drake, said he believed the probability of extraterrestrial life was 1.
   CSICOP's primary objective is to investigate scientifically, not to
debunk.  I believe most people associated with CSICOP would *love* to
find good scientific evidence for ESP.  But so far that evidence just
isn't there.  The same is true for the hypothesis that UFOs are
extraterrestrial visitors (J. Allen Hynek, by the way, spoke at the 1984
CSICOP conference at Stanford).

> (Did anyone witness Randi's problem on the Oprah show last week?
> Heard it was rather funny...)

I saw it.  The only "problem" Randi had was that Amazing Grace, a
charlatan "faith healer", kept interrupting him every time he tried to
speak.  I spoke to Randi at the CSICOP conference about this show.  It
seems that after the show, he tried to go down into the audience to
speak with the woman who claimed to have been healed of cancer by
Amazing Grace.  Grace blocked his way, allowing the woman to escape.
Later, however, someone identified the woman for him.  Randi contacted
her doctor and found that she has not been cured of cancer, and has a
life expectancy measured in weeks.
   (Grace, by the way, claims to have the "word of knowledge" from God.
That is, when she "calls out" people from her audiences to be healed,
God directly informs her of their names and ailments.  One of the things
that occurred during the Randi's investigation of her (for the Committee
for the Scientific Examination of Religion, not CSICOP) was that she
healed Bay Area Skeptic member Don Henvick of an ailment he didn't have,
under a name that was not his own.  Either God lied to Grace or Grace
lied to the audience.)

> If any more comments, let's move it to mod.psi or talk.religion.newage.

I don't read those groups, and I thought your comments deserved some
response here.

> --Arlan Andrews

 Jim Lippard at MULTICS.MIT.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 87 10:37:41 PDT (Tuesday)
From: Colvin.PA@xerox.com
Subject: Re: Manned Maneuvering Unit
Cc: Colvin.PA@xerox.com

> I've noticed in photos of the MMU in action that the wearer has a pair
> of "windshield wipers" sticking out in front.
>
> I'm guessing that they are in fact some kind of MMU status display.
> Anyone know if this is true - and what info is displayed ?


If I recall correctly the "windshield wipers" are fiber optic cables(?)
that allows the user to "see" the firing of the maneuvering jets (I'm
not sure what they "see" since there is no flame, just a puff of gas.
Maybe condensation?). During testing they discovered that people could
maneuver better if they had some indication of when the jets were
firing.

-- Craig Colvin
   colvin.pa@xerox.COM

------------------------------

Date: Wed 15 Apr 87 00:24:26-PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sushi.stanford.edu>
Subject: More on MMU plumbing

Anyway, In 1982 I had occasion to speak to an employee of
Hamilton-Standard, the company that makes the NASA space suits.
Apparently their engineers, after no small amount of effort, did in fact
devise a "dry" method for collecting urine from women.  I don't know the
particulars of the device, but it supposedly looked much like a Venus
fly-trap ("teeth" and all) and required placement somewhere delicate.
They were all ready to test it out, but every time they approached a
woman ("secretary," as it was told to me) asking her to try it, as soon
as the woman got a look at the thinmg, she refused!  Thus, the project
was scrapped, and the DACT was born.

	John Sotos
	SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU
	Stanford Computer Science

------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 87 23:10:19 GMT
From: tektronix!orca!hammer!grahamb@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Graham Bromley)
Subject: re: colonization of Mars

Colonization of Mars is a silly idea for the forseeable future, because
it would be enormously expensive, and there would be no immediate
economic return at all. It would be far cheaper to colonize the Sahara
Desert, Antartica or the ocean beds.  The only kind of manned presence
anyone living today will ever see on Mars will be a small research
outpost, perhaps several persons. If the NASA budget is at breaking
point to fund a stripped-down space station, where would the trillions
for Mars colonization come from? The only conceivable way to explore
Mars is by robot rover vehicles, and that probably won't be done for
decades either, due to the insatiable appetites of shuttle, SDI and
space station budgets.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 87 07:19:45 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Life on Mars or Venus

In article <924@laidbak.UUCP> gerryg@laidbak.UUCP (Gerry Gleason) writes:
>to have been negative so far.  Anyone care to speculate about how to
>convert Mars or Venus into planets that can support life?

	This doesn't address your question, but...
	On very long time scales (10000 years?), we may take them apart
to make smaller habitats out of - that's an awful lot of mass being
wasted just to provide gravity. Besides, what good is a space habitat
which you can't easily control the temperature, gravity, air, orbit,
etc. of ? (1/2 :-) First we have to run out of asteroids, comets, and
small planetary satellites, though.
	Having a strong interest in planetary science as well, I think
it would be a good idea to leave them mostly alone until that time.
There aren't many planet-sized laboratories available around here!

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #208
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01407; Wed, 29 Apr 87 03:04:35 PDT
	id AA01407; Wed, 29 Apr 87 03:04:35 PDT
Date: Wed, 29 Apr 87 03:04:35 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704291004.AA01407@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #209

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 209

Today's Topics:
Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars
Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars
		       re: colonization of Mars
Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars
			   density of Venus
			    Status of JPL
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #198
	   Soviet Mir/Kvant docking problem - a plastic bag
   Re: Summary on "what we [US] want" and what to do [was USSR Mir]
			  Re: Status of JPL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Apr 87 16:00:23 GMT
From: adelie!mirror!hpwalf!boba@xn.ll.mit.edu  (Bob Alexander)
Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars

In article <8704051217.AA05611@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>                        This Martian colony should be built by first
>constructing a space transportation system that can transport material
>into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane.

I think you're jumping to conclusions about the NAP.  All the claims
they're making for it (low cost, regular and routine operation) I've
heard before for the shuttle.  Considering their lousy record of living
up to claims for the shuttle (so lousy, in fact, that heads should roll,
starting with James Fletcher's), plus the soaring cost estimates for the
space station, I expect the National Aerospace Plane to be another
expensive boondoggle.

>At LEO and geosynchronous orbit the United States should construct
>large space stations for supporting the Martian objective.  The current
>whimpy space station planned should be replaced by a larger
>facility...another space station on Phobos.

Do you have any cost estimates for this whole thing?  Three stations
(which require constant visits for supplies) an interplanetary shuttle,
Mars shuttles, and enough trips to move 500 (!!) people!  Sounds like
SDI is cheap in comparison!  (Please, lets not debate the relative
merits of SDI vs. Mars colonies.)  Any mistakes you make in the
colonization effort will be *very* costly.

>The key concepts are: The project is motivated by ideology and not by
>hard nosed economics.

You can't dismiss economics so quickly.  Money represents resources: raw
material and labor.  When a company or the gov't loses money, it means
it's taking valuable resources and producing something less valuable.
Companies do it in hopes of future profits.  The government does it for
ideological or political reasons.  But something as big as colonizing
Mars just doesn't have enough ideological support to get funded.

I believe the private sector is the way to go.  When something is
profitable, it will get done.  Satellites are profitable and as a
result, they are now plentiful.  A few private companies are developing
space factories and concepts for cheap space stations.  Once these
become profitable, they will become common.  Same with private launch
companies.  True, private companies won't colonize Mars in the next 20
years, but they'll move into space steadily and intelligently.  They
won't abandon their investments like the U.S. government has done; they
won't pursue flashy but foolish policies (like abandoning ELVs and
launching everything on the shuttle, or the Aerospace Plane); and
they'll continually strive to bring down the cost of getting into space
(unlike NASA, where the more money they can spend, the happier they
are.)

Bob Alexander   Hewlett-Packard   Waltham, MA   ...hplabs!hpwala!boba

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 87 18:19:58 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars

> ... This Martian colony should be built by first
> constructing a space transportation system that can transport material
> into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane...

Ho ho.  To approximately quote Gary Hudson: "The Aerospace Plane is
going to be a combination of the Concorde and the Space Shuttle.  This
does not sound cheap to me."  Agreed that cheap LEO transport is
important to Mars colonization, and to a lot of other things, but the
NASP is most unlikely to provide it.

> At LEO and geosynchronous orbit the United States should construct
> large space stations for supporting the Martian objective...

You don't want to put a space station in geostationary orbit; it is in
the fringes of the outer Van Allen belt.  Besides, why bother?  That
orbit's only real uses are for Earth-oriented work; it has no advantages
for Mars projects.

"We must choose: the stars or	Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the dust.  Which shall it be?"	{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 87 18:00:00 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!seiffert@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: re: colonization of Mars

How much do you think it will cost to try and keep this planet's rapidly
depleting recources from running out? Do you honestly believe that this
planet can continue to support the present population for the next 100
years? And when the smaller nations start rise in unison against the
larger nations that have all the food and resources, how much will it
cost for the larger ones to use the dwindling commodities of food,
energy, and minerals to beat back the small ones? How much will it cost
to move the coastal cities of the world inland if the poles start to
melt? How much will the medical expences be for the cancer caused by
ultraviolet radiation?

You may consider these alarmist questions to media hype. But do you
really believe that we can keep dumping PCB's into our backyard and not
get hurt? There is a point where the planet will break. But one hope
besides changing our habits now is to look to other places. Use the
resources of other worlds to relieve our own for a while until we can
reverse the damage. We may even learn some valuable information about
terraforming our own planet based on the efforts a Mars colony.

I'm not saying run out on old Mother Earth, but these efforts could buy
us the time we need. We may not be able to afford to do this. But can we
afford not to? We have already gone too far on borrowed time and money.
The debt is due.
                                 -- Kurt A. Seiffert
                                            seiffert@silver.bacs.indiana.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Apr 87 19:39:01 GMT
From: ulysses!gamma!mb2c!edsdrd!edstb!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars

In article <8704051217.AA05611@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>It is time again to stirup the Space Digest newsgroup with another
>crazy idea.

"Crazy" is right.  See below.

>I think it should be the national object of the United States to
>establish a self sustaining and growing colony of 500 Americans on the
>planet Mars.  [...] This colony would be established for ideological
>reasons and **not** for economic reasons.

The last time we did something for ideological/scientific reasons,
we were earth-bound again in 2 decades because there was no return
on the investment.  Never, ever again!

>This is where O'Neal's L-5 colony idea fell flat.  You can't justify
>these space colonies on economic grounds.

This is where you're wrong.  The colony's purpose was to build solar
power satellites from lunar or asteriodal materials.  When the concept
of solar power satellites was considered and then dismissed, the idea of
using non-terrestrial resources was not even given a hearing.  *This* is
why the idea fell flat, not on economic grounds.  The idea is just as
sound today as it was in the mid-70's.

[details the transportation system to establish the colony, including
 an aerospace plane and fusion rocket interplanetary transport.]

Remember, anything that kills the development of the NASP or the IFR
kills your colony too, and a lot can go wrong in 15 years.  In this time
of budget cuts, betting on a national consensus for that much spending
is betting the rent.  Never, ever again!

>That way the U.S. could once again do this stupidity of throwing its
>space program into the trash can, but the colony would still be there
>and growing.

Or there and dying, if not enough homework was done.  Or all the
colonists could be called home if Washington thought it cost too much to
maintain them umpteen million miles from earth.

>The key concepts are: The project is motivated by ideology and not by
>hard nosed economics.  It's a one shot deal that establishes a
>permanent presence in space.

Doubtful.  It has too long of a lead time and doesn't have any returns
along the way.  It's too vulnerable to survive.  The ideology wouldn't
survive the fiscal concerns.  Economics is a better base for such a
venture; make it pay off, and *someone* will do it.

Russ Cage

------------------------------

Date: 13 Apr 87 02:59:48 GMT
From: stro@cs.rochester.edu  (Steve Robiner)
Subject: density of Venus


Question: Since the mass, and subsequently density of planetary objects
are determined by the speed of their moons ( I think this is true ),
how was the mass / density of Venus determined before sateliites /
probes were sent there?  The must have had to know this information, but
Venus has no moons.  Anyone know how anyone knew?  I assume the current
mass/density of Venus is derived from obital probes which have already 
been sent.

robiner@usc-oberon

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 14 Apr 87 16:54:25 CST
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
Subject:  Status of JPL

The recent NOVA program on the Galileo project delays caused me to think
about JPL, and I realized that I didn't know just how it fits into the
US space-effort structure. Is JPL a US Government facility (and, if so,
is it part of NASA or a separate activity), or is it a contractor to
NASA, or is it part of Cal Tech and really an academic institution,
or is it a completely indiependent private corporation (profit or
non-profit)? Or something else entirely?

Are JPL employees US Government GS-series people, or are they CalTech
employees, or do they actually work for some contractor, or what?

Regards,
Will Martin
wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA   (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA )

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 1987 16:57-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #198

ADDITION TO BBS LIST:

Pittsburgh L5 has two systems. The one listed is our mail gateway, but
the primary public information outlet is the older one at 412-464-1397.
This is actually the very first L5 bulliten board to ever come on line.
SYSOP is currently Dr. Steven Shulik. First SYSOP was Beverly Freed.

The original system was a homebrew basic brogram on a Trash-80. This
was replaced by a donated Apple Lisa running Red Ryder. 300/1200.

Note to Robert Brumley: our L5Net Gateway may be off line for a few
months. Check with the SYSOP.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 14 Apr 87 15:34:22 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet Mir/Kvant docking problem - a plastic bag

   The Soviets have announced what the "plastic alien object" was that
caused the problems in the docking of the 20 Tonne Kvant module to the
Mir space station (see my previous postings for more details on the
docking and the fix up space walk).  They describe it as a plastic bag,
some 17 cm by 14 cm in size.  They did not say where it came from but it
sounds like some one forgot to remove one of the plastic covers from the
docking mechanism before it was inserted into its launch shroud.  On
interesting point, I have heard from some one that at least part of the
space walk done to repair this problem was shown live on Russian TV
(hourly reports were given on the short wave so that is not so
unbelievable).  It seems to me the same thing was done in the Skylab 2
walk to open the solar panels.  As man works more in space more of these
repair/rescues will occur.
   Again the capability of humans to save expensive space equipment has
been shown.  I wish that some of the networks would have broadcast part
of this latest rescue on their news shows.  It might help convince some
of the robot only crowd that mankind is still the most flexible system
we can put in space.  The Soviets have learned that lesson well, it took
them less than 2 days to look at the situation, and plan a space walk to
see if it could be fixed.  If the Kvant/Mir docking had failed it would
probably have set their program back one or more years (as in the case
of the Skylab rescue).  They got several years more life out of the
Salyut 7 station the same way.  We need our own people up there to do
the same thing.

                                      Glenn Chapman
                                      MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 14 Apr 1987 20:27-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject:  Re: Summary on "what we [US] want" and what to do [was USSR Mir]

Gene:
	I missed your first go around on feelings about MIR, so I figure
I'll just throw my feelings out to everyone.

First, I would say that the Soviets are doing a damn good job. I
recently saw video tapes of the interior of the station. It may not be
the technological marvel of the US station, but it exists and is in
orbit. I begin to wonder if our oft revised paper marvel ever will be.
And even if it does get in orbit and is manned by 1996(97? 98? 00?) or
so, it will be too little, it will be too late and it will have cost
far, far too much.

We are being left in the dust.

My faith in our government has been somewhat thin for a long time, but
my faith in NASA lasted even through Challenger, although I've always
had a preference for the private approach in most areas.

But the lack of guts in NASA and the lack of vision in our government
have broken that thread. We are governed by grovelling wimps.

I no longer feel that NASA or the US government are capable of taking
humanity to the stars, or even to the moon.

You might say that the private sector won't do it. I very much hope you
are wrong, because if you aren't, the solar system belongs to the
Soviets and we are just has-beens who haven't the decency to realize it
and get out of the way. Maybe freedom really is an historical anomaly
that self destructs.

The stars belong to those with the guts and the fortitude to go for
them. I used to think it was obviously us. After the last year I'm not
so sure.

But I'll keep on fighting for it to my last breath.

I propose an open conspiracy. Many of us on this net will in 15-20 years
be in positions of power in hundreds if not thousands of corporations
and government agencies.

I suggest that when the time comes, you simply direct whatever resources
you can towards the goal of space flight. If we (the space movement) can
control the use of about $10-20G/year, we can do it regardless of
political priorities. Screw the politicians: they've screwed you!

Maybe you decide on a particular research project over another because
it will help solve a problem relevant to space settlement.  Maybe you
preferentially invest mutual fund money or venture capital resources
into small space firms.  There are a million small ways to make pieces
of it happen. You needn't talk about it. Just follow your heart and act
when the moment comes.

					Dale Amon,
					space activist

PS: Donate to the Space Studies Institute. You get a lot more bang for
your buck. They only have one center so there is less money wasted in
feudal infighting.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 87 05:59:21 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Status of JPL

In article <8704142232.AA22109@angband.s1.gov> wmartin@almsa-1.arpa (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:
>Is JPL a US Government facility (and, if so,
>is it part of NASA or a separate activity), or is it a contractor to
>NASA, or is it part of Cal Tech and really an academic institution,
>or is it a completely indiependent private corporation (profit or
>non-profit)? Or something else entirely?

	To quote from the Caltech (please, spell it right!) catalog:

Jet Propulsion Laboratory: Administered by the Institute; owned and
	supported by NASA.

	JPL has also taken on an increasing amount of non-NASA (military,
in part) work in recent years, resulting in some changes in their relation 
to Caltech people. When Lew Allen came in as Director, he said there would
be no changes in accessibility of JPL to Techers. Shortly thereafter, 
Caltech ID alone became insufficient to gain access to JPL. Perhaps
his former military background showing through?

	In fairness, I should mention that the amount of military work
going on is relatively small; I believe there is a limit of ~20% set by
the Caltech Trustees. Caltech faculty has proven to be very protective
of JPL's status in the past; a few years ago, the Army wanted to establish
some sort of strategic think-tank associated with JPL. The faculty found
out about this and forced the Caltech administration to refuse.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #209
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03291; Thu, 30 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT
	id AA03291; Thu, 30 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 87 03:03:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8704301003.AA03291@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #210

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 210

Today's Topics:
		   KVANT and MIR visual observation
		 The Search for Life in the Universe
		     High Tc Superconductor News
		condensed space news from Feb 2 AW&ST
		   predictions of future technology
		     Private Colonization Efforts
	 Space developement must recognize political reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 87 13:02:41 GMT
From: sase.dec.com!biro@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: KVANT and MIR visual observation

-< Watch For KVANT in front of MIR >-

KVANT has been spotted by several people, but here in New England it has
been either raining or cloudily when MIR/KVANT is visible. Look for any
orbits after sunset till 9:30 pm local time after that MIR/KVANT will be
in the earth shadow. This is a separate unit form the astrophysic
module, it separated about 2 hours after the successful linkup.

most likly international obj 87-030a NASA obj # 17845 is the KVANT AUX
BLOCK unit

KVANT has the following orbit vs MIR's 
S.M.A.  =  6731.2491  vs MIR's  6731.600 KM
apoggee =   361.848   vs MIR's   363.273 KM
perigee =   345.096   vs MIR's   343.607 KM

KVANT leads MIR and is apx 11 tons and has a docking port.  It is not as
bright as MIR but can easily be seen by the naked eye as a separate
dimmer object.

I have not seen any official explanation of what KVANT AUX BLOCK will
do, but the most likely would be a semiconductor processing unit or a
space tug for a semi processing plant.  I f this is true , then the
Russians are now out of the prototype stage and into true productions of
space grown xtals.

john

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 21:46:42 PDT
From: Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@venera.isi.edu>
Reply-To: Rogers@venera.isi.edu
Subject: The Search for Life in the Universe
Date: Tue, 21 Apr 87 21:46:42 PDT

      Mr. Larry Atkins of Santa Ana Community College will present a
lecture on extraterrestrial life at 7:00 PM on Saturday, May 30th, in
the Planetarium at Santa Ana Community College.

      The search for life away from the surface of the Earth has long
been a concern to mankind.  This lecture will cover possible historical
and modern evidence for extraterrestrial life, and current programs,
such as SETI.  The college observatory will be available for use at the
conclusion of the program.

      Mr. Atkins teaches astronomical observation for Rancho Santiago
College District, and performs research in electronics for Rockwell.

     This lecture is one of many activities sponsored by the
Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and
Settlement (OASIS).  The organization is a non-profit educational group
which promotes space development.

      The public is invited; there is no admission charge.  Santa Ana
Community College is located at the intersection of Bristol and W. 17th
Street in the city of Santa Ana.  For more information about this
lecture or other OASIS activities call Craig Milo Rogers at (213) 419 -
0561, or send a message to <Rogers@ISI.Edu>.

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 23 Apr 87 22:17 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  High Tc Superconductor News

Panson et. al. at Westinghouse [Appl. Phys. Lett 50(16), 4/20/87] have
estimated microscopic superconductivity parameters in
La(1.8)Sr(0.2)CuO(4) and have estimated a depairing critical current
density of roughly 500,000 amperes per square centimeter at low
temperature and zero magnetic fields, although the granular samples they
actually measured were not optimized and showed lower values (several
kiloamps/cm**2). They state that microelectronic applications appear
practical, assuming films of the stuff are stable, while large scale
high current applications (such as magnets) are less clear at this
point.

Cava et. al. at Bell Labs [Phys. Rev. Lett 58(16), 4/20/87] have
measured critical current densities of at least 1,100 amps/cm**2 in
samples of YBaCuO at 77 K and zero magnetic field, substantially higher
than in LaSrCuO at similar T/Tc (where critical current densities about
two orders of magnitude lower were measured). This measurement was
limited by the contacting technique used to put current through the
sample. It would be interesting to see what Jc is for YBaCuO at liquid
helium temperatures.

Workers in Japan and at Argonne National Labs have independently formed
fine flexible superconducting wires out of the materials. The wires are
prototypes that so far have impractically low critical current
densities.

The British journal Nature [4/16/87, page 630] had an amusing photo of a
Japanese physicist's hand holding a permanent magnet, over which floated
an 8 gram, 4 cm diameter disk of YBaCuO, levitated in midair by the
Meissner effect. The disk had just been dunked in liquid nitrogen.
Current density in the disk was estimated to be about 200 amps/cm**2.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 87 23:26:18 GMT
From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@AMES.ARPA  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: condensed space news from Feb 2 AW&ST

[The responses on preferred format for these articles have pretty much
stopped coming in, so sometime in the next few days I'll take a look at
the stack and summarize them.  Life has been hectic lately.  -- HS]

Editorial criticizing the Reagan administration for not giving NASA more
voice in space policy, and Fletcher for not fighting harder for it.

France starts construction on 50-m tower to provide 5-6 s of free fall
for microgravity experiments.

NASA space-goal studies under Sally Ride are focusing on five choices of
major direction: lunar base, intensive study of Earth from space, Mars
sample return leading up to manned Mars mission, manned Mars mission,
and Mars sample return as part of ambitious unmanned planetary program.
The probable result will be a mixture.

[Micro-editorial: What NASA really needs to do is to pick one and push
it hard, not compromise on a watered-down mixture that can be gradually
nibbled to death by the bean-counters. -- HS]

Space station facing more delays: NASA has not completed a report to
Congress that is a precondition for funding hardware contracts, and the
steadily-rising cost estimates will cause trouble too.

JPL releases two-minute movie based on a single Landsat photo: a 3-D
high-speed aerial ride over southern California.  This was a technology
demo for work on global cloud-cover studies; the image enhancement took
several days of mainframe computer time.

Several Congressmen charge that the Reagan administration has no space
policy and is providing no leadership at a difficult time.

Initial MLV contract -- 7 Deltas with option on 13 more -- specifies
large penalties for failures: one failure loses the entire $60M
incentive bonus, two cuts profits in half, three eliminates
McDonnell-Douglas profit entirely.

NASA unhappy about erosion of its ability to lead the space program.
Too many other agencies, peripherally involved and largely ignorant, are
getting involved in decision-making.  Really silly micromanagement is in
prospect, such as Treasury Secretary Baker recently questioning the
designation of Spacelab as a Shuttle-unique payload [!!!].  Space
companies are equally unhappy about some of the ignorant clods they now
have to deal with.

USAF plans to resume launching KH-11 spysats from Vandenberg this
summer.  The last KH-11 in orbit is over two years old, and measures to
extend its lifetime have resulted in a considerable backlog of imaging
requests.  The problem is that inspection of Titan SRB segments has
turned up several more with debond problems like the one that caused the
failure a year ago, and the USAF is working hard to assemble one or two
known-good sets of segments.

General Dynamics proposes Advanced Launch Vehicle, $600/lb for up to
100klb into LEO.  Basic design is a cryogenic core (using expendable
derivative of SSME) plus a variable number of solid strap-ons.  Later
upgrades would add new low-cost oxyhydrogen engine and/or a winged
flyback booster using LOX and kerosene.  Both could allegedly use
Shuttle launch facilities.

McDonnell-Douglas says commercial version of the MLV Delta will be
cheaper than Ariane, Proton, or Long March 3.  [I'll believe it when I
see it. -HS] Sales will obviously depend on satellite size; Delta could
not handle a big lump like an Intelsat 6.  Customers are concerned about
whether their loads could be bumped by military payloads; the answer so
far from McDD is "yes", but they suggest that Delta's record of fast
recovery from failures will minimize the impact.  One unknown for early
commercial use is whether McDD will be allowed to use Thor engines the
USAF has in storage.

Orbital Sciences sells another TOS upper stage, for the Advanced
Communications Technology Satellite, subject to Congress again
reinstating the ACTS program despite Administration decision (again) to
cancel it.

Rockwell's candidate for a heavy-lift launcher revealed: essentially a
shuttle with the orbiter replaced by a thin flat recovery glider with a
roughly cylindrical payload pod on its back.  Capacity 139 klbs into LEO
from KSC, payload diameter same as shuttle and length 15 ft longer.  The
glider, weighing 90 klbs (shuttle orbiter landing weight is 220 klbs),
is the simplest way of recovering the SSMEs and avionics; the
recoverable modules seen in other shuttle-derived designs have their
problems.  It would not be capable of bringing a payload back with it.
A bonus of this concept is that tank-attach points etc. are the same as
an orbiter.  Rockwell is also looking at in-line designs with engines
under the ET and payload on top.

Britain is designing its own electronic eavesdropping satellite,
codenamed Zircon, to reduce its dependency on US electronic
intelligence.  It was to be launched under the cover of being another
Skynet military comsat; the real story came out when a BBC documentary
on excessive secrecy in government was cancelled [!!!], causing
political uproar in Britain.

Picture of Challenger debris being lowered into storage in an unused
silo at the Cape.

Roger Boisjoly files $1G lawsuit against Morton Thiokol, alleging harm
to health and career from M-T management action against him after his
testimony on the Challenger disaster.

GTE Spacenet signs contract for Ariane launch of GStar 4 comsat in 1989.
GStar 4 will carry a Geostar navigation package as well.

USSR named Romanenko and Laveykin as next long-stay crew on Mir.

Terasat signs with China to launch Western Union's Westar 6S on Long
March in Feb 1988.  Terasat will pay for the launch in return for
partial ownership of the payload.

USAF modernizing the Eastern Test Range (KSC and the Cape) to support
the future higher launch rate of shuttle and expendables, replacing old
gear and adding new facilities.

Two letters of interest:

	"It really upsets me that the families of the Challenger crew
	made claims and received a settlement ...  I hope that in a
	similar situation my family would put honor ahead of greed.
						-- Martin Rollinger
						   Captain, USMC"

	"...America's manned space flight program no longer deserves the
	name ... The space station project slips nearly every month by
	another year, decreasing at the same time in size and importance
	... What if another accident happens? ... Europe has invested
	more than a billion dollars in the shuttle and shuttle payload
	compatibility.  Now the contracts are not worth the paper they
	are written on.  Spacelab, Ulysses, Rosat, Eureca...  The
	American spirit of enterprise once stimulated the world.  This
	spirit is history.  Now it's the age of the irresolutes -- the
	time of beancounters and bookkeepers.
						-- Eugen K. Reichi"
				    
Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 87 15:40:58 GMT
From: decvax!necntc!cullvax!drw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dale Worley)
Subject: predictions of future technology

jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes:
> A governmental body (I wish I could remember which one) decided in the
> late 1940's that computers would never become a major industry -
> surely only a handful would ever be needed.

This may be true, but the version I heard (from some reasonably accurate
printed source) was that it was *IBM*.  Apparently they decided that
they'd better make a few computers to keep up their reputation in the
business data-processing market (when "data-processing" meant
electromechanical punch-card processing machinery).  So they priced it
high to recover the development costs with a few units and sold far more
than they ever expected.  That's when IBM realized it might make money
in computers...

I remember when a large mainframe had 1 megabyte.  Now the PC on my desk
has that much.  (And it isn't enough!)

"The amount of technological change in the next 50 years will be
approximately the same as the total for all of past history.  This is
true for each successive 50 year period."

Dale Worley		Cullinet Software
ARPA: cullvax!drw@eddie.mit.edu

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 1987 23:38-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Private Colonization Efforts

Bob Gray:

I'd like to point out that most of those early colonies in North America
were chartered private groups, incorporated in England. Some of them
were LITERALLY planned company towns for exploiting the wilderness. Some
were religious enclaves like Plymouth. England supplied control of the
seas. Private money did nearly EVERYTHING else; supplied the people, the
tools, the transport, the food stuffs, the insurance...

The situation in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies was considerably
different I think. They were more interested in extending the landed
aristocracy and lording it over the heathen than in building a new
nation.

I think the English approach to colonization has far superior results.

						Dale Amon
					National Space Society
					  Board of Directors

(So where can I get my charter for lands bounded by Mare Crisium to the
east ...)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 10:40:07 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Space developement must recognize political reality

John Leech's article in Vol. 7, No. 195 of Space Digest on relative
pulic support for the Space Program, hit the nail solidly on the head.
John demonstrated that while it is true that 67% of the public wants
the space budget held at current spending levels or increased, it is
also true that 69% wants Food Stamps held at current spending levels or
increased.  This is particularly poignant, since for years we spent more
on Food Stamps alone than on the entire NASA space budget.  I still have
vivid memories from my days at Berkeley watching the Telegraph Ave. bums
paying off their heroin debts to the local pusher with freshly acquired
food stamps.  The Food Stamp program is money down the toliet, and yet
it has more public support than the Space Program.  Public support for
the Space Program is very, very soft.  The public will **not** support a
major space project (like my earlier proposed Mars colonization idea)
unless the project is being actively pushed by a charismatic president
(a Kennedy or Reagan clone) and  based on some sort of gut simple
propaganda, i.e. "let's beat the Russians".  The sad truth is your basic
John Q. Public, man-in-the-street isn't all that intelligent or all
that well educated.  Talk to him about space and he'll come back about
Luke Skywalker and R2-D2.  SDI was politically viable (from the
standpoint of internal politics) because zapping a Russian satellite
with a laser is something any idiot could understand.  The political
fact-of-life is public support for space is weak, and major space
projects will occur only through direct presidential support for one
flashy, expensive, one-shot project.  Educating the public about space
is an obvious long term goal for the Space Movement.  However this
educational task is severly hampered by the extremely low quality
of science education in America.  How can you convince someone that
we should go to Mars if the idiot doesn't even know that Mars is a
planet?  I agree with other readers of Space Digest that we should
have a permanent presence in space.  However if this is to be done
through the political process (and I believe space travel is currently
too expensive to be done any other way) then it will have to be done
through a flashy, expensive, ***one-shot*** project like the Apollo
program.  The only project that I can imagine that would lead to
a permanent space presence which is based on one-shot funding would
be the 500 man colony on Mars that I described in an earlier posting.

                             Gary Allen

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #210
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01631; Fri, 1 May 87 03:03:17 PDT
	id AA01631; Fri, 1 May 87 03:03:17 PDT
Date: Fri, 1 May 87 03:03:17 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705011003.AA01631@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #211

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 211

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Private space again
		     More on Martian colonization
		       Re: Private space again
				escape
			   Re: mars colony
Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars
       Re: Space developement must recognize political reality
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 01:46:04 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Private space again
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc: 

In article <545542725.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale writes:
>
>I'd like to point out that most of those early colonies in North
>America were chartered private groups, incorporated in England.

Gee, what's happened to private enterprise since then?  Sorry if this
sounds too sarastic.  I am looking for paralellels.

>. Some were religious enclaves like Plymouth.

Gee, where's religion when you really need it?

>The situation in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies was considerably
>different I think.

Parallels to Soviet views?
>						Dale Amon

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Apr 87 16:53:34 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: More on Martian colonization

In Vol. 7, No. 198, Dave Rickel responded to my crazy idea of making
a permanent Mars colony with 500 people.  Ray addressed the question
of a Mars shuttle:

>I saw a plan using an Earth-Mars shuttle.  The idea was you would
>place this shuttle in an elliptical orbit such that it approaches the
>Earth and Mars cyclically?

My original posting called for using an IFR rocket as a basis for
the Mars shuttle.  This has the advantage of getting one to Mars in a
couple of months, thereby reducing biological problems with zero
gravity and solar radiation.  However the IFR is a speculative
technology which assumes success in high energy lasers.  Just a plain
old dumb space station in a resonant orbit between Mars and Earth
could do the trick also.  You could place components into this resonant
orbit using chemical rockets or nuclear-ion propulsion.  This space
station would have a closed life support system, be powered by solar
energy, have a "storm cellar" that the passengers could go to in the
case of high radiation due to a solar disturbance.  You'd have
the thing in two sections, suspended by a tether and spining about
its center of gravity.  This would reduce the zero G problem.
You would use an OTV to transfer the passengers from a geosynchronous
station to the Mars shuttle.  The OTV would later (after one cycle)
return to the geosynchronous station to be refueled.  The passengers
could either be dumped directly into the Martian atmosphere in a
cheap use-once-throw-away entry body, or aerobrake into Martian
orbit to a Phobos station.  Cost would determine the best tactic.
If you go directly into the Martian atmosphere then you lose the
entry body which originated from Earth.  If you aerobrake, then the
aerobraking vehicle could be reused, and a cheap entry body made
from material acquired from Phobos (silicon foam for example).  My
educated guess is it would be cheaper to just dump directly into
the atmosphere and forget Phobos.

>OK.  Somehow you get to Mars orbit.  Getting down shouldn't be much
>problem.  What to do when you get there may be, though.  You need a
>power supply. Almost certainly it will be atomic, with all the problems
>that entails (not engineering problems--political problems). What's the
>composition of the Martian atmosphere?  How do you do life support
>(photosynthesis?  boil the oxygen out of the sand?

You're right, in the beginning you'd do everything with nukes.  However
the colony couldn't grow on nuclear fussion (the tech is too high for a
small colony).  The political problem isn't that bad.  Nuclear reactors
aren't dangerous if they've never been powered up.  To grow, you would
have to go totally on solar power.  Fossil fuels don't exist on Mars.
Even if they did you couldn't burn them (no free oxygen).  The
atmoshere is mostly Co2 and nitrogen.  Setting up a pressurized green
house would be relatively easy if you could keep it warm.  Two possible
fixes for the Martian energy problem would be "geothermal" or maybe
nuclear fission.  Mars has lots of volcanoes so "geothermal" is
a strong candidate.  Mars had rivers and lakes many millions of years
ago.  Viking 2 (?) landed in an old alluvial fan.  Transuranic
elements might be available.  However fission is a long shot because
the tech is too high.

>What equipment do you send with your colony?  Weight matters.  You will
>want some areosynchronous (sp?) com/weather sats.  A couple more sats
>closer in, to do minerological surveys and that sort of stuff. You will
>want to set your colony down in an area with a lot of readily available
>ore-- iron ore especially.  You'll want some transportation (probably a
>flyer of sorts).  Medical goods.  Hydroponics stuff.  Shelter.  Mining
>equipment (note that this doen't necessarily imply bulldozers and
>explosives, although they would help).  Too bad Mars doesn't have
>trees--it'd make things a lot simpler.  Ceramics might work out pretty
>well--maybe a lot of stuff could be made out of glass.

You try and send just human bodies and build your equipment on Mars.
It is almost impossible not to find iron on Mars.  The reason why the
Red Planet is red is because it has so much iron (iron oxide to be
exact). Mars does have weather. Mars can have fairly nasty dust storms.
A complete survey of the planet would be necessary before the first
colonists arrived.  Explosives, particularly nuclear explosives would
help in the beginning.  Mars has nitrogen so one could make chemical
explosives from nitric acid.  Mars will (and must) have trees inside
pressurized green houses.

>Until you get three or four settlements, an accident could easily wipe
>out the entire colony.  Oops.

You pays your money, you takes your chances.  I'd volunteer, would you?

>Until Mars starts producing fuel, the fuel will have to come from Earth
>Expensive.

Energy is problem number one against growth for the colonies.  Energy
density from solar is lousy on Earth and worse on Mars.  Nukes require
too high a tech. The next Martian orbiter should have a high resolution
thermal imager to look for hot spots on the planet, and a gamma ray
spectrometer to look for transuranics.  To make this idea work, you
must assume complete support and supply independence from Earth once
the colony is established.  Funding would be possible only if you
could demonstrate that the deal was a one-shot that the U.S. could
walk away from once the colony was setup.  However I suspect that
if the colony was successful then there would be even bigger public
demand to send more people.  In 30 years the Earth is going to be
a very crowded and unpleasant place to live.  A virgin planet (even
if it is unhospitable) will be attractive to many people.
                                   Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 87 13:56:53 GMT
From: milano!mcc-pp!patrick@im4u.utexas.edu  (Patrick McGehearty)
Subject: Re: Private space again

In article <8704160946.AA08766@ames-pioneer.arpa>, eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
> In article <545542725.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale writes:
> >
> >I'd like to point out that most of those early colonies in North
> >America were chartered private groups, incorporated in England.
> 
> Gee, what's happened to private enterprise since then?  Sorry if this
> sounds too sarastic.  I am looking for paralellels.

A parallel worth noting is that those early charter groups mostly lost
their investments.  Jumping on a new idea too soon is often a way to
lose a bunch of money.  It also paves the way for later followers to
make things happen.

> >The situation in the Spanish and Portuguese colonies was considerably
> >different I think.

Yes, those colonies were motivated by greed also, in the form of gold.
The vast gold and silver mines of the Spanish colonies confirmed Spain
as the leading power of the 16th century until the superior naval
technology of England (and some luck) led to the defeat of the Spanish
Armada.

> >						Dale Amon
> --eugene miya

It seems America's leadership position is being seriously challenged in
space and technology by the Russians and the Japanese.  A charasmatic
leader could use the situation to launch a visionary project.  However,
it needs to be doable within the funding lifetime of his/her presidency.
Otherwise, it will be cut/delayed/etc when a new leader with new
programs comes to office.

Rather than a 20 year colony on Mars project, how about a 10 year,
colony on the Moon project.  Such a colony would be much more immediate,
making it easier to develop support.  A key factor among the activist
core is a hope that they personally might make it into space.  I like
the idea that I might be able to retire to the Moon when I am 65 for the
last half of my life, escaping from the health hazards of high gravity.
I have no expectation of being able to migrate to Mars in my lifetime.

Once the basic technology for moving mass to the Moon is in place,
business will move in to establish a tourist industry. :-)

Patrick McGehearty (McGehearty@MCC)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 87 13:56:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: escape

>How much do you think it will cost to try and keep this planet's
>rapidly depleting recources from running out? Do you honestly believe
>that this planet can continue to support the present population for the
>next 100 years? And when the smaller nations start rise in unison
>against the larger nations that have all the food and resources, how
>much will it cost for the larger ones to use the dwindling commodities
>of food, energy, and minerals to beat back the small ones? How much
>will it cost to move the coastal cities of the world inland if the
>poles start to melt? How much will the medical expences be for the
>cancer caused by ultraviolet radiation?

So we should spend zillions of dollars (I have no idea what it would
really cost but the Apollo program ran about $25-30 billion in the
sixties and colonizing Mars is a much bigger project and there's been a
lot of inflation in the last 25 years ).  Just so a few hundred or a
thousand priveleged individuals can escape all this.

I believe we should try to solve our problems here.  If we can't agree
on doing that then..  1) Most of us are doomed anyway so how are you
going to get the sort of public support needed to launch such a massive
project as Mars colonization?  ..and 2) If our species is so
disagreeable and warlike and uncooperative and just plain stupid that it
can't recognize its own self-interest in not fowling its nest, then what
is your justification in trying to preserve it on an extra-terrestrial
colony?  As a good bad example to aliens?

> I'm not saying run out on old Mother Earth, but these efforts could
> buy us the time we need.

It sounds to me like you ARE saying 'run out on Mother Earth'.
Attitudes of people like you are how we got into this mess in the first
place.  When you've finished polluting someplace you just move on to
'someplace else'.  But you can't run away from yourself.  And besides,
'buy us the time we need' for what?  How are we going to use that time?
To make better technology?  Technology isn't the issue; its a
smokescreen.  WE are the problem and we've got to face that and stop
thinking that our technology is going to save us from ourselves.

                                          --Peter

------------------------------

Date:  Thu, 16 Apr 87 19:23 EDT
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: mars colony

There is one big problem with this idea of putting a colony on Mars.
Money.  I really can't imagine congress coughing up what this would cost
unless the USSR (or even better, Japan) had one already.  (If Japan has
one, of course it has to be contributing to the balance of trade
deficit.)

Anyway, the moon is probably a better place to plant a colony than mars.
(Not that I expect congress to fund that either.)  First off, its got
lots of oxygen (~40% of lunar soil by mass).  Not only is oxygen useful
for breathing, but it is 7/8 of rocket fuel by mass.  As the SSI likes
to say, the moon is the saudi arabia of space.

Secondly, it's a lot cheaper to get to the moon.  It costs 50 times more
to put a colonist on Mars than to put that same colonist on the moon
(SSI figure, from memory).  That means instead of putting 500 people on
Mars, we could put like 25,000 on the moon, or alternatively spend 50
times less and get 500 on the moon.  (This is energy cost I believe;
however, the costs to develop a earth-moon system are cheaper than a
earth-mars system anyway.)  Note since it costs less its more likely to
get frederal money and less dependent on it, whcih brings me to the next
point.

Third, once you're on the moon, you can start to show some profit.  It
is 22 times cheaper (SSI again) to put stuff in LEO from the moon
(compared to from earth).  There are two instant markets, first just
dirt for eg radiation shielding, or to protect fragile space things from
space junk; second, oxygen for fuel.  The idea is you launch a rocket
(say to put a satellite in Clarke orbit, or to launch a probe to
Jupiter) with its oxy tanks empty, and fuel it in LEO.  (Not only is it
cheaper, its safer; a consideration if the shuttle or other manned
vehicle is doing the launch, or if the probe is very expensive.)  Also,
this means that private investors might put up at least some of the
money needed, since there is some hope of getting something out of it.
Probably not at first, but maybe after a while.

Finally, if you really want to go to Mars, probably going to the moon
first is a good idea.  Do you really want the first test of your
earth-mars ship to be going all the way to mars?  Better to give it (and
your colony planning to some extent) a test to the moon, or even better
build it out of lunar materials.

Well, I think I've rambled on enough.

 ^.-.^ Mark
 ((")) Purtill -at Multics.MIT.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 87 15:39:59 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!ihm@locus.ucla.edu  (Ian H. Merritt)
Subject: Re: The United States next space goal should be the colonization of Mars

>> ... This Martian colony should be built by first
>> constructing a space transportation system that can transport material
>> into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane...
>
>Ho ho.  To approximately quote Gary Hudson:  "The Aerospace Plane is going
>to be a combination of the Concorde and the Space Shuttle.  This does not
>sound cheap to me." [...]

... and neither has been entirely successful.

What, I wonder, is considered 'reasonable' for space transport prices?
What will be considered 'reasonable' 20 years in the future?

						<>IHM<>

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 87 16:33:36 GMT
From: dayton!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@rutgers.edu  (Dennis Grittner)
Subject: Re: Space developement must recognize political reality

In article <8704160842.AA25965@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>John Leech's article in Vol. 7, No. 195 of Space Digest on relative

I happen to think that colonization and positive use(s) of space
is a WONDERFUL idea.

>food stamps.  The Food Stamp program is money down the toliet, and yet
>it has more public support than the Space Program.  Public support for
>the Space Program is very, very soft. 

I strongly disagree with your comments about food stamps. Feeding
hungry people is NOT a misuse of public funds. Your example of
heroin addicts selling their food stamps is a 'cute' use of bad
example - yet you use it to indict an entire program. Should we
all sight a bad example to attack every idea and/or program that
exists in the public and/or private sector?? OBVIOUSLY, having
Marines is a bad idea given Oliver North and the recent Moscow
embassy situation - , right??

>  The sad truth is your basic
>John Q. Public, man-in-the-street isn't all that intelligent or all
>that well educated.  Talk to him about space and he'll come back about
>Luke Skywalker and R2-D2.

I think is is sad that more money has not been spent on education in the
United States. It's also sad that more people do not understand the
necessity of humankind exploring the boundaries of it's knowledge and
ability - but I don't recall that Columbus had an easy time getting
funding either.

Perhaps Gary if you approached things in a more positive way and didn't
attack the public for being * SO STUPID * that they wanted to blow money
on feeding hungry people EVEN MORE than have a space exploration
program, you might encourage MORE support for ALL positive ideas
including the colonization of space. I agree with you that our education
system is lacking ( especially lacking in $$$$ ) but I don't think you
can help 'correct' this by calling the public stupid. Most of our
citizenry are the victims of our educational system , not arrogrant
'criminals' or other 'nasty types'.

The only other point I would ask you to better understand is what the
nation shared with John Kennedy - a great dream. Having great dreams is
what separates us from other animals ( at least as far as we currently
know ) and makes us 'special'. When we fail to have dreams ( and I think
that shared one are really special ) we fail to be truly as great as we
can be.

I hope that I haven't been too negative toward you, that was not my
intent. I only wanted to try and give you a more positive outlook toward
'the public' and space colonization.

Dennis Grittner

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #211
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03029; Sat, 2 May 87 03:02:38 PDT
	id AA03029; Sat, 2 May 87 03:02:38 PDT
Date: Sat, 2 May 87 03:02:38 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705021002.AA03029@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #212

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 212

Today's Topics:
		   Re: More on Martian colonization
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #195
		       Re: Private space again
		    Re: mars colony (moon colony)
		       Re: colonization of Mars
   Landlubbers on Mars, or spacefarers in space, which will it be?
		 Re: predictions of future technology
			      Re: escape
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 87 23:40:49 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: More on Martian colonization

> Energy is problem number one against growth for the colonies.  Energy
> density from solar is lousy on Earth and worse on Mars...

Much worse on Mars, because the worst of the Martian dust storms cut out
almost all sunlight, and they can last for months.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 87 00:05:45 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #195

> (So where can I get my charter for lands bounded by Mare Crisium to the
> east ...)

Better start learning Russian so you can read and fill out the application
form when it becomes available...

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 87 00:00:54 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Private space again

> ...those colonies were motivated by greed also, in the form of gold.
> The vast gold and silver mines of the Spanish colonies confirmed
> Spain as the leading power of the 16th century until the superior
> naval technology of England (and some luck) led to the defeat of the
> Spanish Armada.

It's worth noting that all that gold and silver from outside
progressively destroyed the Spanish economy as well.  (It had
substantial effects on economies all over Europe.)  That was a major
factor in Spain's decline.

As for the defeat of the Armada, I suggest Howarth's "The Voyage of the
Armada" as an antidote to a lot of popular misconceptions about that.
England beat the Armada not through superior technology, but because of
truly spectacular mismanagement by the Spaniards.  The analogy is rather
unsettling after what we've seen in the last year or so...

> It seems America's leadership position is being seriously challenged
> in space and technology by the Russians and the Japanese.  An
> charasmatic leader could use the situation to launch a visionary
> project.  However, it needs to be doable within the funding lifetime
> of his/her presidency.  Otherwise, it will be cut/delayed/etc...

The proposed Commercial Space Incentive Act [I think I've remembered
that name right] would be a simple, cheap, highly effective shot in the
arm for US (not necessarily US government!) space activity.  For those
who don't remember my original posting about it some months ago, this
proposed Act says that the US government will pay $500/lb for all
payloads placed into orbit by US private launchers, up to a maximum of a
million pounds a year, for ten years, subject to some restrictions and
complications.  At the cost of half a billion (maximum) a year, this
gives low-cost commercial launcher developers what they most need: a
guaranteed market for getting low-cost launchers going.  For purposes of
reference, a million pounds a year is about the current Soviet launch
rate, and real launch costs for current US launch systems are about
$5000/lb (thousand, not hundred).

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 87 17:45:27 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!markb@locus.ucla.edu  (Mark Biggar)
Subject: Re: mars colony (moon colony)

Other advantages to moon colony:

Trip is much shorter:
	Cheaper (this has already been said)
	Much greater chance of rescue if something goes wrong.
		Either from colony or ship in transit.
	Ultimate destination of any exports is closer.
	If colony needs something (drugs, blood, replacement parts etc)
		you get it in time instead of 3 mo after you need it.

Teleoperator control works
	2 sec lag as apposed to 20 min lag.

Toursts possible :-)
	Going to the moon (with enough money of course) would be allowed
	alot sooner then going to mars (which is a maybe never situation).

Mark Biggar
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,akgua,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!markb

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 87 20:20:42 GMT
From: clyde!burl!codas!mtune!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.edu
Subject: Re: colonization of Mars

In article <2215@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes:
> I don't for a minute doubt that my children will be traveling interplanetary
> space, almost as routinely as we catch the night-flight to the east coast.

I don't doubt it either--but they'll get there on Japan Interplanetary and
Miroflot.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 18 11:37:01 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Landlubbers on Mars, or spacefarers in space, which will it be?

<ESG7> Date: Sun, 05 Apr 87 14:15:29 MEZ
<ESG7> From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<ESG7> Subject: The U.S. next space goal should be the colonization of Mars

<ESG7> It is time again to stirup the Space Digest newsgroup with another crazy
<ESG7> idea.  I think it should be the national object of the United States to
<ESG7> establish a self sustaining and growing colony of 500 Americans on the
<ESG7> planet Mars.

I propose a cheaper alternative, see later.

<ESG7> I've been informed that 500 is the minimum number for a self contained
<ESG7> colony which avoids in-breeding problems.

This part sounds good, and important. I'll stick with it.

<ESG7> These 500 Americans would be placed on the surface of Mars with a
<ESG7> habitat and sufficient tools to build new habitats and duplicate the
<ESG7> original set of tools.

Except for the surface-of-Mars part, this is good and important too.

<ESG7> Mars is rich in metals, and has all of the elements necessary for life
<ESG7> (unlike the moon).

The Moon is a strawman. My alternative matches Mars in resouces,
probably exceeds it.

<ESG7> This colony would be established for ideological reasons and **not**
<ESG7> for economic reasons.

Please explain what ideological reasons would be active here that
wouldn't apply to my alternative, a freefloating microgravity colony
using asteroids supplemented by lunar material and upper atmospheres
of planets, with tethered or otherwise rotating parts for people or
equipment that needs a gravity gradient for health.

<ESG7> It's a one shot deal that establishes a permanent presence in space.

But the surface of Mars isn't in space, it's on land, albeit non-Terran
land. What if both Earth and Mars dismantle their space program
(actually since the Mars has no ground-to-orbit facilities under your
plan, they are grounded from the start anyway), and now we have two
landlocked societies, better than one for survival of the species, but
we lose our foothold in space.

My proposal is not to merely establish a new landlocked society which
must re-invent space travel, but a new kind of society which actually
lives IN SPACE and travels around freely as a natural consequence of the
locale, much as merchant marines live a style of life different from
normal landlubbers. My proposal is to learn how to make use of
freefloating resources such as asteroids, and easy-to-snarf resources
such as lunar surface and upper atmospheres, rather than to merely move
to a new locale and exploit basically the same kinds of materials in the
same way as we did on Earth. We can both learn something completely new
instead of merely something slightly different, and do it a lot cheaper.
Furthermore we create a society which inherently would be able to
survive the Sun getting too hot or too cold, by its nature as a mobile
society, rather than rely on the infrastructure for creating it which
however might cease to exist because there would be no rock-solid reason
to maintain it after the colony is established on the ground (of Mars).

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 87 00:16:35 GMT
From: hao!noao!mcdsun!sunburn!gtx!edge!doug@oddjob.uchicago.edu  (Doug Pardee)
Subject: Re: predictions of future technology

Well, I wasn't there (I'm old, but not *that* old).  But I have read a
number of accounts of the early history of "computers".

#1: They were called "giant calculators".  A "computer" was a person who
used slide rules, mechanical calculators, and math tables to perform
computations for scientific purposes.

#2: The giant calculators had nothing at all to do with data-processing.
They were scientific research devices.  IBM built the first giant
calculator (the electro-mechanical one donated to Harvard, generally
known as the Harvard Mark I) strictly for TJ's ego.  When Eckert and
Mauchly built the second giant calculator (the first electronic one,
ENIAC), TJ's ego drove him to commit IBM to building an even *bigger*
one, the SSSC, to be installed in IBM's headquarters building for all to
see.  But that didn't turn out to be the biggest giant calculator for
long...

#3: Each of the early giant calculators was totally individual, like
skyscrapers.  Since each was going to be "the biggest and the best giant
calculator in the world", it stood to reason (and just about everyone
believed) that only the most recent handful of them would be big and
fast enough to be worthwhile maintaining.  (With all the vacuum tubes
and mechanical parts, Mean Time Between Failure was pretty short).

#4: Once the military realized what they could do with these things,
they started placing orders for multiple units.  This is probably the
turning point, where computers changed from being custom-built behemoths
to an assembly-line product.

#5: IBM didn't always have the near-total domination of the
data-processing computer market that they have now.  In the early
"computer" years they continued to make computers mostly for the
scientific market, with the 701/704/709/7090/7094 line (you might
remember IBM created FORTRAN on this computer line).  For quite some
time, they peddled the 602 Card Programmed Calculator as their main DP
offering, while the other manufacturers offered "real computers".
Although IBM did offer DP versions of the 70x line, I personally
consider the 1401 as the beginning of IBM's DP dominance.

#6: A far better description of all this is supposed to be in the works.
Herb Grosch is writing a history book on the subject (I don't know its
title or when it's due out).  Since it's by Grosch, it'll probably be
perhaps somewhat biased, but it's bound to be entertaining.

-- Doug Pardee -- Edge Computer Corp. -- Scottsdale, Arizona

------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 87 18:17:00 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: escape

>>How much do you think it will cost to try and keep this planet's
>>rapidly depleting recources from running out? Do you honestly believe
>>that this planet can continue to support the present population for
>>the next 100 years? 

I don't think resource depletion will get us, unless social and
political causes do.

Some crucial resource has always been near depletion (arrowhead flint,
mammoths, shipmast quality trees, wood to fuel furnaces etc.).
Technology has always produced a replacement.  And in modern times,
Malthusian predictions have always failed, and I expect them to keep
failing.

On the other hand, all civilizations  die  eventually.  Since  we
have  now  only  one civilization, very uniform and tightly knit,
when it dies, that may be the end.  The  actual  destruction  may
come  from  germ warfare, or something on the Jonestown model; or
even from resource depletion - *if* political structures  predom-
inate that make this an insoluble problem.

E.g., political structures that promote scarcity redistribution instead
of abundance creation. So far, international competition saved us from
this: nations that took this course were forced by competitors to modify
it. A greater degree of international coordination might destroy this
mechanism and set the world on a way to stagnation and death.

So I agree that dispersal is our best chance, though not for the
resource scarcity reasons.

> So we should spend zillions of dollars (I have no idea what it would
> really cost but the Apollo program ran about $25-30 billion in the
> sixties and colonizing Mars is a much bigger project and there's
> been a lot of inflation in the last 25 years ).  Just so a few hundred
> or a thousand priveleged individuals can escape all this. 

In a dozen generations it won't matter much who left, their des-
cendants will be almost equally related to all of us, and they'll carry
common cultural heritage with them.

> I believe we should try to solve our problems here.  If we can't
> agree on doing that then..   1) Most of us are doomed anyway so how
> are you going to get the sort of public support needed to launch
> such a massive project as Mars colonization?  ..and  

This is the big question: finding a project with public  support.
If the Mars plan does it, fine. If some economic or military goal
does  it,  fine. "Solving our problems here" is an empty exhorta-
tion. One problem is solved, another comes along. Only  the  dead
have no problems. Space expansion insures against the probability
that one of our problems here kills us before we solve it.

>2) If our species is so disagreeable and warlike  and  uncoopera-
>tive  and just plain stupid that it can't recognize its own self-
>interest in not fowling its nest, then what is your justification
>in  trying  to  preserve  it on an extra-terrestrial colony? As a
>good bad example to aliens?

The aliens might not share your tastes. Our species includes  and
needs all sorts, including the belligerent one (e.g.,  the  above
is  a flame). Its vices are many, but are the obverse of its vir-
tues.  As for fouling its nest: a bird (or fowl) must foul *some-
where*;  it  can do so outside the nest *if* there's an outside.
Therefore, expand.

The justification for the survival of sapient life is that
nothing else gives any meaning to the rest of the universe.
Anyway, those who do not want to survive, don't have to;
why should they begrudge it to the others?

>> I'm not saying run out on old Mother Earth, but these efforts could
>> buy us the time we need.

> It sounds to me like you ARE saying 'run out on Mother Earth'.
> Attitudes of people like you are how we got into this mess in
> the first place.   When you've finished polluting someplace you
> just move on to 'someplace else'.  But you can't run away from
> yourself.

Where is the logic in that? Running away from the effects of
one's pollution (something that even animals do) is not
"running away from oneself".

>And besides, 'buy us the time we need' for what? How are we going
>to use that time? To make better technology? Technology isn't the
>issue; its a smokescreen.

Technology is not the "issue": it is the solution.  It  is  *the*
human way to solve problems. Homo Sapiens has been a tool-making,
technological  animal  from the start, and it has been a smashing
success.

>WE are the problem and we've got to face that and  stop  thinking
>that our technology is going to save us from ourselves.

This, propagated over a high-tech medium....

People who think technology solves no problems ought to
stop using it - to go back to the tree-tops.

And the logic of the statement that "WE" are the problem seems to
point inexorably to suicide as the only solution.

But of course we are the problem, aren't we - if we didn't exist, we
would have no problems at all! :-).

The sane course, however, seems to be to continue existing,  how-
ever  precariously,  and having problems, and leaving them behind
us, and expanding to new problems and dangers.

			Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #212
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04199; Sun, 3 May 87 03:03:06 PDT
	id AA04199; Sun, 3 May 87 03:03:06 PDT
Date: Sun, 3 May 87 03:03:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705031003.AA04199@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #213

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 3 May 87 03:03:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #213

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 213

Today's Topics:
			 try this note again
			      Re: escape
			      re: escape
       Re: Space developement must recognize political reality
			      SSI Query
				HOTOL
			      Re: HOTOL
			  Re: Space Sailing
			       MIR + ?
	   Re: The new superconductors and launching loops
    Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Apr 87 10:14:45 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: try this note again

In article <208@osupyr.UUCP> Herman Rubin writes:
>To those who say we must first solve the Earth problems, I have three
>comments.  One, even now the bulk of the money spent on space goes for
>Earth employment.  Two, the Proxmires, etc., who do not believe in
>space should not have to support it, but they should also be in the
>position of the other animals who did not help the Little Red Hen.
>Three, I do not believe that human activities should be determined by
>the majority.  -- Herman Rubin

Herman makes some good points here.  I have learned in other activities,
the point about the about majority is a good one.  The majority do not
use libraries, stadiums, etc. [I have a good reference on this if
someone needs it.]  But we could argue that the majority benefits in the
long run.  Regarding the Proxmires, it would be interesting to restrict
benefits as a means of comparison (which you can do to limited degree,
if you look at those who voluntarily restrict technologies).  I'm not
certain how to interpret the first line.  In defense of those defending
the earth, but also desiring space: I think the majority do so because
1) a conscious effort to not carry certain baggage into space (a fresh
start) which would be detrimental to the long run in space [weapons and
orbiting radioactive trash] and 2) an effort to get people to think
about problems in new ways.  I think our long-term survival in space and
on earth depends on it.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 87 02:28:20 GMT
From: bzs@bu-cs.bu.edu  (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: escape

Janw makes some good points.

I'd like to add that there may be a paradox at work here:

The hypothesis is that

	IF we don't disperse the population to space
		THEN it may become extinct due to resource depletion on earth.

The paradox I see is that unless there is some sort of massive
breakthrough in technology then this space colony is likely to have to
face an incredible problem of resource depletion itself, no?

How plentiful in resources could a space colony be?

The only breakthroughs I can think of would either be some way to outfit
the colony, upon leaving, with relatively infinite resources (that is,
more than that [assumed] small population can use up) or guaranteeing
them navigation to a planet with reasonable resources they can develop.

Personally, I think we should support travel to the stars for the same
reason we support art (and more so.) There's a difference between -how-
we live (eg. economic reasoning) and -why- we live (a goal, destiny,
whatever you want to call it.)

If we can no longer act on abstract goals of destiny we'll never justify
in our minds a good reason to go out into space (or a lot of other
things humanity spends its time doing.) Economic profitability (&c) are
just rationalizations for things we want to do anyhow. In the end we
only need food, shelter etc. if it comes down to that.

	-Barry Shein, Boston University

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 87 18:57:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: re: escape

I have nothing against 'high technology' ; hi-tech supplies my income
and several of my hobbies.  I just disagree with the notion that the
solution to our problems lies purely in ever-higher technology.

I believe that it will be very helpful to also change our attitudes
about certain things.  I believe that if we are going to survive we must
learn to use resources and generate waste at sustainable rates.  At the
moment we are not doing that and it is starting to be a problem,
especially in the area of waste generation.  The technology exists even
now to live quite comfortably with a lot less resource use and a lot
less pollution.  But, no doubt, further technological advances could
make this even easier to attain.  But none of this will happen if we
lack the will to live in a sustainable way and keep hoping that our
descendents will develop the technology to clean up the mess that we've
left them.  The original poster seemed to express an attitude of 'the
Earth is going to hell, a few of us should escape while we can'.

The real irony is that the Earth's environment is much more robust and
forgiving of excess waste and other insults than the fragile artificial
ecosystem of a Mars or asteroid colony is likely to be.  If we can't
find a way of 'getting it right' here on Earth then how long will our
extra-terrestrial colonies last?

						   --Peter

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 87 16:55:22 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!psivax!nrcvax!ihm@locus.ucla.edu  (Ian H. Merritt)
Subject: Re: Space developement must recognize political reality

[I've omitted most of the article so as not to clutter the news with reprints]

I agree mostly with what you said, except for the following point.

> [...] The only project that I can imagine that would lead to
>a permanent space presence which is based on one-shot funding would
>be the 500 man colony on Mars that I described in an earlier posting.

How is a colony on Mars any more in 'space' than a colony on Earth?
Anyway, I would like to see this too, but I don't know if the cost and
the timeframe are practical at this time.  We've all heard talk of
teraforming Mars by hurling giant snowballs (retrieved from the rings of
Saturn or some such) at it, thereby generating heat from atmospheric
entry and surface impact, thus melting the snowballs and some of the
polar ice caps, believed to be water-ice, and flooding parts of the
planet with water (oceans), to create a hydrosphere on which to build an
eco-system with life forms of our own choosing, presumably from earth.
[Long inhalation] It sounds to me as if something like this could
actually work.  If so, wouldn't it be a bit premature to put people
there NOW?  Shouldn't we embark on a serious study of just HOW to go
about the massive project that it is?

One-shot funding is no guarantee.  Congress has cut off already
allocated funding before.  Imagine the consequences if they were to cut
off a program like a 500 man colony part way through its implentation.

I REALLY want to see us make Mars habitable, but I don't think a hasty
effort to prematurely settle a colony there is quite the way to go about
it.  I DO believe that we should put a small (~20-30) people research
base up there to study the problem of planetary-scale alterations.

Cheerz toward a better tomorrow...
						<>IHM<>

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 86 11:30 EST
From: C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: SSI Query

   I've seen several mentions recently of the Space Studies Institute in
recent weeks. Can someone provide any general info about the group, and/or
an address to join or subscribe to their periodical(s)?  -Dave

      Dave Chatfield

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 87 21:36:01 GMT
From: necntc!auspyr!sci!daver@ames.arpa  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: HOTOL

I got some statistics on HOTOL (Britain's proposed aerospace plane) last
night and was doing some calculatons based on them.

According to the article HOTOL will weigh one fifth as much when it lands
as when it took off.  Assuming that all that lost weight was fuel, that
gives it a mass ratio of 5.  If i didn't make a stupid mistake, that means
that its delta-v is about 1.6 times its exhaust velocity.  The article said
that it would go up to Mach 9 or so before the rocket engine cut in.  Since
orbital velocity is 8 kps, that means that the rocket has to provide a
5 kps delta-v.  That means that the exhaust velocity has to be at least
3.13 kps.

OK so far?  So, what is the exhaust velocity of a Hydrogen/Oxygen
rocket?  I really have no idea how to calculate this, but I had a
handbook of chemistry and physics handy, and it had bond energies of
various compounds in it.  Anyway, when i juggled some numbers around, i
got an exhaust velocity of hydrogen and oxygen with 100% excess oxygen
of 2.4 kps.  That seems quite a bit short of what HOTOL needs.  Does
anyone have real numbers?  Could you send me mail describing how to
compute these numbers?

While i was at it, i tried to figure out the exhaust velocity of a
rocket based on the "burning" of monatomic (is that a word?) hydrogen to
diatomic hydrogen.  The exhaust velocity i got for that was 20.9 kps.
Neat stuff-- that's in the range where chemical-powered interplanetary
travel makes sense.  Of course, if my figure for hydrogen-oxygen is
wrong, then my figure for hydrogen-hydrogen is also probably wrong.  And
there are some difficulties with monatomic hydrogen--like how to store
it.  Oh well.  Details.

david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

[PS I refigured the hydrogen/oxygen rocket assuming 0% excess oxygen, and
got an exhaust velocity of 3.3 kps, which is just barely enough.  Isn't
that a bit hard on the rocket, though?  Maybe that's part of their
technology improvement.
	david rickel]

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 87 19:03:50 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HOTOL

> ... Anyway, when i juggled some numbers around, i got an exhaust
> velocity of hydrogen and oxygen with 100% excess oxygen of 2.4 kps.
> That seems quite a bit short of what HOTOL needs.  Does anyone have
> real numbers?

Oxyhydrogen engines don't run with excess oxygen for at least four
reasons:

(A) Oxygen's high molecular weight makes it a poor propellant, so its
main use is as an energy source.  I.e. you want to burn all of it.

(B) It is hard to make a rocket engine that can survive oxygen-rich
conditions inside it.  Oxygen is fiercely corrosive at high temperatures
and pressures.  The shuttle takes great pains to always run
hydrogen-rich, including deliberately filling the hydrogen tank a little
fuller than it needs to be, so that even if the engines don't cut off
when they should, they will run out of oxygen first.

(C) It is worth running hydrogen-rich to reduce the average molecular
weight of the exhaust.  That is, some of the hydrogen gets used just as
reaction mass, not as burning fuel.  As I recall, existing oxyhydrogen
engines usually run at O:H ratios of 6:1 or less (by weight), where 8:1
would be the complete-combustion ratio.

(D) Complete combustion means a very hot exhaust jet.  Get it too hot
and you can't *get* complete combustion, because the water formed by the
combustion starts to dissociate.  I am told that keeping the exhaust
temperature down a bit with excess hydrogen can be a net win, and that
this does figure into advanced oxyhydrogen engines like the shuttle's.

> Could you send me mail describing how to compute these numbers?

In general they are engine-design-dependent, so there just isn't any
simple way to get the right answer for advanced designs.  This also
explains some of the variation you see in reference books.  There are
theoretical limits, but real engines are generally well below them.

> While i was at it, i tried to figure out the exhaust velocity of a
> rocket based on the "burning" of monatomic (is that a word?) hydrogen
> to diatomic hydrogen.  The exhaust velocity i got for that was 20.9
> kps.  Neat stuff...

It's usually just called "atomic hydrogen".  It yields close to three
times the energy per gram of ordinary hydrogen, *and* you don't have to
haul along several times as much oxygen, *and* the molecular weight of
the exhaust is a lot lower.  Pity we don't know how to make it stable
enough to store...

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 87 18:11:01 GMT
From: pyramid!amdahl!ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@decwrl.dec.com  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Space Sailing

In article <7879@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP writes:
>> So, what I havn't been able to figure out is how do you steer the
>> critter?  Do you have to carry AUX thrusters or can you do the
>> complete maneuver with clever positioning of the sail?
[...]
>As I recall, the World Space Foundation sail project has two vanes for
>roll control and uses axis-shifting for pitch and yaw.
>
>Maintaining control while in shadow, or luffed (sail roughly edge-on to
>Sun) might involve some problems.

I did a study of the dynamics of a heliogyro-type sail last year.  If
you have two contra-rotating wheels, you can apply equal-but-opposite
torques to them and they both precess in the same direction.  You can
use this to pitch and yaw a heliogyro without any photon pressure at
all.  For a vehicle which is to operate in the near-earth environment,
when it would be desireable to remain edge-on to the path of flight
while in shadow (to reduce air drag), this would be a valuable
capability.

The biggest problem with the heliogyro is applying large torques.  Using
electrostatic forces between the vanes would apply the force along the
length of the vanes, increasing the moment arm tremendously, and really
cut down on the loads applied to the bearings.

Russ Cage

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 87 05:05:39 GMT
From: tektronix!cae780!ubvax!weitek!wallis@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bob Wallis)
Subject: MIR + ?

I went up on my roof to watch a passage of the Russian MIR station
tonight (4-19-87) and saw TWO fairly bright objects instead of one. The
first was about magnitude 2, and the second was magnitude 1, following
about 10 seconds behind.  The last time I saw something like this, it
turned out to be Salyut and MIR docking. The second object must have
been MIR, does anyone know what the 1st was?

Bob Wallis

UUCP {turtlevax,pyramid,cae780,apple}!weitek!wallis

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 87 07:26:36 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: The new superconductors and launching loops

The ribbon is held to the track with active control throughout the
entire length of the launch loop.  The active control problem IS
difficult.  However, small cables to the ground, driven by actuators at
both ends, can be used to supply the small restoring forces necessary to
keep the system stable.  At this writing, the main problem is finding a
control scheme sufficiently robust to allow the cables to the ground to
be spaced at wide intervals.  ~10 km spacing appears possible now, but I
would like to find a scheme allowing wider spacing to facilitate
navigation between the ground cables (and allowing them to be more
robust).

With perfect controllers and the proper control law, the system is
metastable, by the way; the primary problem is the finite accuracy of
the position sensors, which accumulates as a perturbation of the system.
Tension is not needed in the system, though a little stiffness allows
the control points to be spaced at a finite distance (I am assuming one
meter, requiring 600,000 controllers! Fortunately, many of them can
break; it's the frequency that counts.  And in those quantities, perhaps
I can get a quantity discount :-) )

Any help from control theorists would be much appreciated; a good proof
that the launch loop cannot work would save me a lot of time.  However,
such a proof would have to cover all the possible ways of handling the
control problem, since success only requires one working alternative out
of many.  And there remain a number of rabbits in the hat, which have
not yet been necessary to reach for.

I have a more mathematical description available; send me Email and a
physical postal address I can US Snail it to you.

Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 16 Apr 87 02:02:39 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble

In article <776@looking.UUCP>, brad@looking.UUCP writes:
> A space elevator, stationary wrt the Earth, would eventually be smashed
> into by almost EVERY BODY IN ORBIT.  The only things that wouldn't hit
> it would be satellites with precisely timed orbital precessions.

Actually, every body in orbit eventually runs into every other body at
the same altitiude.  The question is how to design your tether
(generalization of space elevator) so that it can survive being hit by
debris and meteors, since there is no way to prevent being hit.  In low
Earth orbit, where the density of junk is highest, you can expect a
cable u cut per thousand kilometer-years.  In other words, if your cable
is 1000 km long, you can expect it to be cut at an average rate of one
time per year.  The way to survive this is to (a) have multiple strands
separated by more than the width of the largest object in orbit, on the
order of 50-100 meters, and (b) have periodic horizontal crossties to
redistribute loads around a broken strans strand section.  If the
crossties are, say, 10 km apart, then there is a 1% chance per year of
any section of a strand being cut.  You would then have to go out and
replace that 10 km section.  Think of it as continuing maintenenace.

Dani Eder, advanced space transportation, Boeing, ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #213
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05566; Mon, 4 May 87 03:03:06 PDT
	id AA05566; Mon, 4 May 87 03:03:06 PDT
Date: Mon, 4 May 87 03:03:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705041003.AA05566@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #214

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 214

Today's Topics:
    Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble
		Re: Near Term Laser Launcher Prospects
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Apr 87 05:50:47 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: Who cares how strong the cable is, that's not the trouble

In article <1192@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>
>Actually, every body in orbit eventually runs into every other body at the
>same altitiude.

Not quite the same, since bodies in similar orbits have quite similar
velocities and move quite slowly wrt one another.  Almost all man made
stuff is launched in the same direction, for obvious reasons.  For example
all the bodies we have placed at geosynchronous orbit will not impact
for a very, very long period of time.

A space elevator is different.  It is in space, but effectively motionless.
(1 "orbit" every 24 hours)  The impacts come more frequently, and are more
violent.  LEO satellites impact at 17,000 mph.

>In other words, if your cable is 1000 km long, you can
>expect it to be cut at an average rate of one time per year.

Of course, satellite density isn't uniform, but the cable is at least
44,000 km long and probably much longer.

>The way to
>survive this is to (a) have multiple strands separated by more than the
>width of the largest object in orbit, on the order of 50-100 meters, and
>(b) have periodic horizontal crossties to redistribute loads around a
>broken strans strand section.
>Dani Eder, advanced space transportation, Boeing, ssc-vax!eder

So the cables must be strong enough, not only to hold their own weight,
but to hold 1/(n-1) of another cable, and the crossties, and the
micrometeor shield.  On top of that, we are talking some whopping
impacts here, with pretty massive releases of kinetic energy and big
momentum transfers.  If the cable snaps easily, the transfer might not
be so bad, but the sideways stress is placed on the other cables, who
tend to snap easily under such stress.  Plus there is flying, high
energy debris (including big cable sections) that might go in any
direction, including towards other cable sections.

Contrary to popular belief, you aren't weightless 200 km up.  You weigh
pretty much the same as you do here, if you're standing on a space
elevator.  That mean the snapped cable falls fast, either snapping
again, or bending at the cross-tie and hitting something else.  If it
breaks off altogether, it falls (what would be the exact trajectory?)
somewhere near the base site, a heavily populated area full of expensive
stuff -- it's the space transportation hub of the world!  It doesn't
burn up unless it falls from very high.  burn-up is caused by velocity,
not any re-entry.

Let us not also forget that the satellite is lost, although chances are
that if it were an active unit, ground control would have projected its
path and used some means to divert it.

Is the elevator usable with one snapped strand?  What about the traffic
on that strand at impact time?  How much downtime could be expected?

Some space junk, including the results of ASAT tests and water outgassed
from manned missions, comes in clusters.  Even a droplet of ice from a
flushed space toilet at 9 km/s could be deadly.  Multiple strands could
be broken by such a cloud.

And let's not forget terrorists, even those with only a sub-orbital
launch capability.

Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 87 23:33:23 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: Near Term Laser Launcher Prospects

I have been watching the discussion here on Laser Propulsion for some
time.  Jim Kempf's article has finally compelled me to write a reply.
You see, I am currently in charge of the SDIO Laser Propulsion project,
a completely unclassified program with a budget of order $1M for 1987.
So when someone says "forget laser propulsion", I just can't sit still.

**********************************************************************
The material presented here represents my own opinions, and is in no way
representative of the official position of the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, the Strategic Defense Initiative Organization or
its Program in Laser Propulsion, or any other government agency.
**********************************************************************

In article <1628@hplabsc.UUCP> kempf@hplabsc.UUCP (Jim Kempf) writes:
>
>INTRODUCTION
>In response to the frustration of watching the Russki's cavorting about
>over our heads doing the real thing while we sit around with our noses
>buried in "Space Wars" video games, I decided to do some investigation
>into the near term feasibility of laser launched vehicles for cheap
>single stage to orbit lift...

>My initial interest was inspired by a net discussion last fall, in
>which Myrabo and Ing's book "The Future of Flight" was mentioned.
>Myrabo has been doing paper studies of laser launch systems for years

Myrabo's work is very good, but he does tend (in some part at the
request of his supporting agencies) to design second- and third-
generation systems rather than things we can build right away.  The jump
from Ing's part on ultralights to Myrabo's on ultra-lasers is quite
amazing.

>In addition, the AIAA series on recent advances in astronautics has a
>volume from several years back discussing more technical details
>(sorry, exact reference not at hand)

Vol. 89, Orbit Raising and Maneuvering Propulsion, L.H. Caveny, Ed.

>Myrabo and Ing claim that a laser launch system would allow single
>stage to orbit transfer of large amounts of material for a fraction of
>the current cost...  the savings come from the inherent simplicity of
>the system. All the power generating equipment is on the ground, so the
>launch vehicle itself can be made very light weight (modulo aerodynamic
>forces) and need only carry a fraction of the amount of fuel needed for
>a conventional rocket, since thrust generation is not occuring due to
>combustion but from the externally beamed laser power.  Additionally,
>the driving fluid ... could just as easily be plain old water.

A very good summary.  In fact, the _main_ advantage of laser propulsion
is probably not the increased performance (high specific impulse), but
the ability to operate as a "pipeline", with very high throughput for a
minimum of manpower.

>PHYSICS OF LASER LAUNCHING
>
>The point of the following calculations is to determine how much power
>is needed to put a body of a certain mass into orbit (as a function of
>the mass)...

I refer readers back to the original article for calculations, except
for a small note that in eq. 1

>	v = u * ln( m(0) / m ) - g * t		(1)
>
>where:
>
>	v = final velocity 
>	u = velocity of the exhaust
>	m(0) = initial mass of rocket
>	m = final mass of rocket
>	g = acceleration due to gravity (9.82 m/sec^2)
>	t = time of burnout
>

g is not a constant, but represents the component of gravity along the
direction you are accelerating; this makes things slightly better.

>Assuming a specific impulse of 1000, we can calculate [exhaust
>velocity] as 9.82 x 10^3 m/sec.

Isp = 800 to 1000 is about right	

>This gives the mass ratio as a function of the time to orbit.  Assuming
>a 15 minute flight time, the mass ratio is 5.5, a 30 minute flight time
>gives a mass ratio of 13.6.

For fairly straightforward reasons (you can't accelerate arbitrarily
slowly, you can't stay in range of one laser site forever) realistic
trajectories have time to orbit of 5 to 15 minutes.  Mass ratios range
from as low as 3 to as high as 10, depending on things like initial
vehicle mass, drag coefficient, etc.

>Assume, for the sake of argument, a mass ratio of 5.5, and thus
>a flight time to orbit of 15 minutes. What amount of laser power
>would be needed to achieve this?
>
>	E = 3.2 x 10^7 * m   Joules ( Newton-meters)
>
>Now comes the interesting part. We assume this amount of energy is
>deposited in the rocket during the 15 minute ascent (a more
>sophisticated calculation is possible). The resulting power required
>is:

>	P = 3.5 x 10^4 * m  watts (Joules/sec)
>
>Taking m at orders of magnitude in kg. gives the following table
>
>	m=10^2 kg  ------------------> 3.5 x 10^6 watts
>	m=10^3 kg  ------------------> 3.5 x 10^7 watts
>	m=10^4 kg  ------------------> 3.5 x 10^8 watts

This is optimistic.  The "real" answers (my current best number, based
on a fairly detailed trajectory simulation) is that you get about 1.5 kg
into orbit per megawatt of laser power.  The biggest unknown is the
efficiency of the thruster at converting laser energy to kinetic energy
of exhaust -- I think we can get about 40%.

>Thus, to launch a 0.1 metric ton payload would require 3.5 Megawatts, a
>1.0 metric ton payload would require 35 Megawatts, etc.  The initial
>mass of the vehicles, including driving fluid, would be 5.5 times the
>mass at orbit.

I have a viewgraph which cites two cases: a "small" laser launcher is a
100 MW laser launching about 150 kg; the "large" laser is 1 GW launching
1.5 tons (that's a Mercury capsule, by the way).  Keep in mind that,
running flat out (say, 4 launches an hour, 80 per day, 28,000 launches
per year) even 150 kg at a time gives you over 4000 tons per year in
orbit (that's 200 shuttle flights worth), and even at a 10% duty cycle
(one launch an hour, one shift a day) you can launch more mass with the
small system than the whole shuttle fleet can launch on NASA's best
schedules.

>ENGINEERING A LASER LAUNCH SYSTEM
>
>...After all, the NOVA Nd:Yg inertial confinement fusion laser at
>Livermore, the ASTERIX iodine laser in Germany, and others have
>demonstrated powers upwards of 10 *terawatt*.

These are all peak powers, and completely irrelevant.  You need average
power.

>Free electron lasers (FEL's) have theoretical conversion efficiencies
>of near 30%, compared to about 10% for the CO(2) laser which forms the
>backbone of current industrial lasers.

The "wall plug" efficiency (power line to light) of projected FEL's is,
I believe, 20-25%.  FEL's of certain types (induction linac driven) also
tend to produce a very convenient size and shape of pulse.

>If we want to catch those Russki's (and, in the process, maybe make
>some bucks) we've got to start NOW and we can't wait for exotic new
>technologies. A laser launch system will require high power lasers
>which have long duty cycles, good stability, are well characterized in
>terms of power and gas consumption, and are priced competitively.

Competitively compared to what??  Actually, CO2 lasers are indeed the
logical thing to do experiments with, and that's what we're doing them
with...

>Unfortunately, the power range of current commercially available CO(2)
>lasers is too low, by almost 2 orders of magnitude. The largest current
>commercial laser manufactured in the US is a 15 kilowatt model built by
>United Technologies in Conn. (source: Laser Focus, March 1986). ...
>While one could design a system made of clustered smaller modules, the
>3.5 Megawatt figure for only 100 kg. payload (not really useful)

Nonsense!  _Provided_ you have some on-orbit assembly capability, 100 kg
is big enough to launch almost anything except a man.  It is more than
sufficient for fuel, oxygen, water, shielding mass, and consumables of
all sorts.  Even without on-orbit assembly, there are a wide variety of
"single purpose" satellites that can be designed to weigh under 100 kg.
Freeman Dyson has advocated building a launcher for _1 kg_ payloads --
sufficient to carry a microminiaturized scientific experiment, at least.

>would require 235 such units. At $1/2 Million a module (I'm guessing,
>but that's only 2 houses in Palo Alto) that's $120 Million for the
>laser system alone, provided you could engineer the optics to collect
>and focus 235 high powered beams.

"Commercial" is a misleading term.  No, you can't buy a 100 KW laser off
the shelf, but there are several companies that will build you one on
fairly short notice and at a not-unreasonable price.  They will quote
you on megawatt-scale lasers, but the quotes are subject to considerable
uncertainty.  However, your price estimate is considerably too high.
While I do not have formal quotes (and could not release them if I did),
"guesstimates" for megawatt scale systems are in the $5 to $20 per watt
range, so $120 Million will probably buy something like 10 MW of laser.
There are two competing philosophies for design -- one BIG laser or
stacked small lasers -- if you try to build a CO2-based system.  FEL's,
by their nature, lead to one BIG laser.  Beam combining optics for
arrays are complex, but have been designed.

I generally estimate the overall cost of a 100 MW "test" launch system
at $2 billion (less than 1 shuttle orbiter, and well within the reach
of, say, Boeing), and the cost of a 1GW system, built for continuous
flat out use, at $20 billion.  Someone at a talk once asked me "You
mean, if I gave you $2 billion today, you would build this?", and I
said, "If you gave me $2 billion today, I'd head for Brazil, quick :-)
:-) -- but yes, I think it could be done".

>There are some commercial laser technologies which could achieve higher
>power (~100 Kw), transverse axial flow being one, but they are limited
>to continuous wave (CW) lasers. Due to the tendency of shock waves to
>propagate down the beam, any laser used in a launch system will
>probably have to be pulsed.

	Again, my personal favorite designs involve a pulsed laser,
because CW laser thrusters seem to me to be more complicated, and thus
heavier and more expensive.  With a pulsed system, you can hope to build
a "Four-P" thruster -- everything stays on the ground but Payload,
Propellant, and Photons, Period (A. Kantrowitz, 1986) -- which is
basically a block of "ice" (water may not be the right thing to use;
much of our current research is on what propellant to pick) with a
payload on top -- all the guidance, etc. is done from the ground.

	The technology for very high average power transverse flow
pulsed CO2 lasers does exist, however, and has existed since the mid
1970's.

>CONCLUSIONS
>
>Initially I had hoped to come up with evidence that a venture funded
>startup on the scale of $100 Million or so could build a system in
>three years which would achieve a couple orders of magnitude reduction
>in to-orbit costs over Ariane and the Shuttle.

Alas, I do not know of any approach, including catapults (which are
cheaper than laser propulsion provided your payload will take 10,000
g's) with development + capital costs of under $100 million.  Even the
"low budget" expendable booster operations, some of which are being
funded by venture capital, tend to project losses well over this figure
before they achieve profitability.  Laser propulsion is likely to be
very inexpensive compared to, say, the Orient Express, or a new heavy
lift booster.  A "proof of principle" demonstration, however, can be
conducted relatively cheaply if a suitable laser exists.

>However, it looks like we'll be dependent on ol' "Deep Pockets" Uncle
>Sugar to pull this one off. The technology simply isn't there, and it
>isn't likely to develop except in the context of military applications,
>since the current power plateau in industrial laser technology is about
>as high as most applications need.  Since anything the Uncle develops
>for military purposes is likely to remain a deep dark secret (unless
>some Marine guards get a hold of it), it is unlikely we'll see a laser
>launch system in the near future.

The SDIO Laser Propulsion program is _not_ classified.  It is an open
program, and participation from industry and universities is encouraged.
Our goal is to do the research and development needed for laser
propulsion _exclusive_ of laser technology itself (which is supported by
other programs) so that when large lasers (probably FEL's) are
available, we will be able to use them to launch payloads into space.

Our schedule calls for us to be prepared for high power, long range
tests -- essentially launching a grapefruit into orbit :-) -- in the
early 1990's, laser resources permitting.  Of course, I have personal
hopes that a real laser launch facility will be built, possibly well
before the year 2000, but I cannot predict the future....

If you are interested in more information, please write to me (regular
mail, not E-mail) at Mail Stop L-278, Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory, P.O. Box 808, Livermore, CA 94550, and request the
Proceedings of the SDIO/DARPA Workshop on Laser Propulsion, Volume I,
CONF-860778.  I will answer questions on a time-available basis -- I've
spent far too long writing this posting already :-{

	Dr. Jordin Kare		jtk@mordor.UUCP

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #214
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07906; Tue, 5 May 87 03:03:16 PDT
	id AA07906; Tue, 5 May 87 03:03:16 PDT
Date: Tue, 5 May 87 03:03:16 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705051003.AA07906@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #215

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 215

Today's Topics:
  condensed space news from Feb 9 AW&ST, and summary of format poll
		     space news from Feb 16 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 87 01:43:14 GMT
From: necntc!drilex!axiom!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: condensed space news from Feb 9 AW&ST, and summary of format poll

Large color ad for Geostar in the high-profile front pages before the table
of contents.

Orbital Sciences was profitable in 1986, due to NASA upper-stage orders.
OSC will submit a design for the USAF big-upper-stage program, and may get
involved with the heavy-lift launcher.

Senator Hollings tells Sec. of Commerce that DoC proposal for a single new
Landsat costing circa $260M is unacceptable; Landsat program in danger.

USAF draft agreement for commercial use of expendable pads said to be
unsatisfactory to customers:  overprotective of government interests.

Picture of model of Soviet Gorizont comsat, being offered for commercial
lease.  Overall impression is of a more cluttered exterior than the usual
run of Western comsats.

NATO-3C comsat reactivated after 7.5 years of on-orbit storage, a new record.
Its predecessor, NATO-3B, lasted longer than expected.

Oops:  Soviets have two major space failures in one week.  Proton fourth
stage fails to ignite, leaving Clarke-orbit comsat in parking orbit; might
have been an explosion, vehicle separated into four pieces that re-entered
fairly quickly from the low orbit.  And a spysat was deliberately blown up
in low orbit [sigh, more space debris... -- HS] after its retro system
failed somehow, preventing controlled descent.

The Soviets are nevertheless maintaining a launch pace that will total more
missions by the end of Feb. than the US will total all year.

[Mini-editorial:  The Soviets are the only ones on this planet with a real
space program.  Just *look* at the numbers:  the Soviet space program is an
order of magnitude larger than all the others put together!  To some extent
they don't get as good a return on investment as the more sophisticated
Western programs, but they make up for it in sheer volume and persistence.
They are also much less troubled by an occasional failure:  it matters less.
If you want to go into space someday, I suggest you refrain from bad-mouthing
the Soviet Union in public.  It might come back to haunt you when you arrive
at Customs on your trip to the Lunar Soviet Socialist Republic.  I am not
kidding; I wish I was.						-- HS]

Romanenko and Laveykin launched to Mir on Feb 6, first crew to use a new
version of Soyuz with more flexible rendezvous system and heavier payload.
Stay aboard Mir expected to be 10 months.

NASA and contractors weighing several options for Flight Readiness Firing
before 1988 launch of STS-26.  Depending on contingency allowances and
whether an FRF is done, launch dates range from March 3 (a two-week slip
from earlier plans) to April 14.

Interim report to Fletcher on microgravity research says US will be "the
landlords of the space station, not the tenants" unless more resources are
put into microgravity science work and equipment.  Germany, Japan, and ESA
are putting much more money into it than the US.

DoD cancels its private shuttle mission-control center in Colorado Springs,
citing fewer missions and tight budgets.  The issue might be revisited when
military space needs expand.  One unfortunate aspect, pointed out by head
of USAF Space Command:  Johnson Space Center is (so to speak, in shuttle
terminology) a Criticality 1 failure point in the shuttle system -- a vital
facility which has no backup.  The DoD center would have provided a backup,
in addition to its military role.

Space station deployment may be delayed up to two years due to $14G cost
estimate.  Rethinking in progress (again); release of RFPs delayed (again).

Congressional Budget Office suggests cancelling both space station and
Challenger replacement to save money.

NASA is looking seriously at the Boeing/Hughes Jarvis proposal, especially
since it wouldn't involve NASA money much.  NASA likes the idea of a
shuttle-derived heavy-lift launcher.  The USAF opposes using shuttle or
Titan technology in the HLL, wants new technology to minimize operating
costs [!].  Sen. Gore:  "That's a ridiculous way to proceed."  Gore says
Senate Armed Services Committee will not support DoD HLL funding unless
NASA is involved and existing investment in shuttle technology and facilities
is exploited.

NASA criticized for not including companies other than Morton Thiokol in
getting the revised SRB design going.  Other companies express doubts about
the M-T revised design.

Details of the proposed Block 2 SRB designs.  M-T proposes modest upgrade
of existing design.  Hercules proposes similar design, using its filament-
wound casings for greater performance.  Aerojet proposes casting the SRB
propellant in one piece in Florida, eliminating the field joints while
using existing hardware; the one additional piece of equipment needed at
KSC would be million-pound cranes for moving complete SRBs around.  United
Technologies' Chemical Systems Div., which builds the segmented SRBs for
the Titan, proposes a one-piece design very much like Aerojet's.  Atlantic
Research (with NASA Langley) proposes an interesting new segmented design:
joining segments with bolted flanges.  Pictures of the AR design.  The
casing thickens greatly at the joint, with cavities cut into it from the
outside near the joint, and bolts going from cavity in one segment to
matching cavity in the other, holding the joint together.  The joint itself
is just two flat surfaces meeting each other, with a pair of O-rings and
interlocking insulation inside for sealing.  The length of the segments
would be doubled, eliminating the factory joints, to offset the extra
weight of the flanges; the net result would be a bit lighter, in fact.
This design eliminates joint rotation entirely and greatly simplifies
assembly and inspection (inspection of the revised M-T joint is a problem).

M-T observes that the shuttle can tolerate only about a 3% mismatch in
thrust between left and right SRBs, and that one-piece designs may not be
as uniform in performance as segmented designs where segments can be
matched carefully.

M-T starts full-diameter testing of revised SRB joint design, trying to
resolve controversies between M-T, NASA, NRC, etc.  Pressure testing shows
very little joint rotation.  Assembly tests show adequate durability of
the capture-feature section of the joint, which is a tight metal-to-metal fit.
Tests of the J-seal concept to keep hot gases out of the joint entirely
have worked.  Lots of details of testing.

Scientists slam recent cancellation of many near-future Spacelab flights.
Lack of opportunities to refly early experiments is a particular problem.

Rep. Nelson orders NASA to maintain planning for 1990 launch of Mars Observer
until Congress can assess the delay-until-1992 decision.  There is broad
support for transferring it to a 1990 Titan 3 launch, but no money for the
Titan in NASA's budget.

Drawings of ESA's Caesar comet-encounter mission:  sample return from
relatively low-speed flyby of short-period comet.  Some scientists feel
the 10-kps flyby velocity is still too high for good sampling, others say
it remains very useful for a modest price even if dust particles do not
survive intact.

FCC permits broadcast-satellite operators to offer communications services
other than TV broadcast during service startup, to improve early financial
viability.

=====================================

[Okay, the responses to my "which format do you prefer" poll have stopped
coming, and I've found some time to go through them all.  Here are the
results, followed by some comments on my plans.

Overall, the poll was overwhelmingly (45-10) in favor of the condensed
format, mostly because of lack of time to read the longer format.  Several
people said that they simply could not take the time to read the longer
format at all.  A repeated theme was "if I want more detail, I'll go find
a copy of that issue and read the complete story".

A number of people suggested partial compromise:  a variable level of detail
depending on the story.  One person suggested picking a "lead story" for
more detail in each issue, while retaining condensed format otherwise.

Quite a few said they liked the editorials and personal commentary; some
of the folks who preferred the longer format cited this as the main reason
for their preference.  There were several requests for me to go back to the
full-size editorials, in particular.

One reader asked whether I used a page scanning device to help!  No, it's
all manual.  I don't think a page scanner would even help much, since the
bulk of the time is deciding how to sum up the material concisely, which
the scanner wouldn't speed up.  (I'm a fast typist, which helps.)

Finally, my thanks to everybody for all the compliments and encouragement
that came with the replies.

Okay, that's the poll, now my plans.

Basically, I'm quite pleased with the poll results, because they pretty
much fit my plans.  There is no real prospect of my returning to the full
format; I simply cannot find the time, and don't expect this to change.
I recognize that not everybody has access to AW&ST to dig up the details
when they want them, but sympathy is all I am able to supply.

To some extent I am already implementing selective coverage, since I do
go into more detail when I feel something is seriously important (note,
for example, the Block-2-SRB coverage above).  I expect to do this a bit
more once I'm properly caught up, but the "basic coverage" will remain
in the condensed form.  The "lead story" idea is interesting, and I will
give it a try at some point.

I am also already setting a slightly higher threshold for "that's boring,
I won't bother mentioning it".

The editorials and personal commentary will also expand a bit once I'm
caught up.  The full-length editorials take too long for me to do one
every week, I'm afraid, but they will appear with some frequency.  The
long-promised nasty Space Station editorial is partly written, and ETA
is another few weeks.  That one's going to be big.  I also have a more
normal-sized "full length" editorial on expendable boosters that will
show up soon.

							-- HS ]
-- 
"If you want PL/I, you know       Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
where to find it." -- DMR         {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 2 May 87 23:38:24 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Feb 16 AW&ST

[I have dropped the "condensed" from the headers, since I know I won't be
going back to the full format.]

NASA would like to transfer both Mars Observer and one TDRS from the Shuttle
to Titan 34Ds, but must find money (there is none in the NASA 87 and 88
budget requests) and negotiate Titan availability with the USAF.

Funding limits are reducing the fraction of Landsat images being converted
into computer-compatible format, reducing usefulness to customers.

DoD is prepared to sic the Feds on McDonnell-Douglas unions if it looks like
strikes will delay completion of the Delta for the next SDI test flight.

US intelligence bozos are increasingly unhappy about civilians having access
to military-quality satellite images.

Romanenko and Laveikin [AW&ST can't seem to decide how to spell his name]
activate Mir.  First add-on module in final checkout at Baikonur.  Mir
operations may be hampered by failure of Cosmos 1700, a Clarke-orbit relay
satellite; the comsat lost in the recent Proton failure may have been meant
as a replacement for 1700.  R&L went up on a new Soyuz variant, the TM-2,
with better computers, lighter subsystems for greater payload, a docking
system allowing approach to Mir from any angle (previous Soviet automatic
docking systems required the station to point its nose toward the approaching
vehicle at all times, clearly undesirable as Mir gets bigger and heavier),
and fuel systems modified for longer on-orbit stays (previous Soyuzes used
elastic membranes to separate fuel and pressurizing gas, and leakage of gas
through the membranes reduced engine performance after a while; the new
system is thought to use metallic bellows instead).

Japan prepares to launch its first remote-sensing satellite, MOS-1 (Marine
Observation Satellite 1) on Feb 18.  Astro-C X-ray satellite launched on
Feb 4 from Kagoshima; Astro-C now redesignated Ginga ("galaxy").  Long list
of other Japanese space projects in the works.

List of European experiments to fly aboard the Mir astrophysics module.
European experimenters are slightly in the dark on details like launch date
(although nominal experiment startup is beginning of May) and module life
(although they were told to make preliminary plans assuming one year).
Soviets have rights to all raw data from Western experiments; there is only
general agreement on sharing of data from Soviet experiments.  Scientists
are not too unhappy about this, because it gets their hardware into space
quickly and cheaply.  "This is by far the fastest way to get [an X-ray
experiment] launched... The next ESA X-ray satellite will not be in orbit
until the 1990s, and even Rosat is some time in the future..."

[In other words, if you want to get your experiment into space, the best
way to do it right now is to beg the Soviets to launch it.  See editorial
below.								-- HS]

Shit hits fan on Space Station planning:  new US negotiating position is
that Europeans get no use of US parts, and 50% of European and Japanese
module use is reserved for US too.  Canada gets 3% use of all station
hardware in return for its contribution.  [Generous of them. -- HS]
Station to be managed by multilateral board, with NASA permanent chairman
with power to adjudicate deadlocks.  DoD use of station unrestricted,
including non-US sections.  US has authority to object to station uses or
users based on national-security or foreign-policy grounds; partners have
authority to object on these grounds to uses of *their modules*.  Partners
get to pay full operating costs of their modules (despite having only
partial use of them) plus a percentage of overall station operating costs.

Europeans unhappy, to put it mildly.  They like the multilateral board
but feel that (except in emergencies, when NASA should clearly have control)
deadlocks should be resolved in favor of no action, rather than whatever
NASA likes.  They do not like the DoD angle, and feel that military use of
the station should require multilateral approval on a case-by-case basis,
which would avoid having to define "peaceful uses" precisely; US probably
won't buy this.  They don't like the cost-allocation plan, although they
feel it's progress.  The US *has* abandoned the idea of assigning specific
functions to specific modules, which helps.

It looks like NASA will be unable to release station RFPs until FY1988.
Congress is contemplating redirecting the $150M of FY1987 RFP funds to
buying expendable launchers.

Industry group slams USAF draft agreement for commercial use of launch
facilities, saying top-level attitude is right but it's not reflected in
the draft agreement.  "...totally unacceptable to the commercial satellite
industry..."  Draft concentrates on parochial interests of USAF, instead
of balancing this with encouraging commercial launch industry as directed
by Reagan.  Draft requires operator to assume unlimited responsibility for
third-party liability.  Draft does not establish clear rules for setting
facility prices, requires use of USAF supply system, and requires use of DoD
acquisition bureaucracy for using USAF-owned factory facilities.  Draft
gives government monitor/control authority far exceeding legitimate safety-
related needs.  Draft demands extensive data disclosure, with little
assurance that proprietary data will be protected.  Draft generally makes
it almost impossible for new companies with limited resources to use USAF
facilities.  USAF is expected to address these problems, but two that may
need cabinet-level attention are the insurance issue (a worst-case accident
could cause $500M+ damage, impossible to privately insure) and the question
of protection against preemption of commercial launches by non-urgent
government payloads.

Navstar satellite damaged by battery fire at Rockwell plant; USAF authorizes
completion of one more Navstar in case the damaged one is unrepairable,
despite the general stop-work order in effect until launches pick up.

Pictures of Tsukuba Space Center mockup of Japanese space station module.
Interior resembles Spacelab.

Resumption of Ariane launches slips to May due to delays in ground tests.

Titan 3B launch from Vandenberg Feb 11 successful, probably carrying a
film-return spysat.

Astrotech defaults on interest on major loan.  [The practical meaning of
this is that Astrotech is dead any time the banks say it is.  -- HS]

New interest in protective coatings for solar cells as a result of study
of the cells on the recovered Palapa and Westar satellites.  They were
bombarded much more heavily than expected by small dust particles.

McDonnell-Douglas outlines versions of Delta for future, gradually upping
performance by stretching first-stage tanks, lightening and stretching the
solid boosters, and increasing the expansion ratio of the first-stage engine.
One concern is Rocketdyne's inability to ramp up engine production as quickly
as McD-D can ramp up vehicle production.  McD-D is looking at using some
similar engines in USAF storage; they are old and lower-powered, but with
upgraded SRBs they would be useful.  Also, Rocketdyne is having some hassles
restarting engine production:  recent production relied on cannibalizing old
parts stocks from the Saturn 1B program, and they are just about gone, so it
will be necessary to qualify new suppliers, and possibly run a new test
program to requalify the resulting engines.  McD-D wants to build up to a
capability of 12/yr by 1990 and 18/yr by 1991.


[Editorial:  The Great Failure.

(I should preface this by saying that this represents me in a rather black
mood, and I'm not sure I am entirely prepared to defend it.  I'm printing
it nevertheless, because I think it needs saying.  [Eugene, you'd better
start gritting your teeth, this one is nasty.]  I had intended to save this
for the July 20th editorial -- anybody reading this group who doesn't know
why that date is special should be ashamed -- but I can't wait that long.)

Remember when the West's space program looked good, back on July 20, 1969?
Long time ago, wasn't it?

Although it perhaps wasn't undertaken in quite the right way, and its
motives were perhaps less noble than one would like, Project Apollo still
stands as the supreme achievement of mankind.  And it was accompanied by
a number of lesser programs, not as spectacular but also valuable.  That
was the golden age of Western spaceflight.

Since then it's been all downhill.  And Lord, what a long, sad way down...

Today, the quickest way to get scientific experiments launched is to get
them onto the Soviet space station.  True, the situation is particularly
bad right now because of recent launch failures, but note that it wouldn't
be *lots* better EVEN IF ALL THOSE LAUNCHES HAD SUCCEEDED.

Except for certain very narrow and specific military and scientific goals,
the West's space program is a failure.  Not just a partial success, but a
complete, abysmal failure.

In general, it is actually harder to get things launched today than it was
twenty years ago.  It's not just that progress has been limited -- progress
has actually been NEGATIVE!  When it comes to the general exploration and
development of space, we are worse off today than we were in 1967.  What's
more, the various proposals to do something about it are not addressing the
fundamental problems.  There is no obvious reason why Shuttle 2, or Hermes,
or the Aerospace Plane, will be any cheaper or easier to get payloads onto
than the Shuttle.  The Shuttle, which promised to be vastly cheaper than
the expendables, isn't and won't be.  It is now fashionable to claim that
the expendables are cheaper and easier to use than the shuttle, but try
to book a Titan 4, or even a Scout, and you'll find out the real story.
It's no cheaper, and even allowing for the transient problems of today, not
much easier.  Ariane isn't any better.  The new-technology commercial
launch firms that are at all close to success are pushing very modest
improvements only... and they are still at the mercy of the US government,
with their future uncertain at best.  Nobody is even talking about "routine
access to space" any more, much less promising to deliver it.

Except the Soviets, that is.  On their terms, as their junior partners only.

It's time to face facts.  The situation is beyond repair with band-aids,
which is the only sort of response the current system can produce.

It's time to give the West's dying space program a decent burial, so we can
start over -- from scratch -- and do it right.
							-- HS]

[Next editorial:  some thoughts on how to do it right.]
-- 
"If you want PL/I, you know       Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
where to find it." -- DMR         {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #215
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09801; Wed, 6 May 87 03:03:31 PDT
	id AA09801; Wed, 6 May 87 03:03:31 PDT
Date: Wed, 6 May 87 03:03:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705061003.AA09801@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #216

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 216

Today's Topics:
		Re: Near Term Laser Launcher Prospects
		       Re: Planetary Evacuation
		   Re: Near Term Launcher Prospects
			  Re: ELV companies
      Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion
      Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion
			     50 ly limit
	 Issues in interstellar travel (was Re: 50 ly limit)
			Interstellar Products
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 87 21:20:37 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Near Term Laser Launcher Prospects

I understand the premise in Jim Kempf's article to be that a laser
launch system should use lasers that are now commercially available,
that commercial megawatt lasers aren't around, so forget it.

I'm sure that Jordan Kare at Lawrence Livermore could defend the
feasibility of high power lasers much better than I, but he may be
constrained by security restrictions from mentioning them.  However, I
hear there is laser work going on at LLNL in the 10^6 to 10^8 CW watt
range (this from a different source, when I ask Jordan, he just grins
and shrugs).

Such things aren't commercial probably because there isn't much of a
market besides laser launch and military uses (and now, perhaps TeV
particle accelerators).  We don't build enough jet engines to need to
weld them much faster.

The usual assumption is that ground-based lasers built for SDI purposes
can be used for laser launching in those off moments when we aren't
having nuclear wars.  Jordan has convinced me that the lasers would be
useful for that; if he ever gives a talk in your neigborhood, go see it!

The commercial market usually finds better solutions to problems than
the government does, so I do have sympathy for Mr.  Kempf's argument.
It is a pity that space launch has been so screwed up by government
involvement that it is not considered a commercial market (Oooh! Am I
gonna get flamed for that one!).

Keith Lofstrom
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 87 17:02:16 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (P Douglas Reeder)
Subject: Re: Planetary Evacuation

If someone knows the amount of bomb-grade fissionables in the the US,
USSR, and other arsenals, the problem is susceptable to computation,
assuming Orion- type ships. (note that the number of warheads is NOT the
number of mini-bombs that could be made, as at least the US uses fission
triggers that use more fissionables than otherwise needed, because of
other desired properties.)

total fissionables available=total arsenals + 1 years output of
fissionables

(the US has 1 production reactor, the USSR 20, Britain & France 1 each,
I suspect,China 2?,Israel 1?,rest of world?)  Possibly power reactors
could be made to add to the total.

for each type of fissionable:

      number of bomblets = total mass / critical mass

      (smallest possible bombs,correct?)

Knowing the number of bomblets and the strength of each kind, we can
caculate the mass of people and supplies that can be moved to the moon,
or else to Mars or another target.  Note that ICBM's would add to the
total mass that could be lifted to orbit, as would conventional
launchers. The big problem is keeping large numbers of people alive and
fed in space or on planets for indefinite periods of time.

                 -Doug Reeder,  Reed College

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 87 20:00:44 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Near Term Launcher Prospects

In article <7306@mordor.s1.gov>, jtk@mordor.s1.gov (Jordan Kare) writes:
> >
> >Initially I had hoped to come up with evidence that a venture funded
> >startup on the scale of $100 Million or so could build a system
> >in three years which would achieve a couple orders of magnitude
> >reduction in to-orbit costs over Ariane and the Shuttle.  
> 
> Alas, I do not know of any approach, including catapults (which are
> cheaper than laser propulsion provided your payload will take 10,000
> g's) with development + capital costs of under $100 million.  
> 
> 	Dr. Jordin Kare		jtk@mordor.UUCP

A gas catapult system on the ground combined with an orbital tether,
with a rocket in between could approach $25/kg operational costs with an
initial cost (development + initial production) of about $500 million.
An initial system with expendable rockets rather than reuseable rockets
might be doable for $80 million.  In this case the operating costs would
be more like $1200/kg.  For comparison, the Shuttle will cost $7,500/kg
when it starts flying again.

The principal problem with most 'launcher' concepts is not how to turn
your power into propulsive results, but rather how to get the peak power
required to launch.  As the previous articles on laser launch have
shown, peak powers of hundreds to thousands of megawatts are required,
with total energies of 30 gigajoules per metric ton to orbit.  One
approach to the power problem is to store energy over a long period of
time, then releasing it quickly when you launch.  Chemical rockets do
this.  The energy is stored when the propellants are manufactured, then
released over a few minutes using a rocket engine.

In a gas gun, the energy is stored in a pressure vessel over time, then
released quickly by opening a valve.  A recent idea on improving gas gun
costs is to use the ocean as your pressure vessel.  On land your
pressure vessel has to withstand the full internal pressure.  If you
take the pressure vessel to the appropriate depth in the ocean, the
hydrostatic water pressure will equal the gas pressure.  Then your
pressure vessel only has to withstand second order effects such as being
rigid enough to handle , and the pressure difference between the top and
bottom of the vessel in the surrounding water.  Since the pressure
vessel and the gun barrel have to hold the same gas at different times,
they tend to have the same amount of steel in them, which tends to make
them cost about the same.  By placing the pressure vessel in the ocean,
the theoretical cost reduction would approach 50%, by doing away with
most of the pressure vessel structure.

Another advantage to placing a gas gun in the ocean is the ability to
point it (slowly) in different directions, as opposed to a mountain-
mounted gun.  A disadvantage is having you muzzle near sea level, intead
of near the top of a mountain.  This means you have to pass through the
whole atmosphere at high velocity, leading to heating and drag problems.
A gas gun using hot hydrogen as it's working fluid can reach 50% of
orbital velocity with reasonable design parameters.  It can therefore
substitute for the first stage of a conventional rocket.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date:  Sat, 25 Apr 87 23:11 EDT
From: Mark Purtill <Purtill@mit-multics.arpa>
Subject:  Re: ELV companies
To: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)

I can tell you a little about one, AMROC (= American Rocket Company.)
They are based somewhere in California, and plan on having their first
suborbital test flight before the end of this year (1987, in case the
mail is slow :-) and an orbital test flight before the end of next year.
I think their first paid launch would be in 1989.
          Here are a few random facts about the company (mostly from
their presentation at the Pittsburgh Space development conference):
 
 1.  The rockets they're using are hybrid: solid reactant (in this case,
some sort of rubber) and liquid oxidant (LOX).  The main reason is
safety, mostly in the manufacturing process (so they can get insurance
for the place they build the rockets, and so they can move them about
without problems.)  Of course novelty doesn't hurt in launching a new
venture, either.  Unlike solid rocket boosters, these can be turned on
and off (by regulating flow of LOX).

 2.  What their "industrial launch vehicle" looks like is a bunch of
small modules strapped together to make each stage.  All the modules are
the same, which is supposed to make the thing cheaper.  They have test
fired at least one module (at some USAF base; they have a deal with the
USAF to use some facilities they (USAF) weren't using).  They showed a
videotape of a firing; interestingly enough, their computer equipment
was a couple of Macs; to fire the rocket, you click on a "Fire" box.

 3.  The person who gave the presentation (the head of the company) was
very impressive.  He gave the impression that AMROC had the financing it
needed (altho I don't think he said so) and convinced me, at least, that
these guys will probably get off the ground.

Another company I heard from at Pittsburgh is Third Millennium, Inc.,
which confusingly abbreviate their name MMI (=2001 in roman numerals,
the first and most famous year in the third millennium).  They were
plugging a "space van" which is basically a minishuttle.  Yes, it is
manned, because they think it will be cheaper to develop that way.  They
want to build a completely reusable system for putting things in either
LEO or GEO; this includes an (unmanned) shuttle from LEO to GEO.  They
do not have financing (they estimate $320 million); first launch would
be circa five years after money shows up.  They did quote prices
(obviously estimates) on the order of $2-3 million for some amount to
LEO (I think 1.5 tons, the cargo capacity of the "microvan") and
something like $20 million to GEO.  (Don't quote me on those, this whole
message is from memory.)  I do have an address for MMI, but not here.
Let me know if you're interested.

There is at least one other company I know of, the people in Texas (I
think) who are doing the "Conestoga" rocket.  I think they plan on a
commercial launch either this year or next, but that pretty much
exhausts my knowledge of the company.

       Mark Purtill

------------------------------

Date: 10 Apr 87 15:14:35 GMT
From: firth@SEI.CMU.EDU  (Robert Firth)
Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion

In article <1632@tekigm2.TEK.COM> dand@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Dan Duval) writes:

>The situations are exactly parallel. The Venetians knew they could build
>ships, even though hideously expensive at the time, as we know we can
>build starships, though hideously expensive.

Dan, what was "hideously expensive" about Venetian ships?  The Arsenal
could build a warship in three days, with a pipeline three deep (ie
one warship per day).  Before the Battle of Lepanto, they built 86
galleys in 14 weeks.  A merchant ship was bigger, but even so they
could build one in a week.

An excellent analysis of the commercial and trading patterns of the
Mediterranean is in Braudel's The Mediterranean and the Mediterranean
World in the Age of Philip II.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Apr 87 20:08:21 GMT
From: tektronix!tekgen!tekigm2!dand@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Duval)
Subject: Re: The 50 light year limitation to interstellar expansion

In article <915@aw.sei.cmu.edu.sei.cmu.edu>, firth@sei.cmu.edu (Robert Firth) writes:
> In article <1632@tekigm2.TEK.COM> dand@tekigm2.TEK.COM (Dan Duval) writes:
> 
> Dan, what was "hideously expensive" about Venetian ships?  The Arsenal
> could build a warship in three days, with a pipeline three deep (ie
> one warship per day).  Before the Battle of Lepanto, they built 86
> galleys in 14 weeks.  A merchant ship was bigger, but even so they
> could build one in a week.

First of all, this falls out of the subject of sci.space. Let's move any
further discussion of pre-Space Age history and economics to e-mail
(my USENET address is below, I think that dand@tekigm2.tek.com will get
to me also, but then again it might not.)

Remember that expense is relative. In those days, the majority of effort
went into the feeding, clothing, and housing of people. How great was
the percentage of people within the Venetian city-state that was
necessary to provide just the food needed by those who cut the wood,
shaped it, did the black iron work, assembled the ship, and, finally,
those who crewed it? As I recall, it took about 9 people to grow enough
of a surplus of food to feed one person in the city, and less than 5% of
the people in the city were involved in the construction of ships. Let's
be generous and claim that only 95% of the total amount of labor
available to Venice was necessary to build those 86 galleys, provision
them, crew them, and support all the other people who fed, clothed, and
housed those guys.

Today, building a Venetian-style galley would require the efforts of
perhaps twenty people to build it, thirty people to move the materials
around, and seventy people to crew it. My hometown of Springfield, OR
could easily provide the wood, ironworkers, and support necessary to
support these people.  Feeding the 30,000 people of Springfield is done
by an average of 300 people (I understand that a farmer today feeds at
least 100, but I don't recall the exact ratio.) So for the sake of
keeping it simple, let's say that it would take 30,000 people to build
and support a galley. The 90 some Venetian galleys at Lepanto then would
take about 2.5 million people, out of the 220+million in the US.

Relative cost. The entire city-state of Venice wouldn't be able to
support the US space program, even to feed the people involved.

Let's take this up via e-mail, OK?

Dan C Duval
ISI Engineering
Tektronix, Inc

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 87 00:53:28 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (P Douglas Reeder)
Subject: 50 ly limit

I think we do not have enough knowledge presently to be able to make
meaningful comments about human society on the time scale indicated.
Speculation on the practicality of planetary colonization (e.g. Mars),
while fraught with uncertainties, can be meaningful, I think.  The
results of a technical study of the technologies required would be most
welcome here.

                 -Doug Reeder,  Reed College

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 87 10:51:37 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Issues in interstellar travel (was Re: 50 ly limit)

In article <6113@reed.UUCP> douglas@reed.UUCP (P Douglas Reeder) writes:
>I think we do not have enough knowledge presently to be able to make 
>meaningful comments about human society on the time scale indicated.

	I found an interesting book titled ``Interstellar Migration and
the Human Experience'', edited by Ben Finney. It has a number of papers
from historians and other non-techie people which provide a (sometimes
surprisingly) different perspective on this subject, and analogies to
past migrations of cultures. If anyone is interested, I will dig up the
publisher etc. (the book's in my apartment right now).

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: Saturday, 25 April 1987 16:41:02 AST
Sender: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
From: Hank.Walker@gauss.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Interstellar Products

It seems obvious that interstellar exploration can't pay by shipping back
something like Vegan Spice, unless it's something incredibly useful, like
Melange, or incredibly addicting.  But it might pay by shipping back
information about the molecular structure of these items, and other useful
things.  I think we all agree that pointing a message laser at another star
isn't too expensive.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #216
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11644; Thu, 7 May 87 03:03:53 PDT
	id AA11644; Thu, 7 May 87 03:03:53 PDT
Date: Thu, 7 May 87 03:03:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705071003.AA11644@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #217

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 217

Today's Topics:
			       Re: Gold
			  oort-cloud mining?
			Re: oort-cloud mining?
			       Re: Gold
			       Re: Gold
	 Re: Soviet Mir/Kvant docking problem - a plastic bag
	   Re: Relativity and time travel and Fermi paradox
	   Re: Relativity and time travel and Fermi paradox
			     Anniversary
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 87 05:44:18 GMT
From: pyramid!amdahl!ptsfa!well!msudoc!crlt!russ@decwrl.dec.com  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: Gold

In article <8704111634.AA17014@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET.UUCP writes:
>Gary Allen said ERPM has 6 gram/ton gold ore, cheap labor, but is still
>losing money, so any ET ore would have to be at least that rich. Russ
>Cage wrote:

>>This assumes that you're using the same technology to separate the
>>gold from the asteroid metal that the ERPM is using.  I really doubt
>>this.  I would imagine that large-scale electrolytic refining could
>>yield economic amounts of gold inexpensively, particularly if you are
>>also refining silicon for solar cells (which you might) and have
>>practically unlimited sunlight available (which you would).

>It find it hard to believe that an industrial process that would
>require complete melting and electrolytic processing could compete with
>the cyanide leaching techniques used to extract gold from terrestrial
>ores, especially when terrestrial ores have already been concentrated
>by natural processes.

On the other hand, the cheapest, concentrated terrestrial ores have
mostly been depleted.  This is why the ERPM is losing money.  Also, the
asteroids we're interested in (stony-iron) have been differentiated
considerably by natural processes also.  We don't have to pick the
difficult cases first.  Aluminum refining also requires complete melting
and electrolytic processing; have you priced aluminum lately?  It's
nowhere near $300/ounce.

>Russ repeats the oft-heard non sequitur about unlimited sunlight
>==>cheap electricity. Have you heard of capital costs, Russ?

Yes, I have.  Have you heard of advancing technology?  Vapor-deposited
amorphous silicon cells?  There are many possibilities, and that only
covers electrolytic refining.

>Solar cells are not cheap; with technical advances, they may make
>electricity in space at costs somewhat below (but not many orders of
>magnitude below) terrestrial costs, ASSUMING we can make, deploy and
>maintain the cells in space as cheaply as we could on earth (a big
>assumption, requiring the presence of a large space infrastructure).

You haven't been watching the cost curve for solar cells.  It's been
dropping rapidly.  Besides, if you're on an asteroid and you have lots
of aluminum and silicon handy (and a bit of dopants), some of your
refined products can be made into huge ribbons of cheap cells.  They'll
do the job even if their efficiency is lousy; it's not like the raw
materials cost anything.  You refine all the way back to earth, and turn
your cells into something else when you arrive; re-refine the silicon
and use the aluminum for girders, maybe? This assumes that electrolytic
refining is the way to go.  It may well not be; see below.

>The cost of power on the space station will be something like
>$90/kilowatt-hour, a thousand times higher than the cost of power on
>the ground.

A non-sequitur from the man who accuses me of spouting them.  How
appropriate.  The cost of power from hand-picked (literally),
single-crystal cells which must be packaged *expensively*, then given an
8 km/sec push out of a gravity well (costly), can't be compared to the
cost of power from cells produced on the spot, which need no protective
packaging, and which have sun 100% of the time instead of a shade over
50%.  Most of the power cost on the space station is going to be the
price of launching that array, not the array; most of the cost of the
array is going to be the testing, selection, and packaging, not the
cells.  Most of the cost of the cells is going to be the crystal
pulling, cutting, doping and mounting, of which only doping has to be
done with amorphous ribbon cells.  You can do *that* with ion beams, and
very easily and cheaply when you're surrounded by free vacuum.  3%
efficiency doesn't hurt your economics when your silicon is only a few
micrometers thick and you don't have to pay to launch anything.

Okay, for another angle on grabbing the gold out of the asteroid (a
suggestion from Keith Henson):

If the gold is mixed in with the metals, the carbonyl process will
remove the iron, nickel, etc. with the use of some carbon monoxide and
heat.  No solar cells required, just mirrors for heat sources (CHEAP!).
This also yields refined metals as the output.  Gold doesn't have a
carbonyl compound listed in my CRC; platinum doesn't seem to like to
form them without halogens or sulfur.  Both of these would likely be
left behind and could be refined out of the bottoms of the batches with
ease.  Iridium does form a carbonyl, and could be plucked out with a
temperature change.  This gives you some rather valuable materials,
extracted with cheap equipment running off of energy that's very cheap
to collect.

If the gold is mixed with the metals, you probably want to get it out
anyway.  It's not likely to be expensive to do so.

A third angle:

If the gold is mixed in with the rock, the cyanide process may be the
way to go, if the cyanide can be regenerated cheaply enough (cheap power
again).  We're back to electrolytic methods.

A fourth angle:

Again, if the gold is mixed with the rock, maybe the rock is worth more
as elemental silicon and oxygen than as filler.  The gold will come out
of the silicon refining process as an impurity.

A fifth angle:

Maybe the gold is worth enough for other things to be worth some
thousands an ounce to extract, *as long as you're on the rock anyway*.
Once you're in earth orbit and done with it, it might be worth less than
$300/oz if you keep it and more if you sell it.

A sixth angle:

Maybe, for a piddling few billion out of a multi-trillion take, it's not
worth bothering with the damn gold.  It sure doesn't affect the
economics of the venture much, unless your interest costs are high and
you can get the gold to market much faster than the iron, etc.

By the way, Mr. Dietz, would you use a .signature file or otherwise sign
your postings?  Thank you.


Russ Cage

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 April 20 22:38:20 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: oort-cloud mining?

I have a "new start" question for space-technology experts: If we had a
large solar collector and electrical-convertor near the Sun (anywhere 1
A.U. or closer to the Sun) to provide lots of usable electricity, and if
we had a high-power laser (or maser, iraser, uvaser, etc.) to beam this
energy from this collector-convertor out to some spot far from the Sun
where it is needed by a mining station; it's obvious we could mine the
asteroid belt (except there's probably enough sunlight there that it'd
be cheaper to build a larger collector on-station to avoid having to
beam the energy), but my question is whether we could mine the Oort
cloud effectively. I don't think the beaming that distance is much of a
technological problem given that we can somehow build the large solar
collector&convertor. Also I don't think it would be difficult to pilot
the mining station over to a found comet once we tell the laser
transmitter the new coordinates we want it to drift the beam as the
mining station then tracks the moving beam. The main problem as I see it
would be locating the comets out there where they don't give off much
infrared radiation because they aren't very warm because they aren't
very near the Sun. Could we still detect them by IR because they are
ever so slightly warmer than 2.7 degree background? Or would we have to
use some active method such as beaming IR or other radiation out in a
scanning pattern like radar and watching for a blip on our "radar"
screen indicating our beam struck something? Is there any hope for
finding comets out there before they come to the inner solar system? Or
do we have to wait until a tiny sample of them randomly fall inward and
get warmed before we can find them with technology of the next 20 years?

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 87 00:36:27 GMT
From: josh@topaz.rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: oort-cloud mining?

> ... The main problem as I see it would be locating the comets out
> there where they don't give off much infrared radiation because they
> aren't very warm because they aren't very near the Sun. 

Use an H-bomb as a flashbulb.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 87 20:24:12 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Gold

Why bother recovering precious metals from asteroidal sources, when the
BIG market requires no separation at all.  The free metal in a
iron-nickel or stony-iron asteroid typically consists of 90% Iron, 9%
Nickel and 1% Cobalt.  This is already a very high grade steel.  The
world market for steel is ENORMOUS ($200 billion/year or so).  Your
problems are how to get the asteroid or part thereof back to earth
vicinity, then down to the ground.

Problem #1 can be solved by using the asteroid to bring itself back.
You do this by making sheet metal mirrors and solar-sailing back to
earth.  Now, I know that steel is a crummy reflector (about 50%
reflectivity), and it is dense (7800 kg/cubic meter), but the stuff is
there already.  At 2.5 AU, in the asteroid belt, a typical available
impulse will be 36 Newton-seconds/square meter/yr (light pressure is
(1+r)E/c , where r is reflectivity, the 1 comes from the momentum of
incident light, which is all used, E is the wattage of sunlight, and c
is the speed of light).  If your sheet is 25 microns thick (0.001 inch),
then 36 Newton-seconds/ square meter yields a 187m/s delta vee per year.
Thinner sheet will get you home faster.

The steel sheet is rolled between sintered and glazed ceramic rollers
made from local rock.  A stony-iron asteroid works best here as a
source.  Both the rollers and the steel are heat formed in solar
concetrators made of, you guessed it, steel sheet.  The whole process
bootstraps from a very small seed.

Problem #2 can be solved by wadding up the sheet after arrival in earth
orbit into a ball, then de-orbiting.  If the density is low enough, the
ball will not melt on re-entry and will float on water.  You then hook a
tugboat to the metal and haul away.

IF, and this is a very big if, you can do this for less than alternate
market prices for steel, you have a big enough market to justify the
high capital costs of space resource recovery.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 87 10:46:26 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Gold

In article <1197@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>Problem #1 can be solved by using the asteroid to bring itself back.  You
>do this by making sheet metal mirrors and solar-sailing back to earth.
>...
>If your sheet is 25 microns thick (0.001 inch), then 36 Newton-seconds/
>square meter yields a 187m/s delta vee per year.  Thinner sheet will get
>you home faster.

	I wonder at what point planetary gravitational perturbations could
eliminate control of the mirror/asteroid (this is how main belt asteroids
can end up in orbits crossing planets in the inner solar system). It's 
conceivable that ultra-low thrust schemes will fail for this reason. Any
dynamics people out there who could answer this? 

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 15 Apr 87 16:21:53 GMT
From: watson@AMES.ARPA  (John S. Watson)
Subject: Re: Soviet Mir/Kvant docking problem - a plastic bag

> Again the capability of humans to save expensive space equipment has
> been shown.  I wish that some of the networks would have broadcast
> part of this latest rescue on their news shows.  It might help
> convince some of the robot only crowd that mankind is still the most
> flexible system we can put in space.

Would not have "telepresence" worked also (at lease in the case of earth
orbit)?  Why do we limit ourselves to mostly humans or mostly robots?

    From what I know, there is no real breakthroughs that need to be
made to make a "telepresence".  It seems to me that all the pieces are
there, but they just haven't been "put together".

  John S. Watson 
  NASA Ames Research Center
  ARPA:  watson@ames.arpa
  UUCP:  ...!ames!watson

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 87 23:49:37 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Relativity and time travel and Fermi paradox

> IF time travel is possible, and ignoring for the fact that WE can't do
> it yet, how come nobody from the future hasn't done it yet, or to put
> it another way, how come no one has visited us?

> Maybe they have?!  Are there things in history that look or seem
> strange?  There might be historical anamolies that don't seem to make
> sense.  A discovery that seemed to 'pop' out of the blue...could this
> be proof?

Alas for the idea, there's nothing grossly out of place.  Oddities, yes,
but nothing truly bizarre.  The closest thing we have to such an anomaly
is Leonardo da Vinci's notebooks, and even they are clearly products of
his own time.  Remember that our ancestors were ignorant but not stupid;
they were capable of doing remarkable things on their own, now and then.

> Couldn't they go WAY back to Earth's beginnings?  And as with all the
> sci-fi stories warning about 'messing' with time, how come no one has
> messed it up yet?  Or is 'our' future constantly changing ...

As Larry Niven has pointed out, if a universe's physics permit time
travel and alteration of the past, no time machine will ever be invented
in that universe.  Why?  Because absence of time machines is the only
stable state!  Sooner or later, the inventor of a time machine (or his
friends, or his successors) will change the past radically enough to
cancel the invention.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 21 Apr 87 22:34:02 GMT
From: decvax!watmath!lasibley@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lance)
Subject: Re: Relativity and time travel and Fermi paradox

In article <9401@decwrl.DEC.COM> earle@oblio.dec.com (GEORGE EARLE VAX/TCC 226-6498) writes:
>This has been discussed in a round about way but I have always had this
>nagging question ever since a movie I saw illuminated this view to me:
>
>IF time travel is possible, and ignoring for the fact that WE can't do
>it yet, how come nobody from the future hasn't done it yet, or to 
>put it another way, how come no one has visited us?  
>
>Maybe they have?!  Are there things in history that look or seem strange?
>There might be historical anamolies that don't seem to make sense.  A
>discovery that seemed to 'pop' out of the blue...could this be proof?

Recently there was an article posted to rec.arts.startrek about a new
invention to de-fog the rear windshield of your car...it involves a thin
sheet of *transparent aluminum*.

D'you suppose a certain Montgomery Scott & Marcus Nichols may have been
involved? Hmmmmmmm.............

    Lance A. Sibley

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 87 16:59:06 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Anniversary

Lest we forget that the Challenger astronauts were not the only ones to
die while reaching out....

On this date 20 years ago, Colonel Vladamir Komarov died when a malfunction
during reentry caused his Soyuz 1 spacecraft to crash.

The Soyuz was modified, and their program moved on.

Rich Kolker

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #217
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13372; Fri, 8 May 87 03:03:15 PDT
	id AA13372; Fri, 8 May 87 03:03:15 PDT
Date: Fri, 8 May 87 03:03:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705081003.AA13372@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #218

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 218

Today's Topics:
 Several things: added note about JPL, getting into space, computers
				Orion
			      Re:  Orion
		      USAF/DOD space activities
		     Mars, Moon, colonies, $$$$$
			  a new funding idea
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #195
Re: More on Martian colonization And Re: Class M Near Earth Asteroids Discovered
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Apr 87 10:15:05 pst
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Several things: added note about JPL, getting into space, computers

JPL: As a former Labbie, and not a Silly Servant: Jon points out things
correctly.  Why does the USG do this?  Several reasons: 1) you reduce
the number of CSs on the payroll of the government. 2) the benefits of
having some one else run the thing (Caltech, UC, any third party)
excepting short-term overheads outweigh the complexities of the Civil
Service system: the employees get higher salaries, more benefits, etc.
This is why the Lawrence Berkeley, and Livermore, and Los Alamos Labs,
Argonne, Brookhaven, Fermi, Oak Ridge, Hanford, et al are all run third
party by industrial and universities.  If the USG decides it doesn't
want something, they drop the contract (typically negiotatied every 2
years or so).  This is harder to do with CS people, but Will would know
this.  It's also great for hiding contracts.  You pay more overhead and
you have this 2 year thing [can you say "Teapot Dome?"], but you have
greater long-term rein of dropping contracts.  If the Lab were for some
reason dropped (don't see why), some other company would pick up the
contract.  They would do what ever they would please.  It probably would
be dumb to do completely classified work, the name is too visible and
the location too prominent.  These contracts are part of the basis why I
no longer believe that the UC should divest itself of LANL and LLNL.
They are away from big population areas, and a third party could make
them disappear.

Personal note: the last time I visited the Lab (Oct), I was a bit
distressed at the uniforms there.  I know the ratio of military work
concerns the upper management of Caltech, a skiing partner, Barclay Kamb
was just made Provost, and I did meet with Goldberg once while I was
there at the Lab.  Caltech does not want to run a Los Alamos, many
faculty as ex-LA people (Lost Outpost in the LLNL parlance).  Note, too,
my position as a Cilly Servant is makes my relations with JPL friends
different.  Some try to pry information from me, and I have to respect
some bounds.

I missed the Nova Galileo due to evening meetings and was told hiking
buddies where shown (in the O3 volume on Nova, Robert, now at NASA HQ,
is a friend who used to work in my old building, used to share cabs from
Dulles).  It would not be appropriate for me or any Lab or NASA person
to say any greater detail about the mission except for personal
observations.  I would like to see it, hopefully in reruns.

Regarding Dale's comment.  A lot of the space industrialization (my
observation, but not all on the net) is dependent on things such as
Zero-G and vacuum of space.  There has been a trend in the last 30 years
to create National Labs, Facilities, Centers for all sorts of things
like supercomputers (most recent and prominent), lasers, particle
accelerators: science getting big.  Perhaps we need to open a facility
for short term weighlessness.  Set off an area where a plane (like the
NASA C-135 or other plane) could be used for more extensive short
duration weightlessness.  The problem is see the acceleration doing out
of 0-G.  Vacuums, there must be a way we can make more environmental
chambers open. This might help industry think about the problems, and be
willing to try things, short of getaway specials (a bit hokie).  I think
this might be a away to go in the short term as a toe hold.  Note: I am
also away of lots of work done by companies like TRW with environmental
chambers for military work.  Yes bureacracy, but the NSF is setting up
these facilities, why not "near space?"

I would not omit the work being done by other countries.  ESSA and JSA
are doing nice jobs.  I have considered offers working for them, but
again they are space agencies and not computer agaencies.  Perhaps it is
there time. Oh yeah, don't forget China.  Space tecnology is not rapidly
changing as fast as computer technolgy.

Computers: The quote, I thought, didn't come from IBM, it came from one
of the ENIAC guys at BRL (no offense to Will Martin or Mike Muuss or
others).  Note, if anyone is attending the ACM's History of Scientific
Computing Conference in Princeton next month you will probably not only
find out who said it, but probably meet him.

Sorry for the length, these notes pushed a button again.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 22 Apr 1987 15:14-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Orion

Jordan Kare:

The picture I spoke of did indeed appear in a Life two page spread circa
1960. The project was cancelled entirely in 1963 and was classified, but
the IDEA was not classified. It was simply the case that no one knew
that feasibility testing was actually being done. At age 10 or so, I
figured it was something NASA would do in the far future, like maybe
1980...

The constituency failure on Orion was that it had the WRONG
consitutency. The USAF came to Kennedy with pictures of giant military
battle complexes they could put up and he didn't want it. He and
MacNamara were already laying the ground work for MAD and trying very
hard to give the US space program a civilian appearance to win
propaganda points over the very secret soviet program.

The specific Kennedy details I cannot verify. They have been told to me
by old space hands that were insiders at the time. I can't prove what
went on in the White House other than by hearsay and circumstance. I
also will not say who they were.

The historical context of the Kennedy era I discussed is backed up by
Walter A.  MacDougal's Political History of the Space Age. It has very
little mention of Orion per se, but I think the policy background
described by this work backs up my contention. The test ban did not kill
Orion.  Orion had no backing except the USAF, and they were fighting a
losing battle to have ANY foot hold in space. First NASA was given the
research centers. Then Orion was killed. Then Dynasor. Then Manned
Orbiting Laboratory.

Orion was not important within a policy framework extant at the time. I
highly recommend MacDougal's book to anyone interested in the
machinations of the birth of the space age which were classified until
recently.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Apr 87 12:48:38 PDT
From: Jordan Kare <jtk@mordor.s1.gov>
To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu, jtk@mordor.s1.gov
Subject: Re:  Orion
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov

I quite agree that White House machinations, rather than technical
concerns, defined the U.S. space program in the Kennedy era.  I have
also heard similar things from insiders, including Arthur Kantrowitz --
for example, that we could have reached the moon much more cheaply
by using small boosters to build a space station piecemeal, instead of
building the Saturn V, but that Kennedy gave Johnson the space program
and Johnson wanted it to be expensive so he could spend lots of money
in Texas.  The point was mostly that I doubt Kennedy personally killed
Orion; it's just that it had no place in the framework, a point on 
which I think we agree.

	I note that the USAF may have come in with pictures of space
battleships, but that was partly because they HAD to -- they couldn't
support it as a scientific/research effort even if they wanted to,
because that kind of thing, on any scale too large for DARPA, was
exclusively NASA property, both legally and politically.

	Re LIFE: I thought it was probably an artists conception of
"nuclear bomb rocket" rather than specifically something about Orion.
Ah, those were the days, when mainstream national magazines actually had
optimistic articles about space exploration....

	Confusion this decade!
	Jordin Kare

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 87 04:20:29 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: USAF/DOD space activities

In article <546117269.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>kill Orion.  Orion had no backing except the USAF, and they were
>fighting a losing battle to have ANY foot hold in space. First NASA was
>given the research centers. Then Orion was killed. Then Dynasor. Then
>Manned Orbiting Laboratory.

	DOD has reversed this trend recently. First USAF was given the
major role in NASP. Then they tried (are trying) to cut NASA out of
heavy booster development (not that NASA has shown great initiative in
the matter).  Then Weinberger proposed eliminating our international
partners on Station if they don't roll over and play dead to ANYTHING
DOD wants to do with it.  The current Av Week has a truly frightening
summary of the political infighting going on over this issue. Apparently
the degree of allowed military involvement is to be decided by Reagan.
Based on his past actions, I would say we can kiss Europe, Japan, and
Canada goodbye on Station, unless Congress intervenes.

	It seems like it would be a better deal all around if USAF had
their OWN space station. Then the only government who would be
complaining loudly is Russia, which is a good tradeoff. It's interesting
in that regard that nobody is complaining about potential military uses
of the Mir complex (of course, the Soviets are not stupid enough to
suggest they might try and deploy SDI elements from Mir!)

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 23 Apr 87 17:31:12 GMT
From: dayton!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@rutgers.edu  (Dennis Grittner)
Subject: Mars, Moon, colonies, $$$$$

Just thought I'd add a few more words to the whole 'discussion' about
colonies and the like.

ALMOST everybody seems to agree that it would cost a LOT of money to do
ANY type of colonization of just about anywhere. There seems to be some
'argument' about whether to do it on the Moon first or Mars first and
just ( sort of ) skip the Moon. I guess I would do the 'easy' first (
the Moon ) and the tougher later ( Mars and/or Venus or elsewhere.

ABOUT THE $$$$$: There is plenty of money available to BOTH fix many
things here on earth AND develop space. Take a look at the military
budget in Japan and many other countries and extrapolate their
percentages spent on warfare ( sometimes called defense ) to the United
States. We would have ( potentially ) hundreds of billions of dollars a
year to spend on USEFUL projects. These projects could easily include
space colonization, the ending of poverty and illiteracy, etc and there
would still be money left over. I'm sure many people would oppose this
as it might reduce their profit from warfare considerably but ....

It would be nice if those of us who have ( supposedly ) been educated
would use our intelligence and education to propose the type of change
that would really do some useful things for all of humanity. I for one
I'm tired of hearing many folk complain about paying taxes, or money
going to social programs. I would suggest that paying taxes is one of
the truly useful things we all do. If we can eliminate the truly
obnoxious waste of military spending it would be MUCH better. I LIKE
paying taxes to HELP people and to do noble projects like Apollo. If
many of you don't like these things I'm sure there are many places on
earth where you could live largely without taxation ( if you were
willing to live without public universities, public libraries, parks,
highways, etc. ) and largely without many personal freedoms for the
AVERAGE citizen ( yes even the dumb ones who 'like food stamps') and
largely without most of the jobs that many of us hold in private and
public entities.

I live in Minnesota. We pay HIGH taxes. Our economy is more vigorous
than any of the surrounding states that pay LOW taxes. I like paying the
high taxes AND enjoying the benefits of same.

------------------------------

Date: 24 Apr 87 19:57:02 GMT
From: video.dec.com!kovner@decwrl.dec.com
Subject: a new funding idea

Dale Amon writes, about colonies on earth:

>. Some were religious enclaves like Plymouth.
 
And Euegene Miya replies:

> Gee, where religion when you really need it?
 
Hmmm.... If Oral Roberts could raise $8 million to save his life,
how much could a space evangelist get to save ALL the human race ? 

Maybe we've been too rational trying to raise the public's attitude
on space. We need an evangelist to help out ---

(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)
(MANY smiley faces...)

YES, FRIENDS, GOD has spoken to me, HALLELUYA!
HE told me that he is going to send a flood (or plague, or whatever)

----- Riiight.

And he said, "Build a space ark"


----- Riiight.

"Build it 2000 cubits by ......."

----- Riiight.

And I need your money now. This space ark will cost $20 billion, so send
your donations NOW, friends to:

	.........
(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)(:-)

Steve Kovner

(with apologies to Bill Cosby)

DISCLAIMER: This does not reflect the opinions of my employer, my
computer, or myself.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 87 11:58:38 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #195

In article <545542725.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Bob Gray:
>
>I'd like to point out that most of those early colonies in North
>America were chartered private groups, incorporated in England. Some of
>them were LITERALLY planned company towns for exploiting the
>wilderness. Some were religious enclaves like Plymouth. England
>supplied control of the seas. Private money did nearly EVERYTHING else;
 ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Only once there was a reliable transport system, and surveys of possible
colony sites had been done, and there was some degree of protection from
attack by other countries (or hostile natives), would the private
companies put in money.  They paid the vast majority of the cost of
colonisation, BUT they wanted some assurance that they would have some
chance of getting a return for their money.

Many companies went bankrupt and thousands of people were killed by the
corporate and national rivalries.

Repeat the bits of the colonisation process which work well (private
financing, colonies set up by individual groups.)  But avoid the
mistakes.

>supplied the people, the tools, the transport, the food stuffs, the
>insurance...
>
>I think the English approach to colonization has far superior results.

As long as you were not one of the people in a rival colony.

>						Dale Amon
	Bob Gray.

>(So where can I get my charter for lands bounded by Mare Crisium to the
>east ...)

(The old methods seem most suitable, First get there, stake your claim
and live there for a couple of years.....)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Apr 87 16:12:14 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: More on Martian colonization And Re: Class M Near Earth Asteroids Discovered

In article <8704161501.AA26986@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>....   Just a plain
>old dumb space station in a resonant orbit between Mars and Earth
>could do the trick also.
>                                   Gary Allen

And: DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET Writes.

> 1986 DA's orbit crosses Mars but not Earth, making it an Amor object, while
> 1986 EB's orbit crosses Earth (and Venus) and has a semimajor axis <  1 AU,
> making it an Aten object:
> 
> 	1986 DA		a = 2.811 AU	q = 1.166 AU	(MPC 10628, 1986)
> 	1986 EB		a =  .974 AU	Q = 1.247 AU	(MPC 10625, 1986)
> (a = semimajor axis, q = perihelion, Q = apohelion, MPC = Minor Planets
> Calendar)

> Both are about 2 km across. Class M asteroids are believed to be mostly
> metal. Radar observations of 16 Psyche, another class M asteroid with
> similar spectra, are indicative of a largely metallic body.

And after all that, A simple question. 

Would the next step be better served by building a colony on one of
these asteriods as a stepping stone to mars.

There are a lot of advantages in having a 2km metal asteriod as a base.
Raw materials, radiation shielding, secure foundations and a place to
stockpile and make supplies.  There is also the advantage that you know
that the asteriod will be back in a couple of years, and you won't be
stranded by budget cuts and policy changes back home.  If one of them is
in nearly the correct orbit, it should be possible to move it, even with
today's technology. A permanent deep space station would make an ideal
staging post on the way to mars.

Of course, a method is still needed to get to LEO, and from there to
Mars transfer orbit.

	Bob Gray.
	ERCC.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #218
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01485; Sat, 9 May 87 03:03:13 PDT
	id AA01485; Sat, 9 May 87 03:03:13 PDT
Date: Sat, 9 May 87 03:03:13 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705091003.AA01485@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #219

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 219

Today's Topics:
			   MARS EXPLORATION
	One can not justify Space Colonization with economics
			     L5 Farewell
	      Re: The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel
	 heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"
       Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"
       Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"
		      What is Meissner effect ?
		      Meteors & a space elevator
		The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel
			  Re: ELV companies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Apr 87 22:03:30 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (UUCP Admin)
Subject: MARS EXPLORATION

NASA NEWS
NASA AND CALTECH CONTINUE MARS EXPLORATION RESEARCH EFFORT

	A red, heart shaped balloon tied atop a larger plastic balloon,
floating over NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL), Pasadena, Calif.,
could be a space mission prototype that might someday send a gondola of
experiments flying through a Martian sky.
	NASA is continuing its search for a workable method to explore
the planet's surface terrain and composition. Scientists are currently
studying the JPL/California Institute of Technology (CalTech) balloon
project as one of many studies aimed at finding the best method of
exploring Mars.
	"Mars ballooning" is based on the concept that a balloon
inflated by heat from the sun could carry experiments to sample new
Martian territory daily. At night, the gas balloon, which barely
supports the deflated hot air balloon is stationary, while the
instrument payload sits on the Martian terrain sampling the local
environment. As the sun rises, the black balloon absorbs heat from the
sun and inflates with warm air, rises and carries the instrument gondola
to a new destination.
	The technique being tested uses a helium- or hydrogen filled
balloon attatched to a solar heated hot air balloon. The balloon
combination would in turn support a gondola of instruments designed to
survive repeated landings and dragging across the ground.
	Initial experiments were conducted by caltech undergraduate
students last summer under the leadership of Caltech planetary science
professor and former JPL director Dr. Bruce C. Murray.
	Subsequent experiments with a toy balloon prototype were carried
out by JPL engineers Dr. Gail A. Klein and James D. Burke as a prelude
to using a larger, 30 foot diameter hot air balloon now being tested
periodically at NASA's Dryden Flight Research Facility, Edwards, Calif.
These field tests will continue for the next several months at Dryden.
	The hot-air balloon was provided by California balloonist Tom
Heinsheimer. The Centre National d'Etudes Spatiales Chief Scientist Dr.
Jacques Blamont, who is a JPL visiting scientist, conceived the idea of
exploring Mars with a solar-heated balloon.
	According to Burke, Mars ballooning offers scientists the
potential to conduct detailed studies of widely separated locales from
polar caps to volcanic terrain. "Obviously, the landing sites are not
completely controllable, "Burke said, "but given our knowledge of
Martian wind patterns, a general selection is possible."
	Funding for the Mars Balloon research is provided by Caltech,
NASA and the JPL Director's Discretionary Fund. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA NEWS RELEASE 87-48  April 2, 1987
By Leon N. Perry Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
and Mary Beth Murrill Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
Reprinted with permission for Electronic Distribution

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 87 16:50:55 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: One can not justify Space Colonization with economics

Somebody commented that colonizing Mars is a silly idea and it would be
cheaper to colonize the Sahara Desert or the ocean floor.  This is
basicly true.  Yes, it would be much cheaper to colonize the Sahara
Desert than Mars.  However while it would be fairly easy for some future
Ayatolla Khomeni to drop a nuclear weapon on this Sahara colony it would
be rather difficult for him to do so on a Martian colony. An ocean floor
colony could be wiped out by some virulent strain of AIDS but the
Martian colony would be isolated. However these are lame arguments. As I
said before and shall say again: There is **no** economic justification
at this time for space colonization.  However we should do it anyway for
ideological reasons.  The Mars colony will be an enormously expensive
undertaking.  However if the colony survived and grew, it would
represent a human presence on a second world.  It would provide the
basis for interplanetary commerce.  Space industrialization could become
economical **if** there was a large colony on Mars.  Arguments against
the Martian colony based on economics are inoperative.  This is not the
reason why we should go there.  We should go there for the largely
ideological and rather impractical (silly) reason that it would provide
the human race with a second independent permanent presence in the solar
system.
                      Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 87 14:11:01 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: L5 Farewell
	
	I received my last copy of the L5 News last night and as a
member for the last 10 years ( has it really been 10 years???) I will
miss the organization. Even with the incredibly late and sometimes
ludicrous ravings of their magazine, it was a vibrant active
organization that had a positive impact on mankind's journey to the
stars.

	I was and am proud of belonging to the L5 Society and I only
hope that 10 years from now I will feel the same about the National
Space Society.

					Fred Mendenhall

P.S. We've got to do something about that name, the dream is too grand
to be identified with any one "Nation".

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Apr 87 11:25:43 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel
Newsgroups: sci.space

Paul Dietz writes:
>I get the feeling that the collective memory of the list . . . is
>rather short.

This is a problem on several news groups.  Let's change it.
Let's start to build a "collective" memory.  I know Ted is swamped, so
am I and I assume many others.  We should try to form something like the
book people of Bradbury's F 451 story.  Each piece should be small.
If a piece decides to leave the group, he or she could pass the
information.  Paul could, for instance, collect discussions on tethers.
Some one else could act an an L5 interface, and so forth.  If a new
person comes on, everyone could fire a "Talk to so and so note."

Sound interesting?

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 87 19:24:24 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!thumper!mike@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"

What's the big deal about Mir, anyway?  The diagram I saw in a recent
AW&ST shows it to be quite a bit smaller than Skylab was, even with
the addition of the "astronomy module" (shades of the ATM, eh?)

With the exception of extremely long duration missions, we already did
everything Mir can do more than 10 years ago.

I realize there's a symbolic issue here, but it doesn't look to me like
the Russians are "way out in front" now any more than they were in 1960.

	Mike Caplinger
	mike@bellcore.com
	{decvax,ihnp4}!thumper!mike

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 87 04:31:01 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"

In article <668@thumper.UUCP> mike@thumper.UUCP writes:
>What's the big deal about Mir, anyway?  The diagram I saw in a recent
>AW&ST shows it to be quite a bit smaller than Skylab was, even with
>the addition of the "astronomy module" (shades of the ATM, eh?)
>
>With the exception of extremely long duration missions, we already did
>everything Mir can do more than 10 years ago.

	The big deal is that we let Skylab fall into the ocean; the
Soviets plan to keep adding to Mir. It's not a one-shot (``hey! What
can we do with a leftover Saturn V?''). The USSR is applying proven
technologies (remember all those earlier Salyuts?) rather than spending
15 years building a gold-plated space station whose habitable volume will
be far LESS than that of the Mir complex by 1995, or 1997, or whenever NASA
finally gets their new toy up - and perhaps less than Skylab!

	To hell with NASA. They've shown they can't run a space program
without truly extensive changes in management and a level of commitment 
that will not be forthcoming from our budget-conscious government. Get 
them out of the way and let private industry do it. Or start learning 
Russian, Japanese, or French (in that probable order of usefulness).
NASA's joke of a shuttle recovery plan (2.5 year standdown) adequately
demonstrates their incompetence. How the mighty have fallen in the
2 decades since Apollo.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 87 13:26:17 GMT
From: stuart@cs.rochester.edu  (Stuart Friedberg)
Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"

In article <668@thumper.UUCP>, mike@thumper.UUCP writes:
> With the exception of extremely long duration missions, we already did
> everything Mir can do more than 10 years ago.

The point is, that the Soviets have an active, continuing space program.
We *no longer* have the capability to do what Mir does, and don't expect
to have it back.  Realistically, we can't display the kind of support
structure and impressive launch schedule that the Soviets have been
displaying for years until at least the middle of the 1990's, and that
assumes that the American public makes it a political issue.

So what good is "we did it before"?  That doesn't count for anything.
You wanna be an astronaut?  Go to the USSR.  You wanna be a space
biologist?  Go to the USSR.  You wanna get your spysat up before its
power supply dies of old age?  Go to the USSR.  ((That's only half a
smiley face, folks))

I find the US space program extremely disappointing, but I can't blame
anybody but the public (ie, me) for letting things develop this way.
While I would be proud to have an outstanding national space program,
through NASA or private enterprise or both, I will continue to applaud
every nation that has one that works.  I can't get into a "space station
gap," that's just too ludicrous, especially when "mir" means "peace".
So: More power to Mir!  I hope they continue successfully.

Stu Friedberg  {seismo, allegra}!rochester!stuart  stuart@cs.rochester.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 87 09:10 EDT
From: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com
Subject: What is Meissner effect ?

        For the less informed, like me, in the audience, please define
Meissner effect as it was used in"Paul F. Dietz",High Tc Superconductor
News segment of Volume 7 : Issue 210.

Thanx,
keith.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 87 00:23:41 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!douglas@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (P Douglas Reeder)
Subject: Meteors & a space elevator

Can you wiggle the rotating skyhook to avoid objects?
How do you meteor shield the rotating skyhook? 

-- 
                 -Doug Reeder,  Reed College

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 27 Apr 87 18:39 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel

Now that orbital elevators have returned once again to Space digest (I get
the feeling that the collective memory of the list on this subject is
rather short), I'm going to pipe up with a modest proposal for a concept
that seems more feasible.

Hypothesis: building a tower from the ground up to about 100 km requires
much weaker materials than dropping a line from GSO.

First question: can we build compression supported structures 100 km high?
I'm not sure, but it seems less challenging than a tensile geosynchronous
elevator: (1) no space infrastructure is required; parts are lifted from
earth up the partially completed tower, (2) the tower is physically 400
times shorter than the GSO elevator, and is effectively over 40 times
shorter when variable accelerations with altitude are taken into account,
(3) the tower is located mostly (or totally) below altitudes at which
orbits are stable, so there is much less danger from collision with space
debris.

How strong do materials have to be? A tower 100 km tall made of material
with a density of 2 gr/cc will exert a pressure of 20 kilobars at the base
(actually, less, since the tower would be tapered). That's not impossible;
carefully shaped diamonds can withstand pressures > 1 megabar. I wonder how
tall a tower can be if it is made of, say, graphite composite trusses?

Would a tower be stable? Buckling, swaying and toppling are obvious
concerns. Guy ropes made from kevlar or graphite might help. Failing that,
active stabilization could perhaps be used.  Cost is unknown, but it must
be cheaper than a GSO elevator.

Assuming for the moment these "spacescrapers" are possible, what good are
they? Unlike a space elevator, the top is not moving at orbital velocity.
But that's ok; there are still applications...

   (1) Place antenna farms at the top of towers. At 100 km, the horizon
   is over 1000 km away. Speed of light delay is much smaller than for
   satellites in GSO, and equipment on a tower could be maintained and
   upgraded more easily.
   
   Possible applications of antennas on towers include: broadcasting,
   radar, microwave relays, laser relays (between two towers, where the
   beam is always in vacuum), radio position determination.
   
   (2) Base space weapons on a tower. Unlike in low orbit, weapons on a
   tower do not move relative to the earth. Other high power
   applications might include beams for laser rockets (avoid atmospheric
   effects), beam powered aircraft, laser spotlights for outdoor
   illumination or small-scale weather modification.
   
   (3) Place telescopes on a tower. They are easier to power, maintain
   and upgrade than in orbit, yet are still above the atmosphere.
   
   (4) Place electromagnetic launchers on a tower. On the ground,
   launchers must point near the zenith to reduce heating by the
   atmosphere. On a tall tower, high acceleration mass drivers or
   coilguns could shoot payloads horizontally, giving orbits with
   perigees above the atmosphere.  Advantages over ET sources of
   material: cheap terrestrial electricity is available;
   earth-manufactured materials make high-value payloads; payloads
   containing volatile elements unavailable on the moon can be launched.
   
   (5) Use the towers to suspend evacuated tubes up which vehicles may
   travel from ground based linear accelerators. Build a low
   acceleration (3 gee? 5 gee?) mass driver ~1000 km long. Slant the end
   upwards, supported by towers suspension-bridge fasion, the terminus
   above the atmosphere. Launch payload and passenger carriers on
   trajectories into elliptical orbits and raise their perigees with
   small rockets. If that's too radical, we can eject vehicles at (say)
   5000 m/sec and 50 km altitude, climbing the rest of the way to orbit
   on rockets with quite modest mass ratios.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 87 23:06:36 GMT
From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@AMES.ARPA  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ELV companies

> 1.  The rockets they're using are hybrid: solid reactant (in this
> case, some sort of rubber) and liquid oxidant (LOX).  The main reason
> is safety...  Of course novelty doesn't hurt in launching a new
> venture, either...

I think Amroc's hybrid rockets are mostly justified by either novelty
value or somebody in the outfit having a fetish for them.  If it's
safety you're after, just go liquid.  Kerosene is not a big safety
hazard.  Nor is liquid hydrogen, actually -- you can treat it like
unusually-volatile gasoline, according to NASA.  Amroc is already using
the really dangerous half of the standard liquid-fuel combinations: LOX.

There seems to be a prevailing assumption that if you don't use liquid
hydrogen, you need to stack up three or four stages to get into orbit.
The Atlas burns LOX and kerosene, and can lift several thousand pounds
into low orbit with *one* stage (well, one and a half -- it jettisons
two of its three engines halfway up).  Furthermore, it dates back a
quarter of a century.  The approach clearly works -- the Atlas is still
being used.  I continue to be amazed, literally, that nobody has tried
to build a cheap space launcher on the same lines.  (Don't tell me
"General Dynamics will sell you an Atlas", their prices aren't what I
call "cheap"!)

Henry Spencer

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #219
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02813; Sun, 10 May 87 03:03:50 PDT
	id AA02813; Sun, 10 May 87 03:03:50 PDT
Date: Sun, 10 May 87 03:03:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705101003.AA02813@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #220

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 220

Today's Topics:
		 Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible
       Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible (debate really)
			Clarke's Quantum drive
			 SPACE Digest V7 #207
	  Prospecting asteroids with a nuclear pumped laser
			Re: oort-cloud mining?
			 SPACE Digest V7 #207
			      Re: Adsats
			      Supernova
	   Re: Relativity and TIME TRAVEL and Fermi paradox
		      Fiber optic plate needed.
 The 500 Man Mars Colony should be America's next major space project
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 87 11:02:10 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible

Keith Lofstrom in Vol. 7, No. 200 of Space Digest provided an improved
derivation on my earlier demonstration on the impossibility of sky
hooks.  However Keith came to the opposite conclusion that Sky Hooks are
possible rather than impossible.  However I believe that Keith may have
made an algebra error in his derivation.  In my earlier derivation I
assumned an r**2 area function based on the false belief that a more
complicated function could not be analyticly integrated.  Keith very
cleverly demonstrated that the optimal area function is based on the
local force.  The local cross sectional area is always set (by design)
to the maximum allowable force limited by the material's tensile
strength.  Under this assumption the sky hook can not fail (within the
approximations of the assumption).  However as we shall soon see this
assumption leads to an absurdity.  I rederived Keith's ODE which is:

  df/dy = (f*rho/T)*((mu/((R+y)**2))-((omg**2)*(R+y)))     equ (1)

Equ (1) is equivalent to Keith's and I'm confident that it is correct.
f=local force, y=altitude above the earth's surface, rho=material
density, T=maximum allowable stress, R=earth's radius, mu=earth's
gravitational constant, omg=earth's spin rate in radians per second.

By definition the gravitational force is equal to the centripital force
at geosychronous altitude.  Therefore:

  omg**2 = mu/(R+Ys)**3        equ (2)

where Ys=geosychronous altitude above the earth's surface.  We now
integrate equation (1) from zero altitude to geosynchronous altitude
and then insert equation (2) to eliminate omg**2.  The result is

  Fs = Fo exp((((x-1)/x)**3)*((2*x)+1)/(2*k))  equ (3)

The parameters used are the same that I used in my earlier derivation:

  k = Ys*T/(rho*mu)      equ (4)   -- skyhook number --

  x = (Ys+R)/R           equ (5)

Fs=the force on the skyhook at geosynchronous altitude, and Fo=the force
hung on the skyhook at the earth's surface.  My equation (3) is
different from Keith's.  I double checked my integration.  Keith might
give his result another look (it is quite possible that I'm wrong).  The
parameter x is based on the earth.  The parameter K or skyhook number is
something you want to maximize but is determined by the material of the
skyhook.  Values calculated below are:

   Steel:  k = 7.98E-4
   Kevlar: k = 8.66E-3

Sky hook numbers for whiskers are not significantly different from
Kevlar.  We would be optimistic in assumning that a material with
k=1.0E-2 was physically obtainable.  If we plug in numbers for Kevlar we
find that Ys = Yo exp(500.81).  Since the cross sectional area is
assumned to be directly proportional to the local force, we may
immediately write As = Ao exp(500.81) where As is the geosynchronous
cross sectional area and Ao is the cross sectional area on the surface.
If we assume the Ao has the cross sectional area of a hydrogen atom we
will find that the cross sectional area measured at geosynchronous
altitude will have a radius on the order of light years.  The sky hook
fails catastrophicly.  I vaguely remember a structures teacher once
telling me this, so I think my result is correct, (again Keith you are
strongly encouraged to check).  I believe that I've effectively driven a
stake through the heart of this stupid idea.  Perhaps we could move the
sky hook debate over to SF-Lovers and discuss something else.
                                    Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Apr 87 08:55:42 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible (debate really)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <8704290908.AA01201@angband.s1.gov> Gary Allen writes:
>Keith Lofstrom in Vol. 7, No. 200 of Space Digest provided an improved
>derivation on my earlier demonstration on the impossibility of sky
>hooks.  However Keith came to the opposite conclusion that Sky Hooks are
>possible rather than impossible.
 . . . <verification exercise offered to read>
>I believe that I've effectively driven
>a stake through the heart of this stupid idea.  Perhaps we could move
>the sky hook debate over to SF-Lovers and discuss something else.
>                                    Gary Allen

I hope people see that this is basically what goes on in aerospace
companies.  The easiest thing to say is: try and build one.  But that
first might costs lots (lives as well as $$s, maybe).  Equations might
be fine, simulations, too, for "disproving" things.  The bottom line is
that some one has to risk something.  While earth-space sky hooks are
one thing, I'm glad we will try to build a Tethered Satellite.  While not
reaching the ground, it offers interesting possibilities.

--eugene miya

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 87 14:41:56 GMT
From: rlgvax!cliff@seismo.css.gov  (Cliff Joslyn)
Subject: Clarke's Quantum drive

I just finished reading _Songs_of_Distant_Earth_ by A.  Clarke.  He
proposes that saying "unlocking the energy of the vaccum" today is like
saying "unlocking the energy of the atom" at the turn of this century. 
In his book the starship is powered by a drive which is able to tap the
quatum fluctuations of the vaccum.  

Any comments?

Cliff Joslyn

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1987  22:39 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #207

"Trillion dollar" projects will often become trivial when self-reproducing
machines become available.  It would be rash to assume that this stage
requires more than 1000 post-industrial years.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 87 12:02:59 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Prospecting asteroids with a nuclear pumped laser

In Vol. 7 No. 199 of Space Digest, Paul Dietz came up with a clever
idea for an IFR rocket:

======================================================================
Here's a nifty spinoff mission: run the engine at low thrust while in
lunar orbit or while near an asteroid. A very intense, energetic neutron
flux will hit the asteroid or moon, producing gamma rays by a variety of
nuclear reactions. Detect the gamma rays in a set of directional gamma
ray spectrometers to get high resolution maps of elemental abundances.
This scheme should have far better statistics than the Lunar Prospector,
which depends on neutrons from cosmic rays.
======================================================================

A friend of mine (Larry Lemke) came up with an even clever idea.  One of
the few weapons being contemplated in the SDI insanity which has a
prayer of actually working is the Excalibur X-ray laser.  This weapon is
composed of an enhanced radiation nuclear explosive surrounded by rods
made up of thin copper wires.  The nuclear explosive is first detonated.
The radiation from this nuclear device pumps the copper wires in the
laser rods into lasing X-rays with power on the order of a terrawatt.
This happens only for a period of about 1 nanosecond before the rods
vaporize.  This device has been tested several times with varying
success at the nuclear weapons testing area in Nevada.  I might add in
passing that one of the reasons Gorbachov was so keen on a nuclear test
ban was to prohibit developement of this weapon.  Larry's idea was to
use the Excalibur to prospect for metals on asteroids.  The idea is
straight forward.  One sends an Excalibur X-ray laser into a
heliocentric orbit that doesn't intersect with the Earth's orbit.  Once
it is far enough away that its EMP isn't a problem, one directs each of
the laser rods towards an interesting asteroid.  The device is detonated
and the asteroids are illuminated with high intensity monochromatic
x-rays.  This would cause the surface material of the asteroid to
floresce light characteristic to the asteroid's chemistry.  This
floresced light could be detected by spectrometers in satellites
orbiting the Earth.  One Excalibur could carry many rods (hundreds??).
With one shot, virtually all of the interesting asteroids in the solar
system could be studied.  This is a very cost effect way to prospect for
materials from asteroids.

                         Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 87 17:30:10 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Don McGlauflin)
Subject: Re: oort-cloud mining?

In article <8704231021.AA13527@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>
>whether we could mine the Oort cloud effectively. I don't think the
>beaming that distance is much of a technological problem given that we
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Hmm. I seem to remember reading somewhere that when they started
bouncing laser beams off the Apollo retro-reflectors on the Moon, that
the beam diverged from a .25" diameter to about 3 feet at the other end.
A quick calculation indicates that the same divergence at a distance of
100 A.U.  would require an energy collector about 21 MILES in diameter.
Whew!

Does anybody KNOW what a real number for laser beam divergence would be?


    Don McGlauflin

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1987  22:50 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #207

When SDI's attempts to make hostile-missile detectors fail, perhaps
the AI people will be able to turn defeat into victory by writing
programs to detect and automatically destroy alleged artistic
advertisements is space.  Indeed, the AdSats themselves might be
endowed with various flavors of automatic criticism, so that the now
barren heavens could support an evolutionary aesthetic ecology.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Apr 1987 15:56-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Adsats

Actually I think it's not a bad idea at all. Think of the size of the
advertising budgets of the Fortune 500's and compare it with what some
of the entrepreurial launch companies need to get off the ground. It
sort of makes your mouth start to water. It would bring tears to my eyes
watching a coke logo go by in the sky if I knew they were footing the
bill to open the heavens to people like myself.

It's become crystal clear that the US government is a has-been in space.
It's about time we got some creative ways to market space that will
bring in big bucks from private sources.

Keep in mind that viewing times are quite limited for satellites
depending on reflected light. Putting lights on the satellite would
solve the problem from the advertisers viewpoint but would require a
massive power supply. Remember that typical high power floods are KW's
EACH. Thus we'd see a decline in the cost of large orbital power systems
because they'd have a wide market.

Hmmm. The more I think about this, the more I like it. D.D. Harriman
would love the idea...

Incidentally, my understanding is that the mortuary satellites will not
be visible because Space Services and the Celestis Group do not wish to
stir up a hornets nest. They're too small to deal with issues of this
nature.

The idea of grandpa shining in the sky may appeal to the survivors, but
the person who put it in their will and is actually footing the bill
could care less.  I believe there are many space activists who have
signed on for this 'last ride'. If NASA won't try to take you up live,
Celestis will at least take you up dead.

The first of the Celestis Group sats is scheduled to go up next spring.
To the best of my knowledge it is fully subscribed already.

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 28 Apr 87 15:39 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Supernova

According to Nature, about .1% of the people on earth had a neutrino from
SN 1987A interact with them.  Assuming each neutrino deposits 5 MeV in
the body, you can compute that a person 10 AU or so from the star at the
time of core collapse would have received a lethal dose of neutrinos.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 87 16:49:46 GMT
From: ray@cs.rochester.edu  (Ray Frank)
Subject: Re: Relativity and TIME TRAVEL and Fermi paradox

>In article <9401@decwrl.DEC.COM> earle@oblio.dec.com (GEORGE EARLE) writes:
>
>>IF time travel is possible, and ignoring for the fact that WE can't do
>>it yet, how come nobody from the future hasn't done it yet, or to put
>>it another way, how come no one has visited us?  Anyone got any
>>thoughts on this?

Did you ever stop to think that the future may not last long enough for
mankind to develop the technology for time travel?  Perhaps a global war
will set mankind back hundreds or thousands of years.  Lots of
occurances could take place to slow mankind's intellectual development.
Given the proper circumstances, the people alive a thousand years from
now might be living a bronze age existence.  This 'advance one step,
retreat two,' might go on indefinitely or until the solar system is no
more.  Boy, this sounds depressing.  I hope we get a visitor from the
future soon.  Perhaps that time traveler will get here last week or
maybe we'll have to wait until last year, who knows? 8-)

ray

------------------------------

Date: 27 Apr 87 21:05:04 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpf!straka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Straka)
Subject: Fiber optic plate needed.


I need a lead on a ~3/4" x ~2" x ~1/2" thick fiber optic plate (surplus
type stuff).  Used to be in Edmund-type catalogs years back.  This type
of material used to be very common (from military applications, I guess)
but is now a bit hard to find.

Any help on locating something of this sort would be greatly appreciated!

Rich Straka     ihnp4!ihlpf!straka

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Apr 87 10:10:29 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The 500 Man Mars Colony should be America's next major space project

    There was a good response to the 500-Man Mars colonization idea in
Vol. 7, Issue 209 of Space Digest.  I'll first reply to  Bob Alexander's
posting:

>>                        This Martian colony should be built by first
>>constructing a space transportation system that can transport material
>>into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>I think you're jumping to conclusions about the NASP.  All the claims
>they're making for it (low cost, regular and routine operation) I've
>heard before for the shuttle.  Considering their lousy record of living
>up to claims for the shuttle (so lousy, in fact, that heads should roll
>starting with James Fletcher's), plus the soaring cost estimates for th
>space station, I expect the National Aerospace Plane to be another
>expensive boondoggle.

  Bob's observations about the shuttle are basicly correct.  However the
original shuttle design (fully reusable orbit vehicle with a robust TPS
and a fully reusable winged booster) was an extremely good one and cost
effective.  However the politicians weren't willing to pay the
developement costs and bastardized the design through micro-budgeting.
When our current shuttle included the external tank and the Lockheed
silica tile TPS then all robustness and cost effectiveness was thrown
away.  The NASP was not yet gone down that dreary road.  As it
currently stands, the design is **very** exciting.  However some
people have this utterly idiotic idea it can be entirely designed
and tested through computer simulation.  There will be some very red
faces after this myth has been exposed.

>I believe the private sector is the way to go.  When something is
>profitable, it will get done.  Satellites are profitable and as a
>result, they are now plentiful.

    I totally agree with Bob in principle.  However it will be decades
if not centuries before space colonies will yield a profit.  I once
talked to Robert Fuhrman (sp?), President of Lockheed Missles and
Space, and asked him why Lockheed (which makes billions of dollars on
aerospace hardware) doesn't actively push space industrialization.  His
answer was quite simple:  "NO PROFIT".  Lockheed's attitude is typical
of the business community.  If they can't make a profit within a couple
of years, they aren't interested.
   Henry Spencer then provided some comments on Mars colonization:

>> ... This Martian colony should be built by first
>> constructing a space transportation system that can transport materia
>> into LEO at a reasonable price, i.e. the National Aerospace Plane...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Ho ho.  To approximately quote Gary Hudson: "The Aerospace Plane is
>going to be a combination of the Concorde and the Space Shuttle.  This
>does not sound cheap to me."  Agreed that cheap LEO transport is
>important to Mars colonization, and to a lot of other things, but the
>NASP is most unlikely to provide it.

I'm surprized that Henry would quote anything from Gary Hudson.  There
are alot of angry people in the San Francisco Bay Area who made the
mistake of getting involved with Hudson's "space developement" schemes.
I can't openly say what I think about Hudson since I'd be open to libel
prosecution.  However there are some people who think they can launch a
hundred million dollar satellite into geosychronous orbit with a booster
that is little more than a bunch Estes rocket motors held together with
a rubber band.  Also there are people who are so gullible that they will
**invest** hard earned cash into such a project.  Oddly, these same
people are a bit angry when they realize they had been conned and made
into fools.

>> At LEO and geosynchronous orbit the United States should construct
>> large space stations for supporting the Martian objective...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>You don't want to put a space station in geostationary orbit; it is in
>the fringes of the outer Van Allen belt.  Besides, why bother?  That
>orbit's only real uses are for Earth-oriented work; it has no advantage
>for Mars projects.

   Henry is right about the radiation problem. However the geostationary
orbit station is certain to be constructed because it will serve as an
antenna farm and platform for weather satellites.  It would be a
preferred base for interplanetary missions because it requires less
delta-V to get from Geo into an interplanetary trajectory than from LEO.
   Russ Cage pushed the old, tired concept of building free floater
colonies (O'Neal/L-5 Style):

>>This is where O'Neal's L-5 colony idea fell flat.  You can't justify
>>these space colonies on economic grounds.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>This is where you're wrong.  The colony's purpose was to build solar
>power satellites from lunar or asteriodal materials.  When the concept
>of solar power satellites was considered and then dismissed, the idea o
>using non-terrestrial resources was not even given a hearing.  *This* i
>why the idea fell flat, not on economic grounds.  The idea is just as
>sound today as it was in the mid-70's.

As far as I'm concerned the whole free floater colony / SPS idea is a
NOP.  A couple of months ago we had a long debate on the numerous
technical problems associated with this concept, i.e. megatons of
material for radiation shielding, Coriolis problems, etc.  It is boring
to repeat these arguments, particularly when your audience's attitude
is: "I already have my conclusions, so don't bother me with the facts".
The fatal problem with this whole idea is it's based on economic
viability.  No one is going to buy electricity from an SPS (there is
already a surplus of electrical power).  The electricity from an SPS
will never be cheaper than electricity from earth based solar or from
mundane energy sources like coal.  The whole concept is both economicly
and technically unsound.   People have been saying this over-and-over
again for more than ten years, (from many sources and not just that
stupid DOE report).  If you're pushing for O'Neal colonies then all you
are really doing is distracting people from viable space colonization
concepts.  This is the reason why free floater colonies make me angry.
A significant fraction of the Space Movement's energy and political
clout is being wasted on something that'll never fly.  The Mars colony
can (and will) work because it can be setup as a single one-shot
project.  It is not based on economics but simple idealism.  The first
man on the moon thing worked because of the simple propaganda that
we needed to "beat the Russians".  The Mars colony idea will work
because we will be opening a new frontier and permanently placing
Americans on Mars (establishing defacto control over an entire planet).
In the hands of a skillfull demagogue this is more than adequate basis
for securing the enormous funding required for this project.  The Mars
project will work, and the Space Movement needs to pull its head out
of the sand and start backing it.
                                       Gary Allen

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #220
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04102; Mon, 11 May 87 03:04:14 PDT
	id AA04102; Mon, 11 May 87 03:04:14 PDT
Date: Mon, 11 May 87 03:04:14 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705111004.AA04102@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #221

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 11 May 87 03:04:14 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #221

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 221

Today's Topics:
			      Re: escape
			     NSS/L5 Name
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #210
		    Re: What is Meissner effect ?
	       Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible
		 Re: SDI Infeasable? -- NOT IN SCI.S
	      Re: The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Apr 87 23:57:54 GMT
From: ptsfa!well!msudoc!umich!itivax!m-net!russ@ames.arpa  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: escape

In article <3468ce61.44e6@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.UUCP writes:
>I have nothing against 'high technology' ;  hi-tech supplies my
>income and several of my hobbies.  I just disagree with the notion
>that the solution to our problems lies purely in ever-higher technology.

If you don't improve technology, you inevitably turn life into a
zero-sum game with limits to growth.  This is not a hopeful future.

>I believe that it will be very helpful to also change our attitudes 
>about certain things.  I believe that if we are going to survive we must
>learn to use resources and generate waste at sustainable rates.  At
>the moment we are not doing that and it is starting to be a problem,
>especially in the area of waste generation.

Space technology can put that waste generation out where energy is
cheap and mass is expensive, which is the opposite of what prevails
on earth.  This is very conducive to recycling of waste.  Solving
the energy problems would make waste recovery on earth much cheaper
as well, and reducing the cost is essential to getting it done.

>we've left them.  The original poster seemed to express an attitude
>of 'the Earth is going to hell, a few of us should escape while we can'.

That's not what I got at all.  I read "if Earth goes to hell, it is
better to be left with something than nothing."  With something, you
have a chance at starting over.

>The real irony is that the Earth's environment is much more robust 
>and forgiving of excess waste and other insults than the fragile
>artificial ecosystem of a Mars or asteroid colony is likely to be.
>If we can't find a way of 'getting it right' here on Earth then
>how long will our extra-terrestrial colonies last?

That's exactly the reason to go build artificial ecosystems, Peter!
If they are more fragile and less complex, and will break sooner
under pressure, it gives us laboratories that we can use to find out
if we're pushing *earth* too far for its long-term viability.  If
we don't know this, and have nowhere to go, we might be digging
the grave for everything that lives on this planet without having
hedged our bets in any way, or leaving anything to start from again
if we *do* screw up here.  Even if earth is sterilized, would it
matter if we had the expertise and species banks to rebuild its
ecosystems?  With enough practice, we might even be able to recreate
some that have disappeared already.  Isn't that worth doing?  But
we need those laboratories if we're going to learn.
>                                                  
>                                                   --Peter

-- 
My employer gets all its opinions from me.  (My employer *is* me.)
                                    	|  Russ Cage, Robust Software Inc.
     Practice makes perverts.        	|      ihnp4!itivax!m-net!russ
NSA food> CIA DIA KGB rocket ammunition AK-47 dynamite atomic TEMPEST Hail Eris!

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 87 05:18:13 GMT
From: mtune!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@rutgers.edu
Subject: NSS/L5 Name


It is expected that within six months a vote of all NSS/L5
members will be taken on the name. The vote will almost certainly
be between Space Frontier Society and National Space Society.

Who'll win is unclear, but many former L5 Members, while agreeing
that L5 may not be the best name, also disliked what they called
the "National SS" as a name.

Dale Skran

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 1987 16:22-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #210

Gary Allen:
	Your point about the difficulty of convincing John Q Public to
go to Mars (or anywhere else in space) when s/he doesn't even know what
a planet is, is well taken.

	It is also why many of us in the space movement have been
becoming more and more involved in the issue of science education. We
have been working more and more with organizations that have been
helping science teachers for years, and have been finding them to
be natural allies. They are as underfunded and understaffed as we are
and have been there for many years.

	There is a great deal of synergy between a strong space program
and science education. If kids are motivated, they will learn, and it
doesn't require a multi-million dollar mega-school with a giant science
department to make them do it.

	With motivation, a supportive, loving teacher in a one room
school house can turn out more self assured and successful students
than the best of these massive over-administrated schools.

	If anything, the giant schools make most students feel
insignificant. Fewer schools mean fewer spaces for student leaders, so
we educate fewer leaders and generate ever more massive numbers of
sheep. And ignorant sheep at that. Sheep is what they WANT in these
schools. Leaders are trouble makers, particularly if there aren't
enough leadership slots to go around, so potential leaders must be
"socialized" and ground down until they are "well-behaved". (Read:
sheep)

	I feel very sure that the structure of the educational system
tells a lot about a society. A land of small neighborhood schools
educates for self-sufficient neighborhood leadership and local
democracy. This was the America of the 19th century, a land of freedom
and local autonomy. A land of giant conglomerate schools educates for a
small leadership cadre at a city or county level. This is the America
of the late 20th century. A land of massive beauracracies, low voter
interest, disenchantment and detachment from society and family.

	Leadership is learned very early by doing it among your peers.
It is not learned in the class room and it is not taught.

	To overcome the system, kids need a dream that they can latch
on to, a feeling that their own actions can make a difference. The
dream of space settlement is one of hope, and it makes kids come alive.
You have to see it to believe it. I had close to 400 kids at my
conference here in Pgh. And they were glowing with excitement. If
making that session available turned on some of those kids, I will feel
I have done something very worthwhile in my life.

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 87 00:51:41 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Re: What is Meissner effect ?

in article <870430-061208-3585@Xerox>, Emanuel.henr@XEROX.COM says:
%         For the less informed, like me,  in the audience, please define
% Meissner effect as it was used in"Paul F. Dietz",High Tc Superconductor
% News segment of Volume 7 : Issue 210.

The Meissner effect is another aspect of the fact that superconductors
exclude magnetic fields from their interiors.  They do this by
developing an internal current which creates a field in the opposite
direction of sufficient strength to exactly balance the applied field.

The effect of this is that a superconductor, when placed close to a
magnet, looks like a magnetic "mirror" and repels the magnet.  You can
actually balance a piece of superconductor in midair over a magnet.
When it heats up past Tc, it drops -- spooky to watch.  The effect is
limited only by the current density needed to maintain the
necessary field strength.

-- 
Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp    (408)252-8713
American Information Technology; Cupertino, CA 95014

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 87 09:02:09 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible

In article <8704290908.AA01201@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:

... valid derivation so far ...

>                              However I believe that Keith may have
> made an algebra error in his derivation.

quite possible!  

...
>  rho=material
>  density, T=maximum allowable stress, R=earth's radius, mu=earth's
>  gravitational constant
...
> where Ys=geosychronous altitude above the earth's surface.  We now
> integrate equation (1) from zero altitude to geosynchronous altitude
> and then insert equation (2) to eliminate omg**2.  The result is

>   Fs = Fo exp((((x-1)/x)**3)*((2*x)+1)/(2*k))  equ (3)

I think I gave something different before, but the above is correct.
...
>   k = Ys*T/(rho*mu)      equ (4)   -- skyhook number --
> 
>   x = (Ys+R)/R           equ (5)
...
>  Values calculated below are:
> 
>    Steel:  k = 7.98E-4
>    Kevlar: k = 8.66E-3

Check some materials references.  I quote from "DuPont Technical Information,
Kevlar Aramid Bulletin K-2, February 1978, Characteristics and Uses of
Kevlar 49 Aramid High Modulus Organic Fiber", Page 3, Table 1:

                    Kevlar 49    Stainless Steel
Tensile Strength    2758 MPa     1724 MPa
Density             1.44 g/cm3   7.86 g/cm3

                   (1440 kg/m3) (7860 kg/m3)

From the CRC handbook, 59th edition:
page F177  Geosyncronous Altitude  Ys: 35767 km                (3.5767e7 meters)
page F175  Earth Radius             R:  6378 km (equatorial)   (6.378e6 meters)
page F182  Gravitational Constant  mu:  3.98e5 km3/sec2        (3.98e14 m3/sec2)

Using these, I compute k values of 1.97e-2 for stainless steel and 0.172 for
Kevlar-49, unless I'm missing something.  Note that this does not include an
epoxy fill, which most fiber composite materials use.  The very small k numbers
correspond to support lengths of 0.9km and 9.8km respectively, which is why I
prefer to scale things with support length.  It makes it easier to spot goofs.

I will plug in x=6.608 into equation (3) to get equation (3a):
    Fs = Fo exp (4.345/k)    equ(3a)

> Sky hook numbers for whiskers are not significantly different from
> Kevlar.  We would be optimistic in assumning that a material with
> k=1.0E-2 was physically obtainable.

Lab values for whiskers are 5x better than Kevlar-49 if memory serves, so 0.9
is a better "optimistic" number.

>                                    If we plug in numbers for Kevlar
> we find that Ys = Yo exp(500.81).

Well, I find Ys = Yo exp(25.25).  Still impractical, but at least 
hydrogen atoms and light years can be excluded from this discussion...

With k=0.9 the exponent is 5, for a scaling parameter of 150 or so.
A practical sized number.


> fails catastrophicly.  I vaguely remember a structures teacher once
> telling me this, so I think my result is correct,
...

I may have had the same structures teacher.  That's why I went into EE
instead... :-)

>                               I believe that I've effectively driven
> a stake through the heart of this stupid idea.  Perhaps we could move
> the sky hook debate over to SF-Lovers and discuss something else.
>                                     Gary Allen

The idea IS stupid, but hard to kill with numbers.  I prefer
killing it with better alternatives.

----
A possibly irrelevant note on materials science.  Today I watched
a little bit of magnet material floating in mid air over a chunk of
Perskovite lattice superconductor the size of a silver dollar.
(The magnet was being levitated by something called Meissner effect.
Only superconductors show this effect).  The superconductor chunk
was sitting on top of a piece of styrofoam, and being cooled by a
fellow occasionally pouring liquid nitrogen on it from a styrofoam 
coffee cup.  He would wipe the frost off with his fingers. 

I built superconducting circuits in school, tiny things we put in sample
sticks and shoved down into dewars of very expensive liquid helium.  We
measured them with test equipment, but I never actually got to visually
observe a sample while it was superconducting.  Today was one of the most
amazing experiences of my life.  I saw something miraculous.  In spite of
the current state of the world, I've seen something that makes me quite
optimistic about the future.  WOW!!!!

There are two morals to this story:  

 1)  The materials folk are doing some profoundly startling things.  
 This will have a great impact on the "how" of space travel.

 2)  Some of the damndest things come from small science.  We may not
 need monster organizations and expenditures to get into space some
 day soon.  It may only require another miracle or two.


-- 
Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 30 Apr 87 19:25:00 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!silver!seiffert@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: SDI Infeasable? -- NOT IN SCI.S


I am open for suggestions of where such a discussion should go.
However, it seems to me that even substantial testing of the sort of
proposals I have heard for SDI would have far reaching effects on
future endeavors in space by all nations. Obviously any type of defensive
system could be pointed outward as well as in. SDI poses the threat of
space as a battle ground (area?). Question for thought is
	
	What effects on space exploration and development would a
	substantial space-based defensive system have?

I'm just wondering.

				-- Kurt A. Seiffert
					   seiffert@silver.bacs.indiana.edu

------------------------------

Date: 29 Apr 87 23:30:35 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: The Bottom-Up Approach to Space Travel

In article <8704280047.AA22888@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@slb-test.CSNET ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
> Hypothesis: building a tower from the ground up to about 100 km requires
> much weaker materials than dropping a line from GSO.
> 
> How strong do materials have to be? A tower 100 km tall made of material
> with a density of 2 gr/cc will exert a pressure of 20 kilobars at the base
> (actually, less, since the tower would be tapered). That's not impossible;
> carefully shaped diamonds can withstand pressures > 1 megabar. I wonder how
> tall a tower can be if it is made of, say, graphite composite trusses?
> 

The idea you are searching for is 'scale height'.  Imagine a constant
cross section column of a given material.  For some column height, the
weight of the column per unit area of its base will equal the compressive
strength of the material.  This height is called the scale height. Using
english units, for structural carbon steel, the strength is 36,000 pounds
per square inch, and the weight is 0.3 pounds per cubic inch.  Thus the
scale height is 36,000/0.3=120,000 inches, or 10,000 feet.  Thes best
graphite epoxies I know of (Amoco 'Thornel' type T40 carbon fiber + type
1962 epoxy) have a compressive strength of 250,000 psi and a density of
0.06 lb/cubic inch.  Thus their scale height is 4.16 million inches (106 km).

The minimum mass tower to support a 'payload' at a given height , in theory,
has an exponential taper in cross section by a factor of e per scale height.
Theory, however has little bearing on the design of a realistic tower. 
The two largest 'real world' considerations are (1) you must have a
design factor of safety >1.0, or in other words you must design for less
than ultimate strength, and (2) there are winds.

The factor of safety you use will depend on the use of the tower,
especially whether people will be on it.  Reasonable figures derived
from airplane design would be 2 for static loads and 4 for dynamic
loads.  This means you design as if your structure were 1/2 and 1/4
as strong as it really is, respectively.  An example of static loads
is the weight of the structure itself.  An example of dynamic loads
is winds.

Unfortunately for tower builders, winds generally get stronger with
altitude up to 10 km, where you encounter the 'jet stream'.  If you
want your tower to last in that environment, remember to account for
100 mph AVERAGE winds.

Very rough calculations of weight of guyed towers using graphite-epoxy
mast and fiberglass guy wires indicate the following ratios of tower weight
to 'payload at top' weight:
Height=2 km, 0.1lb/lb; 4 km, 0.43 lb/lb; 6 km 1.22 lb/lb; 8 km, 2.63
lb/lb; and 10 km; 5.13 lb/lb.  (Pardon my mixing of units, but the
source numbers are that way and I don't have time to convert everything to SI)

Above 10 km the winds become a smaller effect, since the atmosphere is
getting thinner. 

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder
(why, you ask, do I have information on wind loads for 10 km towers?
Its because I was looking into the idea of big towers in 1986, with most
of the same reasons Paul Dietz listed.  Maybe the time for big towers
has arrived, since multiple people are independantly thinking about
them)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #221
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06057; Tue, 12 May 87 03:06:12 PDT
	id AA06057; Tue, 12 May 87 03:06:12 PDT
Date: Tue, 12 May 87 03:06:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705121006.AA06057@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #222

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 12 May 87 03:06:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #222

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 222

Today's Topics:
	       Whom should I interview for an article?
		But who pays for insurance under CSIA?
	       Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible
		      Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle
			       Re: Gold
			      Re: Escape
Re: The 500 Man Mars Colony should be America's next major space project
		    Escapism, resources, pollution
		     HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels
		    Candidates Positions on Space?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 03 May 87 16:45:59 EDT
From: "Eric W. Tilenius" <EWTILENI%PUCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Whom should I interview for an article?

I am currently starting work on an article for BUSINESS TODAY magazine
(the nation's largest student-run publication) about Space, the
possibilities for Business in Space, the Space Station, why a space
program is important, etc.

I am looking for suggestions on whom to interview.  Names of top level
people (ie. program heads at NASA, Chairman/presidents of companies,
prominent people in their field) whom you think would be good resources
for an article such as this would be appreciated.

I hope to make a firm statement for the benefit of Space, so any help
you could give me on contact people would be greatly apprectiated.

Please reply to me at one of the following addresses...  Thanks!

ewtileni@pucc.BITNET                         ewtileni@pucc.Princeton.EDU
ewtileni%pucc.Princeton.Edu@RELAY.CS.NET
ewtileni%pucc.bitnet@wiscvm.Wisc.EDU
(UUCP)  (ihnp4,allegra,cmcl2)!psuvax1!pucc.bitnet!ewtileni

- ERIC -

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 03 00:55:35 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: But who pays for insurance under CSIA?

<HS> Date: 18 Apr 87 00:00:54 GMT
<HS> From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: Re: Private space again

<HS> The proposed Commercial Space Incentive Act [I think I've remembered
<HS> that name right] would be a simple, cheap, highly effective shot in the
<HS> arm for US (not necessarily US government!) space activity.  For those
<HS> who don't remember my original posting about it some months ago, this
<HS> proposed Act says that the US government will pay $500/lb for all
<HS> payloads placed into orbit by US private launchers, up to a maximum of a
<HS> million pounds a year, for ten years, subject to some restrictions and
<HS> complications.

It sounds good, until you ask the question "who will pay for the
insurance on the payload?" If we have a $10,000 payload (a really
cheap one by comsat standards), and the insurance company rates the
private company only a 50% chance of not destroying the payload
during attempted launch, then just to break even the insurance
company has to charge a premium of $5000 (the math is that they
charge $5000 every time, and pay back $10,000 half the time, which
exactly balances on the average if their estimate of chance of loss
was correct). If the government pays $500 for the launch but the
private company has to pay $5000 for insurance, the company loses
$4500 on the launch, hardly a way to achieve good cash flow. But if
the government pays the full $5000, then the private company is
encouraged to pretend to launch even if there is zero chance of
success because the make money even in failure. A compromise is for
the government to pay the insurance premium always, but pay for the
launch only if it succeeds. But even so this encourages the company
to launch prematurely because they accept only $500 of the risk, a
measly amount of the $10,000 payload. On more normal payloads which
are worth millions of dollars, my example is even more powerful at
refuting the proposed guaranteed-$500 idea.

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 87 09:34:33 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Once more, Sky Hooks are impossible

In article <8704290908.AA01201@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> f=local force, y=altitude above the earth's surface, rho=material
> density, T=maximum allowable stress, R=earth's radius, mu=earth's
> gravitational constant, omg=earth's spin rate in radians per second.
> where Ys=geosychronous altitude above the earth's surface.  We now
>   k = Ys*T/(rho*mu)      equ (4)   -- skyhook number --
>    Steel:  k = 7.98E-4
>    Kevlar: k = 8.66E-3
> Sky hook numbers for whiskers are not significantly different from
> Kevlar.  We would be optimistic in assumning that a material with
> k=1.0E-2 was physically obtainable.  If we plug in numbers for Kevlar

For available today carbon fiber (Amoco 'Thornel' T40):
rho=1800 kg/m^3
T=5.6x10^9 Pascals
(specified as 820,000 psi)
Ys=35.9x10^6 m
mu=3.986012x10^14 m^2/s^3
Which yields a skyhook number of about 0.3

>                                     Gary Allen
Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 87 10:02:36 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Heavy Lift Launch Vehicle

In the previous article Keith Loftstrom talked about some
superconductors he got to see live, and I had to talk about some
'feelies' I saw this week.

Some background: the Air Force has released a request to the aerospace
industry for phase I of what was called until last week the 'Heavy Lift
Launch Vehicle'.  [for reasons unknown to us at Boeing, they are now
calling it the 'Advanced Launch System'] This will be a new-technology
cargo rocket in the 100,000 to 150,000 pound payload class, to fly in
the mid- to late-1990s.  Phase I is mostly concept definition and
technology development.

As part of our efforts, our group was briefed on materials technology
last week.  The materials people brought in all kinds of graphite/
polyimide composite parts, which have high strength due to the graphite
[that's why I know about the 820ksi graphite], moderately high thermal
resistance due to the polyimide matrix.  The other thing they talked
about is aluminum-lithium alloys for cryogenic tanks.  Seems the stuff
is not only lighter than plain aluminum alloys, but it gets much
stronger at cryogenic temperatures.  These two would give you a 30%
reduction in structures weight on a new generation rocket.  It may not
be as 'gee whiz' as the superconductors , but it has very direct impact
on the next generation of rockets.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 1 May 87 04:47:29 GMT
From: ulysses!gamma!mb2c!edsdrd!edstb!msudoc!crlt!russ@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Gold

In article <1197@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP writes:
> Why bother recovering precious metals from asteroidal sources, when
> the BIG market requires no separation at all.

There might be good uses for the precious metals while you're out there,
such as lining reaction vessels.  If you are going to build processing
equipment on your rock (cheaper than hauling it all with you), the
linings would be another good thing to be able to make.  Gold and
platinum are *very* inert...

> The free metal in a iron-nickel or stony-iron asteroid typically
> consists of 90% Iron, 9% Nickel and 1% Cobalt.  This is already a very
> high grade steel.  The world market for steel is ENORMOUS ($200
> billion/year or so).  Your problems are how to get the asteroid or
> part thereof back to earth vicinity, then down to the ground.

If you want a different composition of steel, though, you have to
process things.  Most any processing which involves chemical separation
is going to leave the gold behind.  You might as well grab it.

[description of solar-sailing the steel back to earth]
> At 2.5 AU, in the asteroid belt, a typical available impulse will be
> 36 Newton-seconds/square meter/yr (light pressure is (1+r)E/c , where r is
> reflectivity, the 1 comes from the momentum of incident light, which is
> all used, E is the wattage of sunlight, and c is the speed of light).

Quibble: absorbed light yields only a *radial* impulse, which is useless
if you are trying to get rid of angular momentum.  The radial component
of the impulse is of no use, so your effective impulse becomes r*E*/c,
where E is the solar flux times time per square meter of effective
reflector area (A*cos(theta)).  Since the max efficiency angle is 45
degrees, cos(theta) is .707.  This affects your figures somewhat, but
your point is well taken.

> Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

Russ Cage

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  2 May 87 17:21:46 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Escape
To: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu

> So we should spend zillions of dollars ... Just so a few hundred or a
> thousand priveleged individuals can escape all this. ...

I agree that no government money should be spent on space, except
possibly for defense programs.  I think a lot of private money should be
and will be spent on space.  It may not be practical yet to make use of
space resources and processes, but I believe it will be.

> I believe we should try to solve our problems here.

What problems are those, and who is "we"?

> If we can't agree on doing that then... 1) Most of us are doomed anyway ...

What doom?

> 2) If our species is so disagreeable and warlike and uncooperative and
> just plain stupid

Some members of our species are all of those.  Others aren't.  Should
the latter be held responsible for the actions of the former?  Are you
guilty of World War II?  Am I?

> that it can't recognize its own self-interest in not fowling its nest,

Who is fowling (fouling?) their own nest?  In what way?

> then what is your justification in trying to preserve it on an extra-
> terrestrial colony?  As a good bad example to aliens?

A bad example of what?  And how do you know there even are any aliens,
or that they aren't even worse behaved than humans?

> It sounds to me like you ARE saying 'run out on Mother Earth'.

Some people will wish to leave.  Others won't.  Why should anyone
stop them or force them?  Should we have colonized all the continents
on Earth?

> Attitudes of people like you are how we got into this mess in the
> first place.

What mess is that?

> When you've finished polluting someplace you just move on to
> 'someplace else'.

I don't understand you.  Pollution is less of a problem now than 20
years ago.  Who is moving on to someplace else?  The US has been in the
same place all along.

> WE are the problem and we've got to face that and stop
> thinking that our technology is going to save us from ourselves.

I don't think we need saving.  And I still don't know what problem you
are talking about.  Anyway, nothing prevents anyone from giving up
technology if they want to.  Few do, for reasons that should be obvious.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 87 02:14:49 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The 500 Man Mars Colony should be America's next major space project

> I'm surprized that Henry would quote anything from Gary Hudson...

Hudson does talk a good show, although I'd hesitate before investing lots
of money in him.

> Henry is right about the radiation problem. However the geostationary
> orbit station is certain to be constructed because it will serve as an
> antenna farm and platform for weather satellites.  It would be a
> preferred base for interplanetary missions because it requires less
> delta-V to get from Geo into an interplanetary trajectory than from
> LEO.

Some sort of platform is likely to be constructed in Clarke orbit --
most probably several of them -- but I'd expect them to be big antenna
farms with occasional other instruments, *not* manned stations with
assembly facilities.  Manned visits to them I can see, but permanent
manning seems dubious.  (Before people tell me about satellite
maintenance, note that getting from one point in Clarke orbit to another
without dropping to a much lower orbit temporarily is very slow.  Given
that maintenance of satellites up there is relatively infrequent and
unpredictable, it is better done from low orbit, whence you can get
anywhere in Clarke orbit quickly.)

As for it being a preferred launch point because of lower delta-V, don't
forget that all the stuff has to be boosted up there to begin with!
This is not trivial: the delta-V for Clarke orbit is comparable to that
for an escape trajectory.  You are probably better off assembling in low
orbit and then using the Clarke-orbit transportation system as a first
stage to boost the interplanetary mission.  Doing it that way means that
assembly is within the Van Allen belts (which means protection against
solar flares, not just a lower radiation level from the belts
themselves) and it's rather cheaper to get crews, supplies, and assembly
equipment there.  If you can get materials etc. from off-Earth sources,
that does change the picture...  but that is incompatible with Mars
being the very next project.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 May 87 22:26 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Escapism, resources, pollution

I personally don't see what's wrong with escaping problems, when
possible.  Being forced to pay so that someone else can escape is
another matter.

Resource depletion:  recent gluts should dispel Club of Rome
nonsense about resource depletion.  Several facts must be remembered:
(1) all mineral resources exist in progressively larger quantities
at lower concentrations, (2) the technology for extracting these
less concentrated ores is developing rapidly (not suprisingly, just
as fast as is needed), and (3) almost all resources can be substituted
for or recycled.

Pollution: the only thing that may prevent mineral resources from being
exploited is possible pollution. From a purely physical point of view,
the only ultimately unsolvable pollution problem is thermal pollution.
Toxic elements can be reburied, toxic compounds can be destroyed by
thermal or plasma processes, and atmospheric pollutants can be reduced
by substitution (nuclear or solar for coal, other chemicals for CFCs).
Whether this will happen is unclear, since the biosphere of earth is a
classic example of a "commons" in which costs are shared by everyone.
Keeping a space habitat pollution-free is much easier than keep the
earth from being damaged, even if the space habitat is more fragile: the
sociological problems should be much more tractable.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 3 May 87 16:42 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels
To: necntc!auspyr!sci!daver@ames.arpa, space@angband.s1.gov

Dave Rickel had some questions about HOTOL and LH2/LOX engines...

I believe the Isp of the SSME is something like 410 seconds (more in a
vacuum?) so the exhaust velocity is > 4 km/sec.  Since HOTOL's rockets
would be used at high altitude we could expect their Isp to be high.  I
thought the molar ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in the SSME is around 4:1;
is the H2/O2 ratio changed during launch to vary the Isp?

I've been waiting since last year for British Aerospace to release more
details on the HOTOL, specifically, on how its air breathing engines
work.  They said they'd make the design public earlier this year.  Has
anyone heard yet?

About atomic hydrogen: another fuel I heard about was triplet helium.
Supposedly, spin polarized triplet helium atoms (in which all electrons
in all atoms have spins aligned in the same direction) could be
metastable, perhaps forming a ferromagnetic solid at room temperature.
Energy would be released when some electrons are flipped and fall back
into 1s orbitals, releasing (I think) about 10 ev/atom.  They wanted to
make it by electron bombardment of liquid helium combined with pumping
by circularly polarized light.  I haven't heard anything more about
this, so it likely doesn't work.

Paul Dietz

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 03 May 87 15:31:57 MEZ
From: PAT073%DHDDKFZ1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Candidates Positions on Space?

I wanted to ask what the presidential candidates' positions regarding
the space program are. I know that Gary Hart at any rate is publishing
tons of position papers. Has anybody read them?

Also, I imagine a general assumption might be that the Democrats are
less likely to be space friendly than the Republicans. Is this true,
or is the space-friendliness of the Republicans all of the SDI flavor?

--benjamin mclemore

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #222
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08194; Wed, 13 May 87 03:03:44 PDT
	id AA08194; Wed, 13 May 87 03:03:44 PDT
Date: Wed, 13 May 87 03:03:44 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705131003.AA08194@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #223

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 223

Today's Topics:
       Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"
       Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"
       Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"
			   Space Elevators
			  Re: ELV companies
		      Re: Clarke's Quantum drive
		      Re: Clarke's Quantum drive
	      Build the Space Station right or cancel it
    It is cheaper and easier to colonize Mars rather than the Moon
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 May 87 02:21:17 GMT
From: aplcen!jhunix!ins_akaa@mimsy.umd.edu  (Ken Arromdee)
Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"

>...I can't get into a "space
>station gap,"  that's just too ludicrous, especially when "mir" means
>"peace".  So:  More power to Mir!  I hope they continue successfully.

Yes, and "Nazi" means "National Socialist".  So what?  Just because it
is _called_ by a word which means "peace" has no bearing on anything
else.  (And incidentally, the use of "peace" as a name for a space
station sounds suspiciously to me like "Moral Majority")

"One day I shall come back.  Yes, I shall come back.  Until then, there should
be no regrets, no tears, no anxieties.  Just go forward in all your beliefs and
prove to me that I am not mistaken in mine..."

Kenneth Arromdee
ARPA: ins_akaa%jhunix@hopkins.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 87 04:04:36 GMT
From: doug@ngp.utexas.edu  (Doug Miller)
Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"

Well, lets not be too harsh here.  "Mir" (pesky English letters don't do 
justice to the Russian alphabet) means "peace" all right, but it also
means "planet" or "world".  So you see, they could just be calling their
space station "the planet", sort of a super-sputnik.  

In fact, all of this makes for a great bi-lingual pun.  In Russia there
are posters that proclaim (loosely translated) "Russians want peace",
but it can be translated with equal validity as "Russians want the
world."  Not the sort of thought that makes Western children sleep well
at night.

Have fun, kids.

Doug Miller   doug@ngp.utexas.edu  ...ihnp4!ut-ngp!doug

------------------------------

Date: 3 May 87 05:40:45 GMT
From: pyramid!amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@decwrl.dec.com  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"


I think that "Mir" also means "World", which seems to be a better name for
a space station.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 87 00:38:26 GMT
From: 4gl.dec.com!schuetz@decwrl.dec.com  (or VIA:: or REGAL:: - RALLY development)
Subject: Space Elevators

Am I missing some fundimental fact here?  What keeps a space elevator up?
An object stays in orbit, because the force of gravity is countered by
the momentum, and the object continually "falls" in a circle.

What force is countering all that weight from the cable connecting the
"top" to the ground?  What holds the cable up?  A really massive "top"
will just take longer to fall, but it WILL fall.  You need a force
equal to the weight of the cable to keep it up there.

Do all these schemes presume a constant thruster at the top holding it up?

/Confused

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 87 22:10:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: ELV companies

I went to the Conference on Space Development, too, so I saw the same
AMROC presentation you did.  In addition, though, I spent a fascinating
evening in the hotel bar listining to Eric Drexler, Keith Henson, and
George Koopman (CEO of AMROC) expound on their favorite flames.  In
Koopman's case, it was, of course, AMROC.  It's amazing how much he
managed to say while saying nothing.

DISCLAIMER: Needless to say, I can't speak for any of the principals.  I
am reporting from an imperfect memory of a casual conversation --
needless to say, I wasn't taking careful notes.

Koopman is, indeed building hybrid motors (solid fuel-liquid oxidizer).
He has completed a full-scale test firing of one engine on a static test
stand at Edwards Air Force Base (I didn't recognize the test facility,
but the size suggested that it was built for something on the order of a
Redstone or a Scout).

The design is basically:

   _____________________                            __
 ,'                     '._________________________/
|                         =========================
|  Tank of LOX           X_________________________
|                         =========================
 ',_____________________,' Pipe lined with         \__
                            polybutadiene rubber

The salient features are:
	- The system is pressure-fed, so there's no need for a LOX pump.
Instead, LOX flow is controlled by a valve (only).  This design is
supposed to reduce cost substantially, at some loss of performance since
the pressure tank is *heavy*.  Koopman claims that the reason that such
an approach hasn't been tried before is that only recently have the
materials been available to make the tank light enough.  He's
fabricating it out of some sort of filament-wound composite.

	- The engine is throttleable from 0 to 100% and is restartable.
To turn it off or throttle it back, you simply reduce the LOX flow (at
some cost in efficiency, presumably).  Startup consists, apparently, of
throwing a slug of TEA (triethylaluminum) into the LOX stream;
considering how unstable TEA is and what a powerful reducing agent it
is, I can see how that would be a quite effective fire-lighter.

	- Koopman would not state the maximum thrust he achieves, nor
would he characterize the maximum burn time, except to say that it was
``in excess of two minutes.''  I have more to say on this subject, and
shall discuss it below.

	- Koopman believes that cost can be reduced as well by economies
of scale if large vehicles are built from large clusters of smaller
engines.  His promotional film shows an animation of his proposed
orbital launcher, whose first stage has a cluster of thirteen of his
engines.  He also is into cost reduction by making the engines
themselves stupid; the smart components are pressure and temperature
sensors at several points in the LOX supply, LOX fill, bleed, feed, and
purge valves, the starting system (effectively just an injector for the
TEA) and a gimballed nozzle (the last is unavoidable, since it's needed
for guidance).  No pumps are required, since the system is pressure fed.
Apparently pressure feed also obviates the need for ullage motors in the
tanks, since the valves work as well on a foamy mixture of liquid and
gaseous oxygen as they do on LOX (not so with pumps).

	- Koopman claims to have customers even for his test flights.
For the suborbital tests (he's supposed to be conducting his first one
in December), he mentions that NASA launches several dozen suborbital
flights a year, so there *is* a market (NOAA probably don't want their
precious radiosondes on test flights.  Could his customer be SDIO?)  For
the orbital flights, one of his early customers may be AMRAD; they have
a couple of payloads ``on ice'' waiting for someone to carry them as
cargo of opportunity.  He mentions that one of his early tests is likely
to be a polar orbital launch from VAFB; his description of the
unspecified customer sounds awfully as if it's the NRO, who put up an
awful lot of sun-synchronous satellites.

	- Koopman is well connected; how else did he get access to EAFB
test facilities without being a current defense contractor?  He
describes his venture as ``privately funded;'' I heard later that he's
one of the heirs to the AEtna insurance fortune and is largely funding
his operation with his own capital and that of personal associates.  He
certainly isn't begging at this time for venture capital.

	- Koopman is a consummate salesman who could sell ice cubes to
Eskimos.  A lot of this may not be for real.  The film he showed of the
test firing showed engine startup and about 10 seconds of operation, cut
to a marketing pitch, and cut back some time later to show engine
shutdown.  God knows how long the engine was running in between, or how
successful the test really was.  The personnel at the test facility
certainly *looked* happy with it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's crank a few of the numbers to see whether what he's doing looks
reasonable.  (Physicists and engineers: These calculations are
*intentionally* oversimplified.  Please direct flames about ``oh, but
you didn't take ---- into account'' to /dev/null unless ---- MATERIALLY
and SUBSTANTIALLY affects the result of the calculation.

The engine he had on the test stand was about 30 feet tall and about 4
feet in diameter.  Call it 377 cubic feet or 10.7 cubic meters.  Using
CRC Handbook data for specific gravity of liquid oxygen, an empirical
estimate for specific gravity of polybutadiene (OK, I weighed a
SuperBall), and some guesstimates of structure mass, I come up with a
density of about 3 for the configuration, giving the thing a mass of
31.5 tonnes.

The configuration his marketing film showed for the orbital launcher had
a single engine with payload riding on a cluster of six or seven (I
couldn't see whether the central core of the cluster was another engine
or just a structural member) and the whole thing sitting on a group of
thirteen engines.  So to get the thing off the pad, each engine has to
thrust at about 5/3 its own weight.  That gives a thrust of about half a
million Newtons, or 115000 pounds force.  The cluster of thirteen, then
will give roughly 1.5 million pounds force of thrust, or 6.5
megaNewtons.  In other words, it's a little over half what a Shuttle SRB
will produce, and is comparable to the first stage of a Delta.

Assuming for the sake of the discussion that the thrust is constant
throughout the burn, a two-minute burn time, and 15% of the mass of the
unit devoted to structural components (modern liquid boosters do better,
about 10%, but that LOX tank has to be considered), we get 26.8 tonnes
of propellants, consumed at the rate of 223 kilograms per second.  This
gives a specific impulse of about 2300 meters per second, or (converting
to ugly English units) about 236 seconds (i.e., pounds thrust per pound
fuel consumed per second, and mistakenly cancelling the ``pounds'').
Nothing spectacular so far.... people have predicted chemical rockets
with Isp in excess of 400 seconds, and ones in excess of 300 have been
built.

OK, now let's work delta-V calculations.  From the equation

	delta-V = Isp * ln (mass ratio),

we can get some idea how fast the whole thing will fly.  Let's say that
the payload weighs 1 tonne (a Delta-class payload); the empty weight of
the third stage will be 5.7 tonnes.  Delta-V for this stage will be
about 4 km/s.  Now stack the third stage atop a seven-engine second
stage (weighing 40 tonnes empty, and carrying 187 tonnes of propellant).
This combination has a delta-V of 2.8 km/s.  Finally, put 13 more
engines under this stack.  We now have a dry weight of 314 tonnes and a
full weight of 663; giving another 1.7 km/s delta-V.  The entire
combination can therefore attain a speed of 8.5 km/sec, a hair over
orbital speed.  (Actually, we have to figure in the amount of fuel that
we use fighting gravity and aerodynamic effects, but we're in the right
ballpark for a first-order approximation).

We can get a further sanity check by calculating heat of combustion of
polybutadiene in oxygen and then assigning a reasonable value for
thermodynamic efficiency -- from this we can get an expected Isp.

[Note to people who want to do this: The structure of polybutadiene is:
   / H   H \
---|-C---C-|--
   \ H   | /n   , with a varying amount of cross-linking to the
         |        side-chain, controllable in part by the ratio
    H C==CH       of cis- and trans- isomers in the monomer mix. ]
     2
I don't include the calculation here, partly to avoid making the posting
any longer than it is and partly because I don't trust my numbers --
it's been a long time since I did any physical chemistry.  Any chemists
out there care to check me out?  In any case, the bottom line again
appeared to be in the right ballpark.

Conclusion: If Koopman can achieve the performance figures on an actual
vehicle that he claims to get on test stands, his bird will fly.

Kevin Kenny			ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA)

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 87 21:38:19 GMT
From: rlgvax!cliff@seismo.css.gov  (Cliff Joslyn)
Subject: Re: Clarke's Quantum drive

In article <8705020010.AA22541@brahms.Berkeley.EDU>, obnoxio@BRAHMS.BERKELEY.EDU (Obnoxious Math Grad Student) writes:
> In article <422@rlgvax.UUCP>, cliff@rlgvax (Cliff Joslyn) writes:
> >In his book the starship is powered by a drive which is able to tap the
> >quatum fluctuations of the vaccum.
> >
> What is most likely possible, if any tinkering with virtual matter is
> to occur, is that entire new universes would spawn off.  This would not
> violate conservation of energy, since total energy is not defined in
> general for a connected component of a space-time manifold.  (This is
> the latest scenario envisioned by Guth et al to explain where infla-
> tion comes from.)
> 

That's intruiging.  Is it even conceivable that any *possible* human
action, like the SSC, could induce a quantum fluctuation sufficient to
"spawn a universe?" How big a fluctuation is sufficient to be called a
"universe?" Is a "universe" simply a "big" fluctation? If so, then are
the "small" fluctuations "tiny universes"? What "space" might this
"universe" exist in, what "time"? Not ours, I hope.

The more I write, the stupider this all sounds, and yet strangely
plausible.

Cliff Joslyn

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 87 17:10:11 GMT
From: idacrd!mac@princeton.edu  (Bob McGwier)
Subject: Re: Clarke's Quantum drive

> In article <422@rlgvax.UUCP>, cliff@rlgvax (Cliff Joslyn) writes:
> >I just finished reading _Songs_of_Distant_Earth_ by A.  Clarke.  He
> >proposes that saying "unlocking the energy of the vaccum" today is like
> >saying "unlocking the energy of the atom" at the turn of this century.
> >In his book the starship is powered by a drive which is able to tap the
> >quatum fluctuations of the vaccum.
> >
> >Any comments?
>

You said you read the book.  I find that hard to believe when Clarke
gives a reference to an article that answers your question in the
preface.

Bob

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 May 87 11:41:20 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Build the Space Station right or cancel it

There are storm clouds on the horizon for the American Space Station.
Caspar Weingber is now in the middle of a hostile take over of the
station.  It is not clear why he is doing this.  Perhaps he wants the
station for the DOD.  More likely he wants to kill the station outright
and free up Space Shuttle time for SDI missions.  The original "power
tower" concept for the Space Station was a bold and exciting design.
However due to micro-budgeting by the OMB and other bean counters, the
Space Station has now been reduced to being little more than a
pressurized tin can full of bored astronauts.  This is exactly the same
dreary road the space shuttle went down in being converted from its
originally excellent design into the turkey we have today.  NO LEARNING
HAS TAKEN PLACE.  Key scientist are now resigning in protest from top
positions overseeing the Space Station, i.e. Prof. Peter Banks of
Stanford University.  The Space Station raises an interesting ethical
question for engineers: How long can an engineer remain with a project
that is being watered down and bastardized by bean counters and
politicians, before the engineer throws down his tools and walks away in
protest?  If the Space Shuttle engineers had done this, maybe we
wouldn't have a shuttle today.  Then again, maybe the shuttle would have
been adequately funded and we would have a robust and fully reusable
shuttle.  We need a Space Station in LEO.  If the politicians refuse to
adequately fund it, then cancel the project.  The need for a Space
Station will still be there.  If the politicians are faced with the
choice of having a properly designed Station or no Station at all, then
they must eventually bow down to building a properly designed one.
                        Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 04 May 87 21:53:22 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: It is cheaper and easier to colonize Mars rather than the Moon

In several recent postings to Space Digest, different people
remarked that we should be colonizing the Moon instead of Mars.  The
Moon does have one positive advantage over Mars in being closer.
However the Moon has several problems that are actually fatal towards
colonization.  Based on our current understanding of the Moon, there
appears to be no nitrogen or hydrogen in the lunar crust.  Future
exploration might show water at the lunar poles, but this is a long
shot. The nitrogen problem can be assumned to be real.  All proteins
are based on nitrogen. It is biologically impossible for a lunar colony
to grow unless nitrogen is being shipped in from space. Also the moon's
gravity is considerably less than that of Mars.  Whether this is a
health problem is problematic.  Also the moon has no atmosphere and
no readily available water.  Mars does have a thin nitrogen/carbon
dioxide atmosphere (enough for aerobraking) and an abundance of ice.  It
is possible that a colony with a relatively low tech could survive and
grow on Mars without continued support from off planaet. However this is
impossible in the case of the Moon.  These are the main reasons why Mars
colonization is more interesting (and cheaper in the long run) than
lunar colonization.
                            Gary Allen

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #223
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10113; Thu, 14 May 87 03:03:11 PDT
	id AA10113; Thu, 14 May 87 03:03:11 PDT
Date: Thu, 14 May 87 03:03:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705141003.AA10113@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #224

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 224

Today's Topics:
	Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony
      Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony
      Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony
      Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony
		    The best way to terraform Mars
	    CANDU reactors and Martian colony energy needs
	      Re: One can not justify Space Colonization
			    AI job at KSC
		   A response to Henry's editorial
			   Re: NSS/L5 Name
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 05 May 87 09:02:37 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony

One solution to the problem of energy for a self sufficient 500 man Mars
colony is to use hydrazine.  Manufacture the hydrazine at a central
facility.  The raw materials could be derived from the Martian
atmosphere and water ice.  The energy source in the beginning of the
colony's life would be nuclear.  However the colony couldn't remain with
nuclear because uranium enrichment requires too high of a technology for
a small colony.  As the colony grew it would have to switch over to
"geothermal" based on one of the many Martian volcanoes.  Solar energy
is a long shot.  Henry Spencer correctly pointed out that Mars has some
fairly nasty dust storms .  Any optical surface for your solar
collection system would have to be protected against dust.  It would be
necessary to have a three month reserve of hydrazine for the period of
these dust storms. Hydrazine can be "burned" as a monopropellant by
passing it over a catalyst.  Internal combustion engines have been
designed based on hydrazine fuel.  Propeller driven aircraft using
hydrazine fuel were considered in some earlier Mars exploration studies.
Hydrazine is extremely poisonous.  However the colonists will all be
wearing pressure suits anyway.  The colony simply has to make a point of
only using hydrazine devices outdoors.  Here is a question for chemistry
wizards in ARPA Land: Is there a liquid chemical that will energeticly
burn with carbon dioxide that is based on common elements?
                             Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 87 17:59:38 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony

> ... Is there a liquid chemical that will energeticly
> burn with carbon dioxide that is based on common elements?

Well, I don't know if I qualify as a "chemistry wizard" -- I started out
in chemistry but it's been a long time -- but I'm a little doubtful
about this.  CO2 is *not* what you call an energetic reactant; you need
something very active to burn with it.  I do know of one candidate: I'm
told that titanium burns very nicely in CO2, albeit with a lot of black
smoke.  (Yes, it's doing just what you think it is: pulling the oxygen
out and letting the carbon go its own way.)  Titanium also burns in
nitrogen, by the way (in fact, titanium burning in air is reacting just
as vigorously with the nitrogen as the oxygen -- the ash is about 80%
nitride).  What's more, titanium is a relatively common element,
although it's a real pain to extract and refine.  Perhaps it wouldn't
have to be very pure for this application, which would help.  Annoying
that it isn't a liquid.

Aluminum is also fairly active stuff once you get rid of its surface oxide
layer (which makes it fairly inert in an oxygen atmosphere unless you use
drastic measures).  I don't know if it will burn in CO2, but it would be
worth finding out.  Aluminum WILL pull the oxygen out of iron oxide, and
very energetically too -- that's what thermite is -- so maybe it would.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 87 16:47:52 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony

> ... titanium burns very nicely in CO2, albeit with a lot of black smoke...

I didn't think about the implications of this when I posted it.  Shades of
Victorian railroads!  The Mars buggy rolls briskly across the landscape,
belching black smoke and occasionally stopping to shovel the ash out of the
firebox...!  I love it.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 87 22:10:27 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!utcsri!hogg@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: Energy for a low tech, self sufficient Martian colony

In article <8705050705.AA07572@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>One solution to the problem of energy for a self sufficient 500 man
>Mars colony is to use hydrazine...  Hydrazine is extremely poisonous.
>However the colonists will all be wearing pressure suits anyway.  The
>colony simply has to make a point of only using hydrazine devices
>outdoors.

That will be fine if only airtight pressure suits are worn, but it's not
clear that's the best way to go.  They have nasty degradation properties
(holes are *serious*), and are quite restrictive.  If instead a porous
pressure suit is used (and these have been designed and tested), then
you'll want to be more careful about what you're spraying around.

John Hogg
hogg@utcsri.uucp
hogg@csri.toronto.cdn

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 08 May 87 09:44:34 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The best way to terraform Mars

In Vol. 7, No. 213 of Space Digest, Ian H. Merritt commented on various
techniques to terraform Mars, i.e. dumping ice on the planet from
Saturn, etc.  I suspect these sort of ideas are inoperative because of
the enormous energy required.  However there is a much simpler way to
terraform Mars.  Put a self contained colony of 500 people on the planet
and tell them in the vernacular "to be fruitful and multiply".  It is
the nature of human beings to pollute their environment. However on
Mars, pollution is a good thing.  Anything that increases the Martian
atmospheric pressure is a step towards terraforming the planet.  If your
colony is growing exponentially, it won't take long before liquid water
could exist on the Martian surface.  At that point, terraforming could
take place in a controlled manner using geneticly modified bacteria.
                      Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 07 May 87 11:00:34 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: CANDU reactors and Martian colony energy needs

In an earlier posting to Space Digest, I commented on the problem
of energy production for a permanent self contained Martian colony:

>>The energy source in the beginning  of the
>>colony's life would be nuclear.  However the colony couldn't remain wih
>>nuclear because uranium enrichment requires too high of a technology
>>for a small colony.

Russell Crook made the following reply:

>Crap!

>You CAN build nuclear reactors that run just fine on unenriched uranium..
>this message is reaching you courtesy of power generated by one such.
>Not only that, you can have nuclear power reactors with on-power refuelng,
>rather than popping the lid once a year for three months to refuel.
>All CANDU reactors have these traits.

Actually I was thinking of the CANDU reactors when contemplating the
problem of energy for a Martian colony.  CANDU stands for CANadian
DeUterium reactor.  The CANDU runs on unenriched uranium using a
deuterium moderator.  The absorption cross section of heavy water based
on deuterium is much smaller than with regular water.  The additional
thermal neutrons permits the use of unenriched fuel.  The Germans in
World War II tried to build a CANDU style reactor near Tuebingen.  This
unsuccessful reactor is today a nuclear energy museum.  The German
reactor failed for many reasons:  It was a bad design.  The Germans
couldn't get enough deuterium because of Allied bombing.  Finally,
Hitler refused to provide the project adequate funding because he
believed nuclear energy to be a form of "Jewish Phyiscs".  CANDU
reactors are illegal in the United States because they have positive
temperature and power coefficients that make them inherently unstable.
Also CANDUs are dirty from an environmental standpoint.  CANDU fuel rods
have a very short burn duration.  As a result, one has to be constantly
juggling fuel rods in and out of the reactor.  The Candians supposably
dump the old fuel rods in mined out tunnels in Northern Canada.  The
problem with a CANDU reactor for a Martian colony is the neccesity of
acquiring alot of deuterium, and unenriched uranium.  This requires
a fairly high technology which a 500 man colony couldn't support.
Hopefully later, after the colony had grown some it could develope
nuclear fission technology without terrestrial support.
                                Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 87 16:35:00 GMT
From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: One can not justify Space Colonization


[ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET.UUCP ]
>Yes, it would be much cheaper to colonize the Sahara Desert  than
>Mars.  However while it would be fairly easy for some future Aya-
>tolla Khomeni to drop a nuclear weapon on this Sahara  colony  it
>would  be  rather difficult for him to do so on a Martian colony.
>An ocean floor colony could be wiped out by some virulent  strain
>of  AIDS  but the Martian colony would be isolated. However these
>are lame arguments.

Why lame? To me, these, and a host of similar  arguments  related
to  dangers other than nukes and AIDS, are *the* reason for space
colonization. I find it totally convincing. I think  no  one  has
laid  a  glove on it. Put all your eggs in one basket and perish;
diversify and live.

Just think of those species that are only to be  found  in  *one*
valley  or lake or on one island. They are all doomed eventually.
For us, the planet has grown just as small.

>As I said before and shall say again: There  is  **no**  economic
>justification at this time for space colonization.

It depends on how far ahead one's economic foresight  extends  at
"this  time".  Mining  asteroids may not be competitive now - but
what about when the Earth deposits of whatever it is get  deplet-
ed?  The  same  argument applies to industrial pollution; one can
try to recycle, but assuming fast  growth  continues,  eventually
one needs a larger sink for heat and waste than we have down here.
These are future economic needs - but they can be anticipated now.

> However we should do it anyway for ideological reasons.  

The problem with that is selling your ideology to the public.

Besides economic and ideological reasons, there are *military*
reasons, at present probably the most powerful. They can blend
with economic and scientific reasons. 

>Space industrialization could become economical  **if**  there
>was a large colony on Mars.

Or a military base anywhere far enough.

>Arguments against the Martian colony based on economics are  ino-
>perative.  This  is  not  the  reason  why we should go there. We
>should go there for the largely ideological and rather  impracti-
>cal  (silly)  reason  that it would provide the human race with a
>second independent permanent presence in the solar system.

That just begs the question of why have such a presence.  Do  the
masses  share this "silly" ideology? Will they ever? You make the
"presence" on another planet sound like "showing the  flag"  --
Terra  flag -- i.e., you appeal to a terrestrial patriotism which
few people have. If you want to appeal to such feelings, why  not
*national* patriotism?

People bought the Apollo program because it was a  sporting  race
to  the  Moon against the Russians.  Will that work for a Martian
colony (or a Lunar one)? Perhaps not -- but it seems to  stand  a
better chance than some globalist ideology. Unless you mean *sur-
vival* for the human race - a Noah's ark. That might have  *some*
appeal  when  some  danger or other is evident. (The abstract ex-
istence of *many* future dangers is enough for me,  but  I  doubt
that many people would agree).

Perhaps the most likely bootstrap process is:  military  uses  of
space (not necessarily SDI, but an offensive weapons race) creat-
ing a market for economic activites out there, and more need  for
the military protecting their investments. The colonies may  grow
out  of  strategic bases (as did Roman settlements). It is not an
*ideal* sequence by any means -- to me, it is somewhat repugnant,
like much of history -- but it might be the most realistic one.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 87 14:08:33 GMT
From: isl1.ri.cmu.edu!mdm@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (Malcolm McRoberts)
Subject: AI job at KSC

I am part of a small group in McDonnell Douglas which works on AI
applications to Space Shuttle payload processing.  We are looking to
hire an experienced AI person.  We are well equipped with 3 Symbolics
Lisp Machines, 2 copies of ART (Automated Reasoning Tool), a VAX/VMS,
and numerous high-end PC's with a wide range of AI and conventional
software.  Our company is located on the Kennedy Space Center but the AI
group is not on the Center directly.  If you are interested or know
someone who is, send me a resume at:

Malcolm McRoberts
MDAC-KSC F882
PO Box 21233
Kennedy Space Center, FL  32815

if you have any questions call (305) 383-0664

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 87 21:52:07 GMT
From: ritcv!cci632!ajg@cs.rochester.edu  (Tony Giaccone)
Subject: A response to Henry's editorial

In article <7990@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
# [Editorial:  The Great Failure.
# 
# for the July 20th editorial -- anybody reading this group who doesn't know
# why that date is special should be ashamed -- but I can't wait that long.)
# 
# Remember when the West's space program looked good, back on July 20, 1969?
# Long time ago, wasn't it?
# 
# Although it perhaps wasn't undertaken in quite the right way, and its
# motives were perhaps less noble than one would like, Project Apollo still
# stands as the supreme achievement of mankind.  And it was accompanied by
# a number of lesser programs, not as spectacular but also valuable.  That
# was the golden age of Western spaceflight.
# 
# Since then it's been all downhill.  And Lord, what a long, sad way down...
# 
# ...Except for certain very narrow and specific military and scientific goals,
# the West's space program is a failure.  Not just a partial success, but a
# complete, abysmal failure.
# 
# In general, it is actually harder to get things launched today than it was
# twenty years ago....
# 		.....  There is no obvious reason why Shuttle 2, or Hermes,
# or the Aerospace Plane, will be any cheaper or easier to get payloads onto
# than the Shuttle.  The Shuttle, which promised to be vastly cheaper than
# the expendables, isn't and won't be.... 
# 				......  Nobody is even talking about "routine
# access to space" any more, much less promising to deliver it.
# 
# Except the Soviets, that is.  On their terms, as their junior partners only.
# 
# It's time to face facts.  The situation is beyond repair with band-aids,
# which is the only sort of response the current system can produce.
# 
# It's time to give the West's dying space program a decent burial, so we can
# start over -- from scratch -- and do it right.
# 							-- HS]

I've tried to cut down on what Henry wrote and limit my response to only
the points that really struck me. Much of what Henry has to say I can't
verify, nor can I disprove. However, much of it has the ring of truth.
I've always been a big supporter of the space program. Since as a kid at
the age of nine years I watched man first set foot on the moon.

Recently I purchased and read the Rodgers report. I found it next to
impossible to belive what I read there. The picture is not very pretty.
I strongly suggest that if you haven't read this report you do so. It
will give you some very good insights on how not to manage a project.
The general level of stupidity was just amazing. People new that the
secondary O-ring didn't seal years before the "accident". A memo was
written six months before the "accident" that stated that an orbiter was
probably going to be lost if something was not done about the O-ring
problem. How could this problem which was so well know have cost us an
orbitor. How could these people let this ship fly with this know
problem.  I don't understand.

I must say I'm pretty depressed after having read this report, and I
feel like NASA the "can do" agency didn't. I don't know what the
solution is but it seems clear to me that some major changes need to be
made to prevent this kind of problem from happening again.

I look back at the days of the space program when things got done and I
wonder what's happened since. I guess the bueracracy has grown so large
that it's taken on a life of it's own.

I don't know enought to even suggest how to solve the problems we
currently have with our space program, but we had better solve them or
we may find our selves regretting it.
			
					
					Tony Giaccone

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 87 16:12:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: NSS/L5 Name

For those in the group who may not be aware of the issue, NSS was formed
by a merger between the National Space Institute and the L-5 Society.
NSI was founded by Wernher von Braun; preserving a name that is too
close to the name of NSI will preserve the association, in many minds,
of the Society with von Braun.  There are a number of people,
particularly Jews, who are very reluctant to align themselves with an
organization ``founded by a man who used to be a Nazi,'' and there is a
lingering uncertainty about the extent of von Braun's involvement in the
atrocities perpetrated by such Peenemuende figures as Dornberger.  For
this reason, any name with the initials ``SS'' in its acronym is
particularly unfortunate.

Kevin Kenny

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #224
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12434; Fri, 15 May 87 03:03:15 PDT
	id AA12434; Fri, 15 May 87 03:03:15 PDT
Date: Fri, 15 May 87 03:03:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705151003.AA12434@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #225

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 15 May 87 03:03:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #225

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 225

Today's Topics:
			 Gary's Red Frontier
			  Hard data on SSME
		   Re: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels
		   Re: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels
			     Space Debris
		   What Questions Would You Suggest
			      Not again
		   Re: space news from Feb 23 AW&ST
       Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"
	 Soviet vs US Space Programs - Tell Congress About It
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 May 87 15:28 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Gary's Red Frontier

I have become more skeptical about the NASP.  There was an elementary
critique of the concept in Technology Review.  Basically, NASP will be
very complex.  A scramjet powered launcher will have to breathe air up
to Mach 17+ in order to be economical, apparently because scramjets are
heavy.  For thrust to exceed drag at Mach 17 requires heroic measures,
such as circulating liquid sodium through the skin of the plane and
dumping that heat into the fuel flow.  Many of the other technologies
for the NASP will work just as well on rocket powered reusable SSTO
launchers.  It's hard to believe the technology will get launch costs
down below a couple of hundred dollars per pound.

Gary went on to mention the debate about shielding space structures.
I'm sorry, Gary, but your argument wasn't convincing then and it isn't
convincing now.  The ratio of shielded volume to shielding mass can be
made arbitrarily high by increasing the radius of the habitat.  It is
not at all clear that the entire habitat must be rotating; it might very
well be possible to have compact rotating sleeping quarters, assuming
that coriolis forces do not bother a sleeping person.  In a nonrotating
habitat the entire volume is available for habitation.

Gary was assuming, for his Mars colony scenario, that inertial fusion
rockets are available.  These rockets could easily maneuver multimillion
ton near earth asteroids into high earth orbit in a matter of months.
Therefore, using Gary's assumption about fusion rockets, obtaining
shielding mass is no problem at all.

Gary stated that power from an SPS will never be cheaper than power from
coal or ground-based solar.  While it is certainly more expensive now,
never is a long time.  The same applies to the current surplus of
electricity.  Power plants will eventually wear out, populations will
grow, and the developing countries appetites for energy will continue to
increase.  Ultimately, the earth could run up against thermal pollution
limits.  Satellite solar power has the lowest thermal pollution of any
energy source. (Aside: I think fossil fuels will continue to be the
dominant energy source for the rest of our lives, barring some
breakthrough.)

Gary depends on the assumption that 500 people can set up a working,
self sustaining "seed" colony on mars.  I am very skeptical that, with
current technologies, 500 people could maintain a technology for living
on Mars without at least some input from Earth.  Perhaps in 50 years
this will change, but that same technology would change the economics of
the other projects Gary disparages.

I think my negative reaction (and other readers of this digest,
apparently) to Gary's proposal is sufficient evidence that is will not
have the support needed for massive government funding; if space
fanatics are not impressed, what will your average taxpayer think?  Not
much.  Programs that benefit specific power groups will crowd out
programs motivated by thinly supported artificial ideologies.

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 87 23:57:45 GMT
From: voder!lewey!evp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ed Post)
Subject: Hard data on SSME

% I believe the Isp of the SSME is something like 410 seconds (more in
% a vacuum?) .....
% I thought the molar ratio of hydrogen to oxygen in the SSME is around
% 4:1......
% 
% Paul Dietz

From the Space Shuttle News Reference (NASA publication):

SSME Thrust (at 100% thrust):
   Sea level: 1670 KiloNewtons (375,000 pounds)
   Vacuum: 2100 KiloNewtons (470,000 pounds)

Throttling:
   65% to 109% rated (downgraded to 104% since Challenger explosion)

Specific Impulse:  (lbf = pound force, lbm = pound mass)
   Sea level: 356.2 N/(kg*s) or 363.2 lbf/(lbm*s)
   Vacuum: 446.4 N/(kg*s) or 455.2 lbf/(lbm*s)

Chamber Pressure:
   20,480 kN/(m**2)  (2970 psia)

Mixture Ratio:
   6 parts LO2 to 1 part LH2 (by weight)

Area Ratio:
   77.5 to 1 (nozzle to throat)

Chamber Combustion Temperature:
   3315C (6000F)

Ed Post -- hplabs!lewey!evp    (408)252-8713
American Information Technology; Cupertino, CA 95014

------------------------------

Date: 4 May 87 21:20:46 GMT
From: imagen!auspyr!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels

Well, i redid my math.  It turns out that i looked up the wrong value in
my CRC.  My new value for the maximum exhaust velocity of a
hydrogen-oxygen rocket is 5.2 kilometers/second.  That seems to match
pretty well to the posted values (shuttle's exhaust velocity of 4.46
km/sec).  If i haven't made another blunder, though, we're getting
pretty close to fundamental limits.

As to my excess-oxygen error: I should have known better, shouldn't i?
Thanks for the info.

Any other exotic fuels?  Paul Dietz mentions spin-stabilized triplet
helium, and in an earlier posting, isotopic batteries (what a great
name--sounds like it's straight out of Star Trek).  There's of course
the various fission/fusion schemes.  Is there anything else that might
give an exhaust velocity of greater than, say, 8 km/sec?


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 6 May 87 04:42:45 GMT
From: kodak!ornitz@cs.rochester.edu  (barry ornitz)
Subject: Re: HOTOL, Rockets, Exotic Fuels

My old copy of Kit & Evered's "Rocket Propellant Handbook" lists several
fuels and oxidizers that would be considered exotic even by todays
standards such as fluorine, liquid ozone, metal borohydrides and butyl 
mercaptan.  Talk about environmental problems - these would sure be rough.
Only a skunk would approach a spill of the mercaptan!  :-)


Dr. Barry L. Ornitz

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 4 May 87 13:45:35 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Space Debris

The latest NASA Activities has the 1st part of a 2 part article on
space debris.  Since SDI was brought, and there is some Station interest,
I thought some of the trivia from this article would interesting:
	4 million pounds of material (about 2 M KG) orbit the earth now
	launch rates is about 2-3 M pounds per year
	20 million pounds are expected in orbit by 2000
Only 5% of payloads are still operating (all nations)
21% are no longer operating payloads
25% are spent stages and miscellaneous gear
49% are break up pieces
There are 6,194 radar trackable objects: baseball sized or larger
1,582 are payloads, 68 are interplanetary probes,
4,488 are orbital debris, 56 are interplanetary orbital debris
there are about 30,000 marble sized objects and trillions of things
like paint flakes.

Article goes on to talk about the numerous object strikes which have
occured, most these latter flakes which can be detected by the analysis
of the impact craters (high Al content).  The problem is very serious.
The Solar Max Satellite's insulation blanket have many times more holes
than thought (32 holes per in^2). So you can see these are not numbers
to fool around with.  We have to clean up our act since collision with
these things at orbital velocity is potentially lethal.  BTW: The US and
USSR are not alone, the French and others also have similar problems.

--eugene miya
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 87 03:20:04 GMT
From: phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu  (Eric Tilenius)
Subject: What Questions Would You Suggest

>I am looking for suggestions on whom to interview.  Names of top level
>people (ie. program heads at NASA, Chairman/presidents of companies,
>prominent people in their field) whom you think would be good resources
>for an article such as this would be appreciated.
 
Also, if anyone has QUESTIONS that they think might be relevant/good,
I'd appreciate suggestions for those too...  I have some of my own,
but am open to ideas!
 
- ERIC -

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 10 May 87 01:00:21 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Not again
To: dayton!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@rutgers.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: dayton!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@rutgers.edu  (Dennis Grittner)

> I for one I'm tired of hearing many folk complain about paying taxes,
> or money going to social programs. I would suggest that paying taxes
> is one of the truly useful things we all do. ... I LIKE paying taxes
> to HELP people and to do noble projects like Apollo.

Nobody is stopping you.  The current tax rates are only a legal minimum.
You are free to pay more.

There are probably plenty of things I do that you would not want to.
And plenty of priorities of mine that you would arrange differently.
But I don't force you to follow my wishes.  Why do you wish that I be
force to folllow yours, i.e. pay more taxes, and for programs of your
choice?  Some of us believe we do "truly useful things" other than
sacrifice our hard earned money for the benefit of unmarried homeless
people with 14 kids, being given no choice in the matter.

Followups to Poli-Sci only, please.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 87 08:46:35 GMT
From: hao!murphy@AMES.ARPA  (Graham Murphy)
Subject: Re: space news from Feb 23 AW&ST

In article <8007@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>US Commerce Dept upset about US launcher competitiveness now that Australia
>is looking at setting up an international commercial launch site for use by
>nations like Japan and China; Commerce fears that the resulting package deals
>could be cheaper than US launch prices.  [This is known as "free enterprise"
>and "competition", words that the Commerce Dept. should be expected to
>understand.  Three cheers for the Australians!  -- HS]

Whilst I would dearly love to see Australia become a space-port, I am
not particularly confident at this stage. A couple of months ago (when I
was in Sydney, Oz) I saw an interview with a consultant to the project,
who, with a perfectly straight face, stated that Canaveral at ~28N was
the closest launch site to the equator. This would of course come as a
great shock to the French, who launch Ariane from their site at 6N.
Australia can offer a launch site at ~10S, but at present there is
NOTHING there, no rail, no shipping facilities, and no airport. These
things can be built but ...

I haven't had a chance to read the article in question yet but I won't
let that stop me from adding further extraneous comments.

The major advantage is that Australia is (comparatively) close to Japan
with a launch site at 40N, and China with something >20N.  It's still a
helluva swim though.

Two notes :

1) Australia is a high-tech nation, which over the last decade has
allowed herself to be bypassed. We import considerable amounts of
high-technology, and export very little ... basically living from
primary resources at present. The standard of fundamental engineering
and science is, in my biased opinion, very high but the results are
rarely pushed beyond our borders. Also there is very little expertise in
aerospace technology, mainly because of a severe lack of volume
(Australia only has 16 million people).

2) It would not be known outside of Oz, but we were once "at the
forefront" of rocket technology in the 50's and 60's with our own small,
but significant program, I think mostly in conjunction with the UK.
There is presently a sounding rocket launch site in the south, but I
have no idea who runs it - probably a shared facility. It is not
significant in terms of people or money.

The development of a space-port is seen as a possible means of
redressing an "aerospace engineering gap", since it is hoped that
space/satellite engineering work would eventually go with providing a
launch site and support.

I would like to see it happen, as I think it would be good not only for
Australia but for the space-faring capabilities of the world, since at
present each nation tends to develop its own launch facilities at
considerable expense, making it much more difficult to begin a space
program. One important note is that at present, the moves do not have
any federal government support, either monetarily or even verbal. The
project doesn't really need it to succeed, but it would certainly be a
help.

You probably didn't want to know any of this, but I have a strong
personal interest in this and so I ignored such considerations.

Obviously, these views (and any errors) are my own and not those of my
employer or my fellow Australians !

Graham Murphy

------------------------------

Date: 5 May 87 22:37:00 GMT
From: cybvax0!frog!john@eddie.mit.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"

> What's the big deal about Mir, anyway?  The diagram I saw in a recent
> AW&ST shows it to be quite a bit smaller than Skylab was, even with
> the addition of the "astronomy module" (shades of the ATM, eh?)

> I realize there's a symbolic issue here, but it doesn't look to me like
> the Russians are "way out in front" now any more than they were in 1960.

If we were suddenly seized with the desire to, how long would it take us
to launch something even as primitive as Mir?  How often could we supply
it?  How long would it take us to DECIDE to do it, for heaven's sake?

Raw technical prowess isn't all there is to it.  The laurels we are
resting on are getting pretty darned stale.

Mir's most important "innovation" is commitment.

John Woods

"Happiness is the planet Earth
	in your rear-view mirror."
		- Sam Hurt, in "Eyebeam, Therefore I Am"

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 87 23:28:29 GMT
From: mtune!mtuxo!tee@rutgers.edu  (t.ebersole)
Subject: Soviet vs US Space Programs - Tell Congress About It

At the annual awards banquet held on May 5th by the Princeton section of
the AIAA, Jim Harford, AIAA Executive Director, gave a talk on
"Speculations on the Soviet Space Program." He had the usual data
showing that the US Space Program is small compared to the Soviet Space
Program (e.g., 100,000 person/hours in space compared to our 40,000; the
assembly-line ability to get a booster to the pad less than a week after
an accident; the growing sophistication of their "LandSat" equivalent;
the large number of launches/year (a pie chart of this looked much like
a pie chart of long-distance networks, with the Soviets having an
ATT-like slice and the US having an MCI-like slice); their continuing
space-science program, with better space probes, exemplified by their
coordination of the international Halley's Comet "armada"; etc.).

He had some anecdotes about the usefulness of cosmonauts in reviving
missions thought finished by malfunctioning spacecraft. For example, a
Salyut which was completely dead was revived by a two-man crew who
warmed it gradually back to life over 10 days, returning to their Soyuz
about every 40 minutes because of the cold temperatures taxing their
suit-heaters excessively. They then spent the next 10 months in the
Salyut. Another example is the recent 3.5 hour EVA allowing the
experimental manufacturing module to connect to Mir.

Jim also iterated the cynical thought that to work in a space program in
the near or distant future, a person better know Russian. He thinks
there aren't enough US engineers who understand Russian, anyway.(I think
there are probably more Russian engineers than US engineers who can
communicate in English, much less any other language, but I digress.)
(What the heck, another digression: the translation of "mir" to either
"peace" or "world" seems to be causing great concern to some netters.
However, the paranoid-translation gap is not as large as one might
think.  "Peace" possibly may be derived from the Latin "pacisci, to
confirm an agreement." Knowing of our propensity for ignoring treaties
on our own turf (Cherokee, Sioux, ...), I'm sure Russian kids don't
sleep too well knowing their government is negotiating peace treaties
with US.)

The AIAA does have proposals for reviving the US Space Program which
they will be trying to sell to Congress. One interesting fact which even
a congressman might understand is that the Soviets spend about 25
billion $/year, with expected 15%/year increases. If we use the infamous
letter-leverage-factor properly, Congress could get the idea that
millions of us out here know this and don't like it. Write your
congressman expressing your views on the space budget; this is one of
the few ways we have of influencing the future of the US Space Program.

Supporting your favorite groups such as the National Space Society,
Space Studies Institute, AIAA, ... is also very important; any size
contribution would be appreciated, although it would be helpful to have
more heirs to the Aetna fortune interested in space development.

FYI, the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) is a
professional society of aerospace engineers and others with more than
40000 members. If you have an interest in joining, send a note to
    AIAA, 1633 Broadway, New York, NY 10019.
Membership is 65$/year, open to anyone. Students pay some nominal amount.
These include a subscription to Aerospace America, a magazine which at
times emphasizes defense-Aero more than space, but which always has good
articles relevant to space. For example, April's issue has a 15-page
section on France's 25 years in space and an article on the shuttle SRB
fixes.

Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee
Big Brother Pattern Matcher >> CIA DIA KGB rocket AK-47 atomic coke hash ice

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #225
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13965; Sat, 16 May 87 03:02:49 PDT
	id AA13965; Sat, 16 May 87 03:02:49 PDT
Date: Sat, 16 May 87 03:02:49 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705161002.AA13965@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #226

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 226

Today's Topics:
	       MIR may not be big, but it's there now.
		Re: Soviet vs US Space Programs - Tell
			   Meissner Effect
			  Re: ELV companies
			 Re: Space Elevators
			 Re: Space Elevators
		       Breaking Space Elevators
     h-bombs as flashbulb (flashbomb?) to find Oort-cloud objects
  Re:  h-bombs as flashbulb (flashbomb?) to find Oort-cloud objects
		      Closed minds at Rockwell?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  9 May 1987 17:37-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: mike@bellcore.bellcore.com
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: MIR may not be big, but it's there now.

Mike:

It is irrelevant that we had a bigger station than the soviets in 1976:
a station that was manned only three times, has long since burned up and
which we could not reproduce now if our national existance depended on
it.

The soviet MIR and SALYUTS may be small be our 'standards', but keep in
mind that a soviet 'rookie' comsmonaut has more hours in space than the
most experienced american astronauts.

So where do we stand with the Russians? On our side, there were 3 long
duration missions (long by our standards, not by theirs) in Skylab.
There have been a handful of week long Spacelab missions, and will
probably be a few more this decade (MAYBE). There will be a massive
capable US space station by 1996 (MAYBE), although all it takes is a
swing in the congressional make up and mood, (pushed, let's say, by some
major scandal) and we don't have it until 1998 or 2001. Or it ends up as
an (oxymoron) 'unmanned space station'.

Meanwhile, the soviets have had at least 2 WORKING cosmonauts running
live hand out experiments in orbit for about 2/3 of every YEAR since the
mid seventies:

	Salyut 1
	June 6,1971	Soyuz 11	570:22		3 deaths

	Salyut 3
	July 3, 1974	Soyuz 14	337:30

	Salyut 5
	July 6, 1976	Soyuz 21	1182:24
	Feb 7, 1977	Soyuz 24	425:23

	Salyut 6
	Dec 10, 1977	Soyuz 26	898:06		crew duration 2314:00
	Jan 10, 1978	Soyuz 27	1558:53		crew duration  142:59
	Mar 2, 1978	Soyuz 28	190:17
	Jun 15, 1978	Soyuz 29	1911:23		crew duration 3350:48
	Jun 27, 1978	Soyuz 30	190:04
	Aug 26, 1978	Soyuz 31	1628:14		crew duration  188:49
	Feb 25, 1979	Soyuz 32	2596:24		Crew duration 4200:36
	Jun 6,  1979	Soyuz 34	1770:17		launched unmanned,
							returned S32 crew
	Apr 9, 1980	Soyuz 35	1321:29		crew duration 4426:12
	May 26, 1980	Soyuz 36	1580:54		crew duration  188:46
	June 5, 1980	Soyuz T2	  94:41
	July 23, 1980	Soyuz 37	1911:17		crew duration  188:42
	Sept 18, 1980	Soyuz 38	 188:43
	Nov 27,1980	Soyuz T3	 397:08
	Jan 24, 1981	Soyuz T4	1794:38
	Mar 22, 1981	Soyuz 39	 186:43

The source book I had at hand only went up to 1981, but as you know,
they almost always have had a crew in orbit since then. For all intents
and purposes they are working with a 'permanently manned' space station
and have been for years. The fact that it is occasionally empty for a
few months seem fairly irrelevant to me. The unmanned gaps are getting
shorter. And don't forget that MIR has docking ports for about 5 other
modules.

What you neglected to consider is that the value of a space station is
not in having done it, but in USING it. The mistake NASA is making is
treating it as an engineering project in and of itself. We shouldn't be
bothering to do research on building better space stations. We should be
doing research IN a space station, even if it's a goddamn tin can with
oxy bottles welded on the outside. That is what the soviets are doing,
and that is why they have won solar system.

The soviets are living and working in space. We are playing at it. In
1996 they will have been operating a space station for 20 years. Maybe
they'll send a bottle of vodka over to the amateurs. Assuming, of
course, that they give us permission to build it in the first place.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 87 14:57:00 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Soviet vs US Space Programs - Tell


[tee@mtuxo.UUCP ]
>Jim also iterated the cynical thought that to  work  in  a  space
>program  in the near or distant future, a person better know Rus-
>sian. He thinks there aren't enough US engineers  who  understand
>Russian,  anyway.(I  think  there  are  probably more Russian en-
>gineers than US engineers who can communicate  in  English,  much
>less any other language, but I digress.)

No, their schools teach languages as badly as ours. Very few engineers
in the USSR know English, though most of them have had 6 or 8 years of
it before college and 5 more years in college. The Soviets have never
found it necessary to jam foreign broadcasts in English, though they
have done it in Russian, Ukrainian, Yiddish, and other indigenous
languages.

What they do have is good and fast translation facilities.

The quote above seems to shift the issue from comparing the two space
programs to comparing engineers and technology of the two nations in
general. But in that case the fact to explain is why the USSR is doing
so *badly*. Idealizing their engineers or whatever they have does not
explain that.

If they are doing well in space, that's the result of *focusing*; their
system excels at that. They can do any *one* thing fast by sacrificing
the rest - like a military leader pulling together his forces for a
decisive strike. They are a militarized society, and practice a military
approach to economy and technology. Can we learn something useful from
that? I hope so, but I don't know just what.

>(What the heck, another digression: the translation of "mir" to either
>"peace" or "world" seems to be causing great concern to some netters.

The space Mir stands for "peace". If someone interprets it as "world",
that must be an unforeseen effect, since it foils the propagandist
purpose of the name. The two words sound the same, but are quite
unconnected, and they used to be spelled differently before the 1918
spelling reform.

>Knowing of our propensity for ignoring treaties on our own turf
>(Cherokee, Sioux, ...), I'm sure Russian kids don't sleep too well
>knowing their government is negotiating peace treaties with US.)

I hope that's meant as a joke. Russian kids have other things on their
minds than the history of Sioux. That would be like American kids
worrying about Czar Nicholas I's relations with the *Chechens* in the
1840's. Do many grown-ups in this group have an opinion on that? :-)

			Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 May 87 21:43 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Meissner Effect

>    For the less informed, like me, in the audience, please define
>  Meissner effect

The Meissner effect refers to the expulsion of magnetic fields from bulk
superconductors (they are highly diamagnetic). As a result, magnets are
repelled by superconductors, and can be levitated by them (or vice versa).
The Meissner effect is considered the acid test of superconductivity in
new materials, since you can't experimentally distinguish zero resistivity
from a small but positive resistivity.

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 87 01:07:15 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: ELV companies

> ..[general info about AMROC, and back-of-the-envelope calculations
>    leading up to..]
> Conclusion:  If Koopman can achieve the performance figures on an
> actual vehicle that he claims to get on test stands, his bird will
> fly.
> 
> Kevin Kenny		UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny

As I recall, the results of the static test firings at Edwards were
reported in Dec. 11(?) issue of AW&ST.  They looked very promising.  I
think the measured ISP was over 300; maybe 320?

I don't think there is any real doubt at this point about the basic
technical feasibility of orbital launch systems based on hybrid rockets.
The real question is whether or not the company can stay in business and
muster the resources to go from prototype development to commercial
production.  That's a big step, and it demands more than technical
feasibility.  Their rockets may outperform solid boosters, and in
principle, could be substantially cheaper to produce.  But only if they
can muster the capital to build efficient production facilities, and
sell enough launchers to keep their production line rolling.  I
certainly hope they make it, but I'm not wildly optimistic.

One other note about AMROC, for anyone who prefers to judge by the
credentials of the people involved: one of their principles is the
former director of JPL, whose name I really ought to remember, but can't
seem to, offhand.  I think I'm getting as senile as the US space
program.  Sigh!

Roger Arnold      		..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: 7 May 87 10:06:45 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Space Elevators

In article <601@csun.UUCP> abcscnuk@csun.UUCP (Naoto Kimura) writes:
>ones, ignoring effects of wind, etc.) and it all worked out.  The part
>that makes me worry is what happens if the cable breaks.  Imagine a VERY
>long cable crashing down toward the earth, when nothing is there to
>support it...

	Imagine most of the cable either going into an elliptical orbit
or vaporizing as it hits the Earth's atmosphere at near orbital 
velocity instead. It seems like the effects are largely dependent
on where the break occurs.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 87 05:14:33 GMT
From: mnetor!spectrix!John_M@seismo.css.gov  (John Macdonald)
Subject: Re: Space Elevators

In article <2609@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes:
>In article <601@csun.UUCP> abcscnuk@csun.UUCP (Naoto Kimura) writes:
>>that makes me worry is what happens if the cable breaks.  Imagine a VERY
>
>	Imagine most of the cable either going into an elliptical orbit
>or vaporizing as it hits the Earth's atmosphere at near orbital 
>velocity instead. It seems like the effects are largely dependent
>on where the break occurs.

     Imagine that tiny fragment of the cable that *only* extends to the
top of the atmosphere being *all* that comes to the ground.  How elastic
are the materials that might someday develope into the right tensile
strength, etc.? (i.e. How much will the cable recoil when a break
occurs?)

     Imagine trying to calculate the orbit of the portion that doesn't
hit the atmosphere and vapourize (at least not initially).  Get your
simulators out, this ones probably not tractable to an analytic
solution.

     It would seem that we don't dare let such an object break.

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 87 00:15:28 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Breaking Space Elevators

Well, the part above the break flies out into space, as there is
actually UPWARD tension on the cable, not compression as might come from
weight.

(I suppose you could make the cable out of the highest possible
compression tower on the earth, connected to the longest possible
tension cable in space, with a zero tension spot in the middle.  By
middle, I mean actually quite close to the Earth, of course)

Anyway, if the break is in LEO, about 100-200 miles up, (and that is the
most likely place, because that is where most of the orbiting debris is)
then the top flies into space but the bottom comes crashing down, and
fast.  Almost straight down, because its velocity is only about 1600
km/hour up there, and (ignoring the air) an object falls from 200 km in
just over three minutes.  It doesn't move downrange much because it's
only going a small bit faster than the Earth's surface.  In air, it
falls more slowly but probably never gets faster than a couple of
thousand km/h.  It doesn't burn up.  (maximum possible speed without
drag, 7200 km/h from 200 km)

If it breaks a lot higher, higher parts will probably burn up, but the
lower few 100 km will not, and will come crashing down with a very loud
bang.  Up high, it's very thick, so it is less likely to break there.

Ideal break is right at the surface of the Earth (or the 0 tension
point).  Then it just goes up into space, and they manouver it down
again with the same rockets they installed it with.  (it has to be built
in space, then 'landed' and tethered to the Earth)

If they ever could build one, I am sure space skydiving would be popular
if they allowed it.  Jump from 50 km and you are going about 1700 miles
per hour when you hit the bulk of the atmosphere at 20 km.  I'm sure
they can make a suit to withstand that.  You get more than a minute of
weightlessness.  Of course, if you go to the 40,000 km point on the
tower, you get all the weightlessness you want, so perhaps nobody cares.

Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 07 04:06:49 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: josh@topaz.rutgers.edu
Subject: h-bombs as flashbulb (flashbomb?) to find Oort-cloud objects

<JSH> Date: 24 Apr 87 00:36:27 GMT
<JSH> From: josh@topaz.rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
<JSH> Subject: Re: oort-cloud mining?

> ... The main problem as I see it would be locating the comets out
> there where they don't give off much infrared radiation because they
> aren't very warm because they aren't very near the Sun. 

<JSH> Use an H-bomb as a flashbulb.

Good idea to work from. I suppose the optimal method to consider first
would be an unclad H-bomb that emits a gamma-ray pulse from the fusion.
Then we watch either the reflected gamma rays (oops, gamma rays either pass
through or react, they don't bounce off comets) or the splattered secondary
particles (oops, they mostly carry the momentum of the gamma rays, thus
travel in generally the original direction instead of in random directions
needed to strike our detector). More brainstorming on this idea? Will it
work? Are enough secondary particles back-scattered to be detectable at a
central point, or do we need to explode the bomb on one side of a target
volume and place our detectors on the other side to catch
slightly-deflected forward-scattered particles??

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 7 May 87 14:14:25 EDT
From: josh@klinzhai.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall)
To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re:  h-bombs as flashbulb (flashbomb?) to find Oort-cloud objects

Seems to me you would want to use some "enhanced radiation" jacket
that would release as much of the energy as possible in the microwave
through UV bands.
--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 87 21:05:02 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Closed minds at Rockwell?

	An article in this morning's (May 8) LA Times reports that
Rockwell has warned 3 senior engineers they risk being fired if they
persist in public criticism of Rockwell's Space Station design.

	One of the three, Oliver Harwood, has proposed an easily
extensible tetrahedral station built from cylindrical modules and
spherical nodes connecting the modules. His concept could be made
operational with as few as 4 shuttle flights (for an initial triangle of
modules) as opposed to the 11 or more required for the current NASA
configuration. Harwood has been involved in the design of Skylab and
other major NASA projects.

	Harwood's inability to get Rockwell to consider his concept,
combined with their criticism of the NASA reference configuration, has
put the group in conflict with Rockwell management.

	My opinion: Rockwell's stifling dissent, Thiokol is punishing
integrity, and NASA steadfastly ignores the increasing number of
warnings about the vulnerability inherent in relying on the shuttle.
Meanwhile, every major launch system in the world is down. We don't have
a space program. We have a $8G/year slush fund for big aerospace
companies. And we probably won't even have THAT after the next shuttle
accident. The Dream has had a stake driven through its heart, and the
best way to revive it is to STOP thinking that NASA is able or willing
to do the job, and start supporting the much longer term, private, small
scale, profit-making alternatives. Maybe it will take 50 years instead
of 20; but when we do go, it will be for reasons that don't change
depending on the mood of the Administration and the competence of NASA
management. And NASA can go back to doing the only thing they've been
consistently good at: research and scientific missions.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #226
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15312; Sun, 17 May 87 03:03:02 PDT
	id AA15312; Sun, 17 May 87 03:03:02 PDT
Date: Sun, 17 May 87 03:03:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705171003.AA15312@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #227

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 227

Today's Topics:
	   SPACE Digest V7 #217 - Mir/Kvant docking problem
	 Re: SPACE Digest V7 #217 - Mir/Kvant docking problem
		    Why haven't they found us yet?
		      Isaac A. and finding earth
		  Re: Why haven't they found us yet?
		    Re: Isaac A. and finding earth
		 Re: A response to Henry's editorial
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 9 May 1987  16:21 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #217 - Mir/Kvant docking problem

 I agree with Watson@Ames.  Virtually every virtue claimed for manned
spaceflight could be accomplished more safely and at less cost with
telepresence, at least at up to lunar distances.  It is a matter of
serious engineering, using conventional technology.

Proposal: a practical space station should be equippped with at least
three movable mechanical arms with dextrous hands.  They should be
able to be moved to nay location inside or outside of the station, if
necessary, by using one another's help.

How versatile should those telepresence hands be?  Proposal: it should
be possible to dissassemble and repair any one of them, by using the
other two.  If this is set as a principal design requirement, the
station could be capable of self repair.  Removing misplaced plastic
bags should be a simple matter.  Putting up sunshades in emergencies
should be a feasible exercise.

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 87 19:28:07 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #217 - Mir/Kvant docking problem

> ...It is a matter of serious engineering, using conventional technology.
> ...
> How versatile should those telepresence hands be?  Proposal: it should
> be possible to dissassemble and repair any one of them, by using the
> other two...

My understanding -- this isn't an area where I'm expert, so I could be
wrong -- is that this level of telepresence technology does not exist
today even as a laboratory experiment, much less as off-the-shelf
hardware.

The US built a (manned) space station capable of (crew-performed)
self-repair with off-the-shelf hardware over 15 years ago.  The Soviets
have one in orbit today.

The last thing the US space program needs right now is yet more promises
of still better space stations that will take still longer to reach
orbit.

  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
  {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:  6 May 1987 1356-PDT
From: Rem%imsss@score.arpa
Subject: Why haven't they found us yet?

In an old book by Isaac Asimov ("Fact and Fancy", 1958...1963), another
answer is proposed: Most likely, the first few advanced civilizations in
each galaxy are in the dense inner portions. Once such civilizations
start leaving their home star looking for more resources and habitat,
they take the easy approach, starhopping in the dense inner parts of the
galaxy, avoiding the outskirts where stars are further apart and thus
where mining and other resource-collection activities are less
cost-effective than in the dense inner portions. Until they nearly
totally exhaust the resources of the inner portions, why should they
bother looking out here? Of course the dust obscures us from them and
them from us, so only by infrared will we detect their presence, and we
are so insignificant they can't see us through all that dust at all.
When they decide to venture further, they might take the long approach,
staking out the dense part of another nearby galaxy, rather than
bothering with the thin pickings of the outskirts of their (our) own
galaxy.

I haven't heard anything in this digest to refute this theory. Now that
I've related it to you-all, any rebuttal? (It sounds pretty reasonable
to me.)  (P.s. the last part, about dust and going to other galaxy was
added by me, not original Asimov writing, to fill out the theory to my
satisfaction.)

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 87 13:03:39 GMT
From: oblio.dec.com!earle@decwrl.dec.com  (GEORGE EARLE VAX/TCC 264-5928)
Subject: Isaac A. and finding earth

<Subject: Why haven't they found us yet?
<Posted: 6 May 87 20:56:00 GMT
< 
<In an old book by Isaac Asimov ("Fact and Fancy", 1958...1963),
<another answer is proposed: Most likely, the first few advanced civilizations
<in each galaxy are in the dense inner portions. Once such civilizations
<the dense inner portions. Until they nearly totally exhaust the resources
<of the inner portions, why should they bother looking out here? Of course
<we detect their presence, and we are so insignificant they can't see us
<through all that dust at all. When they decide to venture further, they
<nearby galaxy, rather than bothering with the thin pickings of the outskirts
<of their (our) own galaxy.
< 
<related it to you-all, any rebuttal? (It sounds pretty reasonable to me.)

			<some stuff deleted for brevity>

I happen to think that even though we know how far stars are from us and
each other (in LY), once we (as a civil.) start really venturing out, a
much greater appreciation of distance will take hold.  The vasteness of
space if you will.

I have read similar types of feeling from the Apollo astronauts and the
Space Shut. astronauts.  It's like 'Yes, that star is 40 light years
away or we are 20 miles above earth'.  Until you REALLY go up there, or
skydive or drive across the country instead of flying, does one get an
appreciation of vast distances.

Some of 'our' beliefs of why no one has found us or why we haven't found
anyone seem sort of naive to me.  We are always, throughout history,
proclaiming that we have reached some sort of scientific plateau (not
everyone but alot); that we have grasped the 'overall' picture of life
and universe.  Then something like the new superconductivity activity
hits us almost out of the blue.  I think no one has found us precisely
for the reason you gave.  The distances are so great--the density of the
so called dark matter probably does things we haven't dreamed of by
effecting our sensor instruments.

It also seems to me that sometimes 'we' think there must be some 'super'
civilization rooming around in space-time warp machines aka sci-fi.  I
have a feeling that if nature produces suns, planets, black holes, etc.
and carbon based life that might eventually lead to intelligent beings,
that they might be very similar to us in biological structure.  I mean
the rest of the matter we find in the universe (planets, gaseous
atmospheres, and the like) get no argument so why should carbon based
life be so hard to predict either?  If intelligence DOES naturally grow
out of the huge complexity and simpleness of 100 billions neurons
hierarchically connected together with magnetic, electrical, and
chemical communication, then life elsewhere could be like us (which is
what I happen to believe creates intelligence.  Why?  Neuroscientists,
AI engineers, conventional computer arch. eng, cognitists are all
getting together in one way or another and trying to create machines
with several types of technology; hugely parallel multi-path connection
computer hardware is being matched with AI software.  The new 'thing' is
not to try to force intelligence into the machine but create a structure
that can teach and reshape its own structure.  Sound familiar?  If one
was to create intelligence in biological form, I think humans are
pratically a perfect design...whatever ain't 'right' it can fix for
itself....).  'They' are probably in the same boat (where are THEY
meaning us).

Of course the 2001, 2010 story has an interesting protectionist answer
to this.

Well enough babble.  Better than discussing the impossible.  Like SDI
research becoming CVS toasters.  Yeah, that's the ticket....
                                  
George Earle

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 87 05:37:42 GMT
From: tikal!slovax!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dan Flak)
Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet?

> In an old book by Isaac Asimov ("Fact and Fancy", 1958...1963),
> another answer is proposed: Most likely, the first few advanced civilizations
> in each galaxy are in the dense inner portions. Once such civilizations ...

I'm not saying that the first few advanced civilizations couldn't have
arisen near the galactic center, but I find no compelling reason why this
should be so. Life is likely to arise near a star anywhere in the galaxy
with roughly equal probability.

> I haven't heard anything in this digest to refute this theory. Now
> that I've related it to you-all, any rebuttal? (It sounds pretty
> reasonable to me.)  (P.s. the last part, about dust and going to other
> galaxy was added by me, not original Asimov writing, to fill out the
> theory to my satisfaction.)

   I am a firm believer in the "big sky" theory. We've only done
interesting things electromagnetically in the last 50 years (first
microwave broadcasts by military radar in WW II, primative Television
broadcasts in the late 30's). Since then, we've become quite active, and
if anyone would point its (his/her?) antenna at us from within 50 light
years away, there would be no doubt that an intelligent civilization
inhabits this star system.

   However, with as many as 400 billion stars to choose from, and
literally an infinate number of frequencies to monitor, where do you
start. An advanced civilization would, logically, turn to radio
astronomy first. It's billions of times cheaper than whatever the next
best alternative is, and it's safer.

   "Go to the Andromeda Galexy. Turn left. Go for 4.3 million light
years. Take the Milky Way offramp.  It's the first major galaxy on the
right. You can't miss it. Go about 14 pulsars to the Pegasus arm.
You're looking for an average sized, middle age star, 4 major planets
plus debris."

   There are many more interesting places to visit in our galaxy than
old sol. Unless a spacefaring civilization is within 50 light years of
us, and has received our transmissions (never mind if they can
understand them), it would be *extemely* unlikely that they'd stumble
upon us accidentally.

   Without any other information (such as radio transmissions), a
spacefaring culture would probably head off towards a nearby, densly
populated (with stars at least) arm. It would probably avoid areas close
to the center due to high radiation, numerous supernova, black holes and
other exotic cosmic creatures. They certainly wouldn't waste thier time
scanning the galactic "hick towns".

   All this assumes that they know something we don't - namely, some
loophole in the laws of physics that allows them to traverse
intersteller distances faster than light. If such a loophole doesn't
exist, then its unlikely that they'd spend the tens of thousands of
years it would take to get here.

   Even at that, I refuse to believe that the galaxy is *so* densely
populated that spacefaring cultures occur every 100 light years or so.

   Perhaps a better question to ask is, "Who are they?".

{psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!flak  :  {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!flak
Dan Flak-R & D Associates,3625 Perkins Lane SW,Tacoma,Wa 98466,206-581-1322

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 87 01:29:51 GMT
From: stro@cs.rochester.edu  (Steve Robiner)
Subject: Re: Isaac A. and finding earth


This may start sounding a bit philosphical, but the whole issue 
is anyway, so...

How do we know they *haven't* found us?  The question is then, why
haven't they told us.  And, being the self-destructive, socially
ignorant society that we are, why should they.  What good would
their technology be to a race which can't even get along with 
itself.  I think if they've found us, they're waiting for us to
grow up before they make contact.

-Steve Robiner

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 87 14:00:42 GMT
From: hao!scd@AMES.ARPA  (Generic SCD Account)
Subject: Re: A response to Henry's editorial

After reading the Rogers commission report I could not help but notice
that most of the problems cited were budget related.  It seems congress
did not fund NASA appropriately.  In the report every complaint brought
before the commission could have been prevented had NASA had the money
it needed.

NASA set such an ambitious launch schedule for itself in order to keep
the shuttle program in the public eye.  This was necessary to show
Congress that somthing was being accomplished.  If Congress saw that
progress was being made it would be more willing to fund NASA.  It is
easy to see that a catch-22 situation would soon develop.

There were a large number of hardware problems brought before the
commission that could have been avoided had NASA had the necessary
funding.  These problems ranged from the tires and brakes to the
infamous SRB joint and seal.  The commissions recomendations are going
to cost NASA a lot of money to implement.  Hopefully Congress will be
willing to provide the necessary funds.

	Dave Rowland NCAR

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #227
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16983; Mon, 18 May 87 03:03:11 PDT
	id AA16983; Mon, 18 May 87 03:03:11 PDT
Date: Mon, 18 May 87 03:03:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705181003.AA16983@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #228

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 228

Today's Topics:
		  Re: The best way to terraform Mars
		      MIR news from Radio Moscow
		    space news from March 2 AW&ST
		    space news from March 9 AW&ST
	Prospecting in Space: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 May 87 17:42:14 GMT
From: ihnp4!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Subject: Re: The best way to terraform Mars

In article <8705081450.AA14028@angband.s1.gov> ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
>... Ian H. Merritt commented on various
>techniques to terraform Mars, i.e. dumping ice on the planet from
>Saturn, etc.  I suspect these sort of ideas are inoperative because of
>the enormous energy required.

Has anyone bothered to calculate the energy required?  Seems like once
you got your chunk of ice moving in the right direction you could just
sit back and let it fall to Mars.  There's no hurry, so you could use
whatever route uses least fuel.

If you use the right kind of motor, you could use the ice as reaction
mass.

>[Instead,] Put a self contained colony of 500 people on the planet
>and tell them in the vernacular "to be fruitful and multiply"...
>If your
>colony is growing exponentially, it won't take long before liquid water
>could exist on the Martian surface.  At that point, terraforming could
>take place in a controlled manner using geneticly modified bacteria.

The assumption of exponential growth is unwarranted.  Exponential
growth only occurs while there are sufficient resources to support a
larger population.  So if the resources available to a Mars colony can
support at most 1500 persons, say, then the population will be at most
1500 thirsty starving persons.  The population growth is restricted to
the rate at which the existing population can terraform Mars "by hand."
The point of dropping ice asteroids onto the surface is to make this
task easier.

It's all very well to say "liquid water can exist on the surface," but
where is this water going to come from?  Going to ship it from Earth to
Mars in rockets?  Think this would use less power than dropping it from
space?

And I think you're mistaken also in supposing that any gases the
colonists choose to vent to the surface will be O.K.  The idea is that
people will live there someday.  It is therefore in our best interest
not to dump out there anything that will stay poisonous for a long time,
since that makes the terraforming task harder, not easier.  Considering
the kinds of things some companies now dump into inhabited areas, I
shudder to contemplate the result of telling them they can can dump
whatever they want to on Mars.

Andre Guirard

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 87 19:06:43 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: MIR news from Radio Moscow



Sunday:  Cosmosnauts R&L continue to unload Progress supply ship.  Four part
complex is now 50 tonnes.

Wednesday:  Space walk R&L were to have made in early May has been cancelled
due to heavy workload.  Still bringing KVANT module up to working order.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 87 23:40:58 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 2 AW&ST

[The first part of the "doing it right" editorial will probably be in the
next summary.  Light at the end of the tunnel here...		  -- HS]

Cover picture is a color image of the Soviet navy base at Severomorsk, taken
by Spot 1.  Buildings, piers, roads, ships fairly clearly visible.  The large
ship in the center is either the carrier Kiev or the battlecruiser Kirov.
Other Spot photos of Soviet military facilities inside.

The Feb 11th Titan 3B launch might have been a Satellite Data System relay
satellite instead of an imaging spysat.  The SDS relays images from the
KH11 real-time spysats to ground stations.

China building new checkout/servicing facility at Xichang launch site, also
a new hotel to accommodate international business.  Surveying for a second
launch pad is underway too.

Soviet Cosmos 1766 radarsat was used last year to locate an Antarctic station
that was adrift on an ice floe, and to plot a path for ships to evacuate the
station's crew.

Fletcher expresses support for colonization of Mars.

List of *ten* major Soviet Earth-orbit scientific payloads scheduled for the
next three years, several with French or ESA participation.

NASA and Commerce are squabbling over procedures for buying expendables for
NOAA's next batch of Clarke-orbit metsats.  Traditionally such orders have
gone through NASA, but Commerce favors dealing direct with commercial launch
firms.

Space station officials are worried that the station may be delayed several
months because the White House is not doing anything about the latest revised
cost estimates.  Congress is getting restive because NASA has been ordered
not to discuss the matter until the White House acts.  Some speculation that
some White House staffers are deliberately preventing a quick resolution of
the issues, effectively putting the program on hold.

Morton Thiokol will forfeit $10M of its profits from the SRB contracts, as
a way to pay the $10M contract penalty for 51L without fighting liability
issues through the courts.  There will also be no profit on the 51L-recovery
work.  [Color me skeptical about this.  -- HS]

[Micro-editorial:  This is an unbelievably light slap on the wrist after
M-T's inexcusable negligence.  $10M isn't even a big fraction of the profits!
To some extent M-T has NASA over a barrel right now, since they are the sole
qualified SRB supplier.  What NASA ought to be doing is paying M-T a normal
profit margin on current work, while pushing hard to get second *and* third
sources for SRBs qualified as soon as possible, with a firm policy that M-T
will be barred from all government rocketry contracts permanently thereafter.
The message should be "once you clean up your mess you're out" rather than
"business (and profits) as usual after the funerals".		-- HS]

GOES-H Clarke-orbit metsat launched by Delta from the Cape Feb 26th, to end
up on station in late April.  This will finally bring metsat coverage of the
US back to normal.

Cutaway drawing of the revised Ariane third-stage igniter.

Rocketdyne proposes a number of SSME changes to increase durability and
reduce maintenance.  Possibly practical before the next flight.  None of
the issues are flight-critical, although improvements to the hot-gas
temperature sensor that failed on 51F are definitely wanted.

Pictures of a French deployable-truss structure to be tested aboard Mir
next year.

Letter slams Fletcher for his "maybe forever" comment about the suspension
of the civilian-in-space program, especially since it directly contradicts
official White House policy.
-- 
"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 May 87 00:03:11 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 9 AW&ST

[First "doing it right" editorial postponed again, sorry.  -- HS]

This is AW&ST's forecast/overview issue, so there's a lot of background
and summary stuff that duplicates previous more specific coverage.

Shuttle manifest after the first ten missions or so is a bit unclear because
it's not clear how many Navstars will get shifted to Deltas.  The first ten
are fairly solid, which should take the program to mid-1990:

	26	TDRS
	27	DoD to Clarke orbit:  might be an NSA Magnum snoopsat, a
		USAF missile-warning satellite, or a pair of USAF DSCS-3
		military comsats
	28	CIA/USAF imaging spysat
	29	TDRS
	30	Hubble telescope
	31	ASTRO-1 UV astronomy mission
	32	DoD to Clarke orbit
	33	Magellan
	34	SDI Spacelab
	35	two Navstars and a materials-science pallet
	36	DoD to Clarke orbit

[I have heard elsewhere that NASA is talking to the USAF about swapping 27
with 30, to get the Hubble telescope up (and out of $7M/month storage) as
soon as possible. -- HS]

AW&ST's assessment of the space station is:  high probability of delay and
reduced capability due to growing expense, but little chance of outright
cancellation.

Among space science's other problems, simply maintaining existing projects
on the ground until they are ready to fly is estimated to cost $1G over the
next five years, with the Hubble telescope's storage costs particularly
obvious.  This will put a big dent in the relatively static space-science
budget.

Rapidly-growing in-house commercial use of comsats could turn transponder
glut into a shortage within five years.

Europeans increasingly unhappy about the space station situation, predictably.
"We thought we were going to be able to work with the US, but we feel once
again that the US is a fair weather partner, and when things get tough, the
non-US elements are the first to be affected."  ESA is also trying to sort
out its long-term priorities, especially in view of the growing cost of the
various programs.

Chinese offer to lease space on their recoverable reconnaissance/resources
satellites to international users who need recovery of unmanned payloads.

NASA's Advisory Council task force on launch systems urges examination of
how future shuttle groundings would affect the space station.  Also comments
on impact on other users:  "The task force is immensely sobered by the
enormous budgetary costs, opportunity costs and program disruption of the
current unplanned standdown... This cost and disruption overshadows the
heretofore custom [sic] of evaluating launch services on a 'cost to orbit
if everything works' basis..."  Task force recommends four "DoD quality"
orbiters [presumably this means that Columbia, with its more limited payload
capacity, does not count -- HS] and plans for a 12/year launch frequency,
but logistics capability for 16/year surge capacity and advance planning for
unexpected downtime followed by a surge to get back on schedule.

Advisory Council task force on space goals recommends manned Mars mission
as long-term objective.

Tests of Titan SRB segments indicate that aging probably was not a factor
in the Titan failure last year.  The insulation/case bond does not seem to
deteriorate significantly with time.

Martin Marietta says it has ten deposits for comsat launches on Titan 3:
one each from Federal Express, Intelsat, Telesat Canada, Eutelsat, and
Ford Aerospace, three from Hughes, two unidentified.  MM is also hoping
for NASA orders soon for Mars Observer and TDRS-5 launches.

NASA crew successfully copes with electrical problems endangering GOES-H
satellite.  Apparently the thermostats on heaters controlling the temperature
of two crucial subassemblies in the apogee motor were cross-wired, causing
overheating problems.  Manual control kept temperatures down, and the motor
firing was moved up in the schedule as a precaution.

GAO says DoD is spending $17G on space, against NASA's $8G.

House Science, Space, and Technology Committee plans to recommend that NASA
be authorized to buy three expendable launchers in FY88, also to start
development on the High Resolution Solar Observatory.
-- 
"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 87 16:50:03 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Prospecting in Space: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper

Below is the third of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5
Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit
to Washington by two of our members.  Other organizations are encouraged to
embark upon similar programs of Congressional education.  Individuals are
encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national
equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support
of these goals (if, of course, that is the case).  All we ask is that the
copyright notice remain with the paper.

The other four papers will be posted separately.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

===========================cut here to print=========================

			   PROSPECTING IN SPACE
		     A North Jersey L5 Position	Paper
		     Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5


			    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       Accurate	information on the distribution	and characteristics
       of space	resources is essential to the development of such
       resources for human benefit. This information can be
       obtained	in a timely and	cost-effective way via the series
       of robotic probes and scientific	studies	listed here in
       priority	order:

	1.  The	telescopic search for Near-Earth crossing
	    asteroids.

	2.  Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (CRAF).

	3.  Lunar Geoscience Orbiter (LGO).

	4.  Near-Earth Asteroid	Rendezvous (NEAR).

	5.  Mainbelt Asteroid Multiple Orbiter (MAMO).

				PRINCIPLES

       Robotic craft have played and will continue to play an
       important role in space exploration and development.  In
       this time of budgetary constraints, not all desirable
       missions	can or should be flown.	 The following principles
       can provide a basis for choosing	among many competing
       proposals:

	1.  Continue important missions	that are currently in
	    development	such as	Galileo, the Venus Radar Mapper,
	    and	the Mars Observer.

	2.  Choose additional missions from the	carefully thought-
	    out	program	suggested by the SSEC (Solar System
	    Exploration	Committee of the NASA Advisory Council).1

       __________

	1. Solar System	Exploration Committee of the NASA Advisory
	   Council, Planetary Exploration Through the Year 2000: A
	   Core	Program, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1983.

       Prospecting in Space				     Page 2



	3.  Select missions that have both scientific value and
	    increase our knowledge of space resources most
	    accessible with current technology.	 Nearby	mission
	    targets logically include Earth's moon, Luna, the
	    Martian moons Phobos and Deimos, and the near-Earth
	    crossing asteroids.	 The SSEC recognizes the importance
	    of these goals when	it states: ". .	. it is	timely to
	    assess the potential of mineral and	volatile resources
	    in that region of space, specifically on the Moon and
	    the	Earth-approaching asteroids."2

	4.  Select additional missions that may	help us	to explain
	    asteroid and comet formation, leading to a better
	    understanding of where to find resources in	the solar
	    system.

	5.  Take full advantage	of already planned European,
	    Soviet, or Japanese	missions.  For example,	since the
	    Soviets are	well along in mounting a Phobos/Deimos
	    mission, we	should build on	their achievments rather
	    than duplicating their efforts.

		ROBOTIC	EXPLORATION OF SPACE IN	THE 1990s

       Based on	the preceding principles, we propose the following
       program of robotic probes for the 1990s:

	1.  CRAF (Comet	Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby)  --	the number
	    three mission in the SSEC Core Program, and	highest	on
	    NASA's request list.  Information on comets	and
	    asteroids gained from this mission will vastly improve
	    our	understanding of solar system resource
	    distribution, as well as provide a wealth of scientific
	    information.

	2.  LGO	(Lunar Geoscience Orbiter)  --	selected from the
	    SSEC list of subsequent core missions to the
	    "Terrestrial Planets." The committee states:  "The
	    Lunar Geoscience Orbiter will provide a global map of
	    surface composition	and other properties, and decide
	    the	question of the	presence of condensed water and
	    other volatiles in polar cold traps."3

       __________

	2. Ibid., p. 66.

	3. Ibid., p. 20.

       Prospecting in Space				     Page 3



	3.  NEAR  (Near-Earth Asteroid Rendezvous)  --	a "small
	    bodies" mission selected by	the SSEC as part of their
	    list of subsequent core missions.  The SSEC	has this to
	    say	on the Earth approaching asteroids:  "They are also
	    an obvious resource	for materials in space,	and a great
	    deal of attention has been directed	to their potential
	    role in large-scale	in-orbit construction. For these
	    reasons, interest in them far exceeds the purely
	    scientific desire to explore a new population of solar
	    system objects."4

	4.  MAMO - the Mainbelt	Asteroid Multiple Orbiter/Flyby	 -
	    -  has last	priority since the Main	Belt asteroids are
	    less accessible than the Near-Earth	approaching
	    asteroids or the Moon.  However, this mission, like
	    CRAF, provides valuable scientific information, helps
	    us to build	a complete picture of solar system resource
	    distribution, and complements the NEAR mission.  The
	    SSEC proposed this mission as one of four Subsequent
	    Core Missions to the "small	bodies."5

       The SSEC	confirms these priorities, stating that	"The Near-
       Earth Asteroid Rendezvous (NEAR)	mission, already included
       in the Core Program, should be undertaken as soon as
       possible	after the Lunar	Geoscience Orbiter (LGO) to begin
       the close-up scientific study and resource assessment of	an
       asteroid."6

       We endorse increased NASA funding of the	telescopic search
       for near-Earth approaching asteroids to prepare the way for
       both the	NEAR mission and the eventual mining of	these
       asteroids. We agree with	the NCOS when they call	for
       "Expanded Earth-based and space-based searches for readily

       __________

	4. Ibid., p. 118.

	5. Ibid., pp. 106-125.

	6. Solar System	Exploration Committee of the NASA Advisory
	   Council, Planetary Exploration Through the Year 2000: An
	   Augmented Program, U.S. Gov.	Printing Office, 1985, p.
	   181.

	7. Ibid., p. 65.

       Prospecting in Space				     Page 4



       accessible asteroids . .	."7

				CONCLUSION

       The United States should	expeditiously carry out	the CRAF,
       LGO, NEAR, and MAMO missions, as	well as	those currently
       underway, while vigorously searching for	near-Earth crossing
       asteroids using Earth-based telescopes.

       Failure to initiate and carry out these missions	could
       result in a situation in	which:

	1.  The	United States receives all information on space
	    resources second-hand from foreign governments whose
	    interests are sometimes different from those of the
	    USA, and

	2.  The	use of space resources is delayed many years, if
	    not	decades, because of insufficient information with
	    which to lay firm plans for	their development.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #228
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18864; Tue, 19 May 87 03:03:07 PDT
	id AA18864; Tue, 19 May 87 03:03:07 PDT
Date: Tue, 19 May 87 03:03:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705191003.AA18864@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #229

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 229

Today's Topics:
		  Soviet's launch new large booster
	  Access to Space: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
    Commercial Space Incentives: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 May 87 00:12:15 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet's launch new large booster

     The USSR launched today (May 16/15) the first prototype of their new
very large booster from their Baikonur launch complex in Kazakhstan.  Called 
Energy this massive 2000 Tonne booster is said to put 100 Tonne payloads into 
low earth orbit and is the largest current launcher in the World.  The stated 
future purpose is to launch very large scientific and space station modules 
plus being part of their space shuttle system.   The Russian reports say that 
the vehicle launched consisted of two stages, both of which worked perfectly, 
but that the dummy payload, which contained its own orbital motor suffered 
from "insufficent response" on some of its systems.  Thus it did not enter
orbit and was fell in the Pacific.
     There were many amazing things about this launch.  To begin with on 
May 13th Gorbachev was at the Baikonur Cosmodrome where he gave a speach
calling on the Soviet scientests and engineers to end their inferiority
complex about the country's scientific prowness. Then came the 
annoucement that the launch was going to take place was made on May 14th.
The Soviets have never stated in advance that they were flying a new system
before.  From this I bet a friend that the launch would be shown on TV, and 
it was! The booster appears to have 4 strap-on motors (the first stage)
around the central core.  This two stage version reminds me of the first
Proton launch (the largest booster to date), which was also two stages with
a large satellite which contained its own rocket (that only stayed in orbit
for 3 months).  Finally there is the fact that they described in reasonable
detail the failure of the satellite, yet seemed to be positively estatic
about the launch itself.
     Of course this vehicle brings a new age to the Soviet space program.
Gorbachev himself said that it would be used to lauch the large sections
of space cities, though it will take a few years for it to reach full
operational status.  They have also started talking recently about
lunar bases and Mars missions (though not for some time).
     More than that though, this really shows that Gorbachev has put himself
behind the their program (that was uncertain up to now).  It cost him
political capital and risk to order the pre launch announcement, personally
watch the launch, and order the release of the TV films even though it was not
a perfect success.  Consider before his Glasnost campaign it took 20 years
between the time the Proton first flew and days when the first pictures of
that vehicle were given to the west.  With that speech I think he is saying
the Soviet Union is going for an even more agressive space program to show
to the world their technological prowness, and Gorbachev personally is
behind it.
     OK people, space race part 2 is on.  Just like the first one our
lauchers are blowing up while theirs are flying.  Are we going to stand
still or are we going to get moving again?

                                        Glenn Chapman
                                        MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 87 23:47:28 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Access to Space: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper

Below is the first of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5
Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit
to Washington by two of our members.  Other organizations are encouraged to
embark upon similar programs of Congressional education.  Individuals are
encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national
equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support
of these goals (if, of course, that is the case).  All we ask is that the
copyright notice remain with the paper.

The next four papers will be posted separately.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

===========================cut here to print=========================

			     ACCESS TO SPACE
		     A North Jersey L5 Position	paper
		     Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5


			    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       The foundation of space development is assured access to
       space at	a low cost. For	the near and medium term, the U.S.
       government must take the	lead in	creating and maintaining
       access to space,	while working to lower the cost	of access
       to space. In Fiscal '88 we urge the following actions in
       support of access to space:

	1.  Fund the Heavy-Lift	Vehicle	at $250	million	as
	    requested by DOD.

	2.  Fully fund the National Aerospace Plane (NASP) effort
	    at $335 million.

	3.  Fund preliminary Shuttle II	design work in the NASA
	    budget.

       Following Fiscal	'88 we further urge that the U.S.:

	1.  Continue Shuttle II	and NASP design	work.

	2.  In 1991 fund a fifth Shuttle orbiter.

	3.  Starting in	Fiscal '90 allocate enough additional funds
	    to NASA for	one Titan-class	expendable launch per year.

			 GETTING THERE FROM HERE

       The central reality that	all proponents of space	development
       must face is that it costs a LOT	to get into orbit.
       Fortunately, this need not always be so.	 The road to cost-
       effective ground	to low earth orbit (LEO) transport has long
       been clear: reusable, single stage, airline style vehicles
       that could bring	costs under $100 a pound and usher in an
       age of space industrialization.

       The Shuttle was intended	to provide this	type of	low cost,
       regular access to space.	 Unfortunately,	because	of a
       persistent failure to fund fully	Shuttle	development, and
       overly complex requirements, the	Shuttle	has failed in
       significant ways	to meet	its original goals.  Most of those
       goals, however, are still worthy	ones, and it probably was
       naive to	expect them all	to be met in a single generation of
       vehicle development.  That the goals are	still worthwhile is
       best shown by the number	of shuttle development projects

       Access to Space					     Page 2

       worldwide, including the	Soviet "Shuttle-ski," the German
       "Sanger," the ESA/French	"Hermes," and the British "Hotol,"
       as well as embryonic Japanese efforts.

       Shuttle-type vehicles cannot provide all	our transport
       capacity.  A need exists	to lift	larger payloads	at lower
       cost-per-pound than the current Shuttle for space
       construction projects, for large	interplanetary probes, and
       for SDI.	We agree with the following statement by the
       National	Commission on Space (NCOS):  "In the next-
       generation systems we must separate the functions of one-way
       cargo transport from the	round-trip transport of	humans and
       high value cargo	to and from orbit."1 We	support	the
       construction of the heavy-lift vehicle as requested by the
       DOD in its Fiscal '87 special request.  This vehicle,
       although	being requested	for the	SDI, could be used to
       support a variety of civilian efforts.  It promises to
       transport goods to LEO at one-half the cost of the Shuttle.
       Since most versions of the proposed vehicle use improved
       Shuttle solid rocket boosters (SRBs), engines, and external
       tanks, the two programs could be	highly complementary, with
       fixed costs spread over a larger	base.

       Given the reality that the current Shuttle fleet	cannot be
       operated	much beyond the	year 2000,2 we must begin now to
       focus on	a successor vehicle.  The NCOS report states, "The
       Commission recognizes two competing technologies, each of
       which promises to reduce	drastically the	cost of	achieving
       orbit: advanced rocket and aerospace plane technologies."3
       We endorse NASA/DOD support of the National Aerospace Plane
       [NASP] development.  This coincides with	the NCOS position:
       "We strongly recommend that:  The technology advances
       required	for aerospace plane development	and flight test
       receive the highest national priority."4

       A spirit	of realism compels us to recognize that	although
       the NASP	program	may prove over the long	run to be the
       foundation of entire new	industries, as well as provide easy


       __________

	1. National Commission on Space, Pioneering the	Space
	   Frontier, 1986, p. 109.

	2. Ibid., p. 110.

	3. Ibid., p. 112.

	4. Ibid., p. 115.

       Access to Space					     Page 3



       access to space,	it most	probably will not produce a cost-
       effective vehicle in the	next 15	years.	The NCOS states
       that:  "In parallel with	this effort [NASP] we propose an
       aggressive technology development program for rocket powered
       vehicles, including advances in launch vehicles . . .  These
       advances	could make possible next-generation, single-stage-
       to-orbit	launch vehicles	. . . comparable to the	aerospace
       plane."5	We endorse the NCOS recommendation that	the U.S.
       pursue the development of an advanced rocketplane, sometimes
       referred	to as Shuttle II.  These efforts are more certain
       to result in a vehicle to replace the Shuttle in	the year
       2000 than the NASP program.6 Although superior to the
       current Shuttle in terms	of cost	to orbit, re-usability,
       maintainability,	and turn-around	time, Shuttle II should	not
       be over-sold as a "miracle machine." We also must keep in
       mind that Shuttle II should be a	smaller	(and hence more
       economical) vehicle than	the current Shuttle and	could only
       support the Space Station if used with the larger Shuttle-
       derived vehicle requested by the	DOD in Fiscal '87.

       We are deeply concerned that future set-backs or	delays in
       development programs will leave the U.S.	without	a space
       program.	We concur with the NCOS	when they say, ". . . it is
       imperative that the United States maintain a continuous
       capability to put both humans and cargo into orbit; never
       again should the	country	experience the hiatus we endured
       from 1975 to 1981, when we were unable to launch	astronauts
       into space."7 We	propose	that at	least one additional
       Shuttle orbiter be procured following the Challenger
       replacement.  This will assure our continued access to space
       while the Shuttle II/NASP efforts are brought to	fruition.
       Finally,	we recommend that the Congress allocate	to NASA
       enough funds for	one (1)	Titan-class expendable launch per
       year for	ten years to supplement	the Shuttles and to keep
       our space science program moving	forward. In no way should
       this stop-gap measure be	regarded as a substitute for any of
       the above actions.

       __________

	5. Ibid., p. 115.

	6. Craig Covault, "New Launcher	Concept	Bridges	Shuttle-
	   Aerospace Plane Gap," Aviation Week and Space
	   Technology, December	1, 1986, pp. 30-31.

	7. Pioneering the Space	Frontier, p. 109.

       Access to Space					     Page 4



       Given the reality that any American company in the
       expendable launcher business must compete with foreign
       subsidized national enterprises,	there appears to be little
       prospect	that private industry will move	rapidly	into the
       expendable launch business without government subsidies.
       These subsidies are being provided in part by DOD's Medium
       Lift Vehicle program.  The U.S. government must continue	to
       take the	lead in	providing access to space for the near and
       medium term.

				CONCLUSION

       "Should the United States choose	not to undertake
       achievement of these economies in launch	and recovery
       capability, then	the Nation must	face the probability that
       other nations will rapidly overtake our position	as the
       world's leading spacefaring nation."8

       __________

	8. Ibid., p. 109.

------------------------------

Date: 8 May 87 23:50:48 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Commercial Space Incentives: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper

Below is the second of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5
Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit
to Washington by two of our members.  Other organizations are encouraged to
embark upon similar programs of Congressional education.  Individuals are
encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national
equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support
of these goals (if, of course, that is the case).  All we ask is that the
copyright notice remain with the paper.

The other four papers will be posted separately.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

===========================cut here to print=========================

		       COMMERCIAL SPACE	INCENTIVES
		     A North Jersey L5 Position	Paper
		     Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5


			    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

	 1.  The Commercial Space Incentive Act	should be passed to
	     provided guaranteed markets for private launch
	     vehicles at a fixed price.

	 2.  A significant percentage of space research	funds (at
	     least ten percent), shall be allocated to small
	     research organizations, to	promote	innovation and
	     creativity	in the space industry.

		    THE	COMMERCIAL SPACE INCENTIVE ACT

       We do not have routine access to	space because we have been
       unable to understand the	true role of the government in
       space industrialization.	 It has	always been the
       responsibility of the government	to provide the
       transportation system to	the new	frontier.  Though private
       firms have built	the railroads and the airlines,	the United
       States government provided the incentives, through the
       Pacific Railroad	Act of 1862 and	the Kelly Bill of 1925.
       The entire airline industry was initiated by the	Kelly bill
       through authorized payment of mail revenues to air mail
       carriers.

       The risk	is too high for	any one	company	to assume.  Our
       lack of direction has allowed other nations to catch up
       while we	vacillate indecisively between total government
       monopoly	and a complete hands-off policy	on space
       transportation.	Without	new actions, we	risk losing our
       competitiveness in an industry that has provided	much of	our
       technological superiority in the	past.  Current Japanese	and
       European	Space Agency plans lead	one to predict a domination
       of space	industry by these countries within twenty years,
       because of the long lead-times for development of new
       systems.

       To maintain our competitiveness,	we must	encourage fledgling
       space transportation companies.	The United States
       government should offer to purchase, each fiscal	year, at
       least one million pounds	of payload placed in space by
       private companies.  Any company that can	successfully launch
       at least	ten thousand pounds into earth orbit should be
       reimbursed at a fixed rate set between five hundred and one
       thousand	dollars	per pound.  The	maximum	launch cost to the
       government is one billion dollars annually, and must be paid

       Commercial Space	Incentives			     Page 2



       out only	if private companies cannot find a commercial
       customer. This plan is described	in considerable	detail in
       the Spring 1986 Report for the Citizens Advisory	Council	on
       Space,1 which includes suggested	text for the enabling
       legislation.

       We suggest that NASA make plans to use the capability
       provided	by the Commercial Space	Incentive Act to launch
       bulk payloads.  Such payloads would consist mainly of food,
       water, and other	supplies for the Space Station,	or rocket
       fuel for	use by Orbital Transfer	Vehicles. An implication of
       this scheme is that the a stockpile facility should be
       constructed near	the Space Station where	these payloads are
       collected until they could be used. This	stockpile would
       support future space projects such as the establishment of a
       lunar mining camp as well as the	Space Station.

       The Commercial Space Incentive Act permits the government to
       phase space transportation over to private launch services
       at minimum cost,	and with minimal impact	on existing
       government space	programs.  The government would	be
       purchasing only success and performance.

		SPACE RESEARCH FUNDS FOR SMALL ENTERPRISES

       The Commercial Space Incentive Act will help restore our
       competitiveness.	 However, we must do more to take advantage
       of one of the United States' greatest assets:  its reservoir
       of human	aerospace engineering talent, languishing in large
       bureaucratic aerospace companies, or siphoned off for
       military	projects with little commercial	potential.

       We urge that 10%	of the long range space	R&D budget be
       reserved	for small and medium size firms.  Because the
       contract	size is	smaller, this allows pursuit of	a greater
       array of	technologies for the same cost.	 Assuming a two
       hundred million dollar long range space R&D budget, a
       significant but necessary increase, at least ten	percent	of
       this money or twenty million dollars should be allocated	to
       small companies through the Small Business Innovation
       Research	or similar grant programs.  Priority should be
       given to	companies or research institutions with	proven
       history of low-cost innovative research,	such as	the Space



       __________
	1. Citizens Advisory Council on	Space, America:	A
	   Spacefaring Nation Again, Spring 1986, pp. 49-56.

       Commercial Space	Incentives			     Page 3



       Studies Institute.
			       CONCLUSIONS

       These programs promise to satisfy the near-term needs in
       this country for	routine	launch services, while laying the
       groundwork for restoring	U.S. technological superiority in
       space industry.	They provide a way of using proven
       techniques of industry development in this country, while
       taking into account the practical concerns of controlling
       the budget deficit.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #229
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22237; Wed, 20 May 87 03:03:07 PDT
	id AA22237; Wed, 20 May 87 03:03:07 PDT
Date: Wed, 20 May 87 03:03:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705201003.AA22237@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #230

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 20 May 87 03:03:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #230

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 230

Today's Topics:
	The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work
       Goals for the Nineties: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 May 87 09:28:30 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work

Paul Dietz in Vol. 7, No. 225 responded to my idea that America's next
major space goal should be the establishment of a self sufficient
500 man "seed colony" on the planet Mars.  Paul began with some remarks
about the NASP:

>I have become more skeptical about the NASP.  There was an elementary
>critique of the concept in Technology Review.  Basically, NASP will be
>very complex.  A scramjet powered launcher will have to breathe air up
>to Mach 17+ in order to be economical, apparently because scramjets are
>heavy.  For thrust to exceed drag at Mach 17 requires heroic measures,
>such as circulating liquid sodium through the skin of the plane and
>dumping that heat into the fuel flow.....
>   ......It's hard to believe the technology will get launch costs
>down below a couple of hundred dollars per pound.

I share Paul's scepticism.  The heady days of my youth where I thought
anything shown in an artist conception was possible are long gone.
However Paul and Technology Review are both premature in writing off the
NASP.  My friends at NASA Ames CFD branch tell me the NASP design isn't
even frozen yet.  I've recently accepted a job to do basic research on
SCRAM jets and know that subject is still wide open.  The only thing
certain about the NASP is a SCRAM jet **can** work.  They've got a small
working model at NASA Langely that flew in a wind tunnel.  Paul's remark
about Mach 17+ and heating, represents a widely perceived problem.
However there's an easy fix.  You use the SCRAM jet up to Mach 10 and
then power through the atmosphere to Mach 20 with rockets.  Actually the
big threat against the NASP is not technical but rather political.  The
bean counters could wreck the NASP in the same way they wrecked the
shuttle and are wrecking the space station.  Also the CFD fanatics have
got their claws on the NASP and are feeding people alot of baloney that
the NASP can be designed and tested entirely through computers (what a
laugh).  Paul then resurrected the Space Colony debate concerning
radiation shielding:

>The ratio of shielded volume to shielding mass can be made arbitrarily
>high by increasing the radius of the habitat.  It is not at all clear
>that the entire habitat must be rotating; it might well be possible to
>have compact rotating sleeping quarters, assuming that coriolis forces
>do not bother a sleeping person.  In a nonrotating habitat the entire
>volume is available for habitation.

Paul is being rhetorical here.  If I or anyone else were to make the
above posting, Paul would cut it to pieces.  The business about about
the ratio of shielding to volume is correct.  However you would probably
find your colony to be about the same size as a large asteroid in order
for the math to work (similar to the feasibility proofs for a sky hook).
The NASA SPs published on Space Colonies showed the need for
***megatons*** of shielding for a space colony.  Based on my energy
calculations, it is much cheaper to just haul the people back-and-forth
from some planet or asteroid into space than it is to haul the shielding
material into space.  Paul is well aware that humans can't tolerate
zero-G for too long and that coriolis forces can adversly effect people
when they are awake and sleeping.

>Gary was assuming, for his Mars colony scenario, that inertial fusion
>rockets are available.  These rockets could easily maneuver multimillio
>ton near earth asteroids into high earth orbit in a matter of months.
>Therefore, using Gary's assumption about fusion rockets, obtaining
>shielding mass is no problem at all.

I also stated the IFR propulsion systems are a speculative technology
because of the problem of compact high energy lasers.  Industrialization
of the entire solar system won't be possible until something like an IFR
is available.  However I'd like to see a space colony established within
the next century.  This can be done with a 500 man Mars colony. We would
get to Mars **not** with an IFR (even thought this is the best way) but
through a heliocentric space station that is in a resonant orbit between
Earth and Mars.  This heliocentric station could be assembled in orbit
using chemical or ion propelled OTVs.  Paul touched on the SPS issue:

>Satellite solar power has the lowest thermal pollution of any energy
>source. (Aside: I think fossil fuels will continue to be the dominant
>energy source for the rest of our lives, barring some breakthrough.)

Paul is right (unfortunately) about fossil fuels.  The lowest thermal
polluting energy source is photovoltaic collectors on the roof of your
house (which is the way the energy crisis will eventually be solved, see
latest issue of Scientific American).  Paul's SPS will pollute like
crazy through its microwave connection.

>I think my negative reaction (and other readers of this digest,
>apparently) to Gary's proposal is sufficient evidence that is will not
>have the support needed for massive government funding; if space
>fanatics are not impressed, what will your average taxpayer think?  Not
>much.

I and alot of other people think the SPS is a pretty dumb idea.  Is this
evidence that the idea is unworkable?  If only good ideas with solid
technical backing got funded then Reagan's SDI would never have left the
Oval Office.  I think the 500 Mars idea is a good one.  Naturally a
multibillion dollar project will be controversial, just as the Moon
project was controversial.  All this really means is the proponents for
a Mars colony have to work harder and have some sharp politicians on
their side.  Quite frankly, I see no alternative to Mars.  Everything
else assumes economic viability or open-ended politically based funding.
Only the 500 man Mars colony can establish a permanent space colony with
a finite price tag and without recourse to economic viability.
                                Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 9 May 87 04:09:50 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Goals for the Nineties: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper

Below is the third of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5
Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit
to Washington by two of our members.  Other organizations are encouraged to
embark upon similar programs of Congressional education.  Individuals are
encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national
equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support
of these goals (if, of course, that is the case).  All we ask is that the
copyright notice remain with the paper.

The other four papers will be posted separately.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

===========================cut here to print=========================

			    GOALS FOR THE `90s
		     A North Jersey L5 Position	paper
		     Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5


			    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       The development of space	resources requires an
       infrastructure -- refueling depots, repair shops,
       laboratories, power stations, bunkhouses, machine shops,
       warehouses, and trucks. The proposed Space Station and
       Orbital Transfer	Vehicle	are basic steps	toward the
       infrastructure needed to	develop	space resources	for human
       benefit.	 To work toward	this goal in Fiscal '88	we urge	the
       following actions:

	1.  Fund the Space Station at $715 million as requested.

	2.  Initiate funding for the Re-usable Aerobraked Orbital
	    Transfer Vehicle.

	3.  Begin definition work for super-comsats.

				PRINCIPLES

	1.  Goals should be consistent with the	overall	direction
	    of developing space	resources for human benefit while
	    increasing scientific knowledge.

	2.  We should not expect that projects at this stage of	the
	    development	of the space frontier will "pay	for
	    themselves"	in the next ten	years.	The strong
	    probability	that space projects will not be	profitable
	    in the short term suggests the need	for the	government
	    to lead the	way by developing and demonstrating the
	    technology needed to exploit space resources.

	3.  Focus on the resources most	easily returned	to the
	    Earth:  information, energy, and high-value	light-
	    weight products.  The mining of minerals in	space for
	    use	on the Earth does not appear to	be practical for at
	    least the next 20 years.

	4.  Each project builds	on the last, but each provides its
	    own	independent set	of benefits.

	5.  Failure to exploit economic	opportunities in space will
	    result in our international	competitors (USSR, ESA,
	    China, and Japan) exploiting these opportunities
	    whether we do or not.

       Goals for the 90s				     Page 2

	       GOAL ONE: CONSTRUCTION OF THE SPACE STATION

       The Space Station represents the	foundation on which all
       major future space efforts depend. With it, the following
       projects	are made more economical:

	  - In-orbit repair of satellites.

	  - Construction of large comsats.

	  - Zero-gravity materials processing research

       Consider: the Space Shuttle is like a laboratory/factory
       that is only open one week every	few months. The	Space
       Station will be operating 24 hours a day. We endorse the
       construction of the Space Station in the	'90s.  To this
       endorsement we add the following	cautions:

	1.  Military requirements must not be allowed to cripple
	    the	Space Station as they did the Shuttle program. We
	    need a civilian station that supports unclassified
	    scientific research.

	2.  We must assure that	station	operating costs	are not
	    increased by cutbacks in development efforts,
	    especially in the area of life-support systems.  Less
	    efficient closed-cycle life	support	systems	will result
	    in more shuttle flights to deliver water and oxygen	to
	    the	Space Station, making the station more expensive to
	    operate.

	3.  The	station	must be	regarded as an ongoing project from
	    which we will continually derive benefits in proportion
	    to our continuing investment. We urge that sufficient
	    funds be provided to support an aggressive program of
	    materials research aboard the Space	Station	as well	as
	    to complete	the station infrastructure, including the
	    Orbital Maneuvering	Vehicle.


       GOAL TWO: A RE-USABLE ORBITAL TRANSFER VEHICLE WITH AERO-BRAKING

       With respect to the Orbital Transfer Vehicle (OTV), the NCOS
       report states: "A high priority exists for this vehicle,
       which will greatly lower	the cost of access to geostationary
       orbit ...  The transfer vehicle will be modular,	single-
       stage, fueled by	liquid oxygen and liquid hydrogen, and
       outfitted with an aerobrake to conserve fuel by allowing	the
       vehicle to slow down through the	drag of	the Earth's
       atmosphere."1 We	endorse	the construction of a reusable

       Goals for the 90s				     Page 3

       Orbital Transfer	Vehicle	as planned by NASA.

       The OTV project uses the	Space Station as both a	launching
       base and	a refueling station.  The reusable OTV lowers the
       cost to lift payloads to	geosynchronous orbit, which
       translates into lower communication satellite costs.  In
       addition	to this	direct benefit,	a cabin	could be built so
       that crews may use the OTV to visit and repair
       geosynchronous satellites.  This	would extend the life of
       such satellites,	further	lowering the cost of
       telecommunications services.  Lastly, two of the	modular
       OTVs could be assembled easily into a craft capable of
       flying to the moon.


	    GOAL THREE:	EXPANDED USE OF	GEOSYNCHRONOUS COMSATS

       With the	coming of the Space Shuttle, the Space Station,	and
       the Orbital Transfer Vehicle, the opportunity exists to
       construct large geosynchronous satellites for a variety of
       purposes.2 The satellites could serve purposes ranging from
       utility platforms for groupings of conventional
       communication satellites	to engines providing completely	new
       telecommunication services, including direct broadcast
       high-definition television, personal communicator networks,
       and inexpensive electronic mail.	 All these possibilities
       rely on the following insight:  "Whereas	it has been past
       practice	to make	the satellites as small	and inexpensive	as
       possible, paying	the price in very large	and expensive
       ground stations to communicate through the satellite, the
       current trends are increasing satellite antenna size and
       power. This in turn is reducing the power and antenna size
       required	in the ground terminals, thus reducing their cost
       ..."3

       The initial large scale use of complexity inversion requires
       a full demonstration of the technologies	involved.  We
       propose that the	US build a large geosynchronous	platform to


       ____________________________________________________________

	1. National Commission on Space, Pioneering the	Space
	   Frontier.  New York:	 Bantam	Books, 1986, p.	122.

	2. Simpson, T.R., editor, The Space Station: An	Idea Whose
	   Time	Has Come, IEEE Press, 1985, p. 113.

	3. Ivan	Bekey, "Big Comsats for	Big Jobs at Low	User Cost,"
	   Astronautics	& Aeronautics, February	1979.

       Goals for the 90s				     Page 4

       provide one or more of the services mentioned above.

       One possible demonstration would	involve

	    [T]he personal-communications system concept
	    ...	which uses a single large communications
	    satellite to link 25 million users outfitted
	    with wrist-mounted radiotelephones.	 Due to
	    the	very small power and antenna size
	    possible in	such a radio-telephone,	the
	    satellite antenna must be large ...	at least
	    220	ft. in diameter	... .  [T]he 25	million
	    users could	share 230,000 voice channels ...
	    Furthermore, since the direct interconnection
	    of users dispenses with ground networks (to
	    insure lower user cost), the satellite must
	    contain the	equivalent of a	telephone
	    switching center for 230,000 trunks	... .
	    The	satellite ... would weigh 54,000 lb, have
	    a 280 kw solar-cell	power system, and
	    transfer itself to geostationary orbit ...
	    following assembly and checkout employing
	    three Shuttle flights to low Earth orbit ...
	    .  The wrist radiotelephone	...  should weigh
	    no more than a large wristwatch, and be able
	    to communicate at least five 1-minute
	    messages during any	16 hr. day before
	    recharging overnight.4

       Any project involving the construction of large comsats uses
       the following elements of the space infrastructure:

	  - Space Shuttle to lift components

	  - Space Station as construction site.

	  - Orbital Transfer Vehicle to	transport repair crews to
	    geosynchronous orbit, as well as the satellite itself.

       The construction	of large comsats will:

	  - Provide millions of	Americans with new or enhanced
	    communications services.

       __________

	4. Ibid.

       Goals for the 90s				     Page 5

	  - Potentially	create a new and profitable industry, thus
	    increasing tax revenues.

	  - Advance American telecommunications	technology,
	    including that of electronic switch	construction, thus
	    giving American companies a	competitive edge.

			       CONCLUSIONS

       One key to our space future is the construction of a Space
       Station to act as a re-fueling depot, research lab, repair
       bench, and eventually manufacturing center.  Another key	is
       the design and testing of reusable aerobraked orbital
       transfer	vehicles.

       In the 1990s, America can use the Space Station and reusable
       Orbital Transfer	Vehicle	to build large comsats capable of
       providing Americans with	a variety of new telecommunications
       services. We urge that this course be followed.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #230
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA24757; Thu, 21 May 87 03:03:19 PDT
	id AA24757; Thu, 21 May 87 03:03:19 PDT
Date: Thu, 21 May 87 03:03:19 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705211003.AA24757@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #231

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 21 May 87 03:03:19 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #231

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 231

Today's Topics:
	  More impressions of Pittsburgh: Mars, nanotech,SSI
      After the Space Station: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 20-MAY-1987 06:19 CDT
From: <HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  More impressions of Pittsburgh: Mars, nanotech,SSI

Herewith some more remarks about the Space Development Conference in
Pittsburgh a few weeks ago.
                                  Bill Higgins
                                  Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                  HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET
#######################################################################


THE MARS JUGGERNAUT-- I heard a lot of gloom over the movement,
spearheaded by Carl Sagan and Louis Friedman of the Planetary Society,
to make a joint manned mission to Mars the chief goal of the space
program. (I include a number of unmanned projects under this umbrella.)
There was a consensus that the Mars Juggernaut is unstoppable, even
though most space movement people have grave reservations about it.  The
"Apollo lesson" looms large: We could put years of intensive effort, and
tens of billions, into this, and wind up with a box full of rocks and
some expensive special-purpose hardware.  The will to follow up on the
program could easily evaporate just as post-Tranquility plans did.
Besides the scientific value, the major benefit of the missions would be
Soviet-American cooperation on a large scale, which might benefit world
peace.  Without getting into details, I'll just say there is room for
skepticism on this point.

The people attending the SDC tend to be ardent advocates of
commercialization, exploiting lunar & asteroidal resources for
near-Earth projects, and heavy manned space flight.  They view the Mars
proposals as thwarting the next stages in the natural growth of a
spacefaring civilization, if the trip to Mars is put ahead of lunar
bases, orbital industries, and so forth.  So there was plenty of debate:
What should space activists do?

(Now when I say that the Mars movement is unstoppable, I mean
"unstoppable by the forces the National Space Society and friends can
deploy."  Sagan will certainly meet resistance even after he has all his
ducks in a row-- from the military, from the Proximires, from
Russophobes-- and these forces would certainly have a good chance of
sinking the idea.)

There are three general alternatives:

         1) Lie down.  Ignore Mars, keep trying to get a return to the
	 moon, better deals for private enterprise, bigger space
	 stations, etc. If we go to Mars, and then the space program
	 dies, we won't be much worse off than we are now.  Everything
	 we want will just take fifteen years longer to happen.  Nobody
	 really liked this idea.

         2) Fight it.  Maybe the Martian idea *can* be stopped before it
	 bends American and Soviet space activities onto the wrong fork
	 in the road.  Disadvantages: Space activists will be seen
	 fighting each other in public, perhaps killing both
	 half-movements.  The Mars trip is easier to sell; The American
	 People can grasp astronauts and cosmonauts walking on Mars, but
	 "space infrastructure" is harder to explain and has no
	 emotional juice.  And you'd have to kill off the building
	 momentum, which is generating more editorials and endorsements
	 than any advanced space proposal in recent memory. It would be
	 a shame.

         3) Co-opt it.  All right, we're gonna go to Mars.  Let's do it
	 the "right" way.  Develop landers & life support systems on the
	 Moon as a dry run, and work up to two-year missions gradually.
	 Convert the space station into a staging base for
	 interplanetary (and GEO and lunar, while you're at it)
	 missions. Develop advanced propulsion. Use the resources of
	 Phobos and Deimos to support Mars missions. Martian exploration
	 becomes a fraction of a larger, broadly based space program,
	 which may even be returning a portion of its costs. NSS-type
	 folks get behind Mars, but only as the top step in a graduated
	 program that gives them what they wanted in the first place.

         Very attractive, but a little too pat.  Does Sagan really need
	 our help?  He's got 110,000 Planetary Society members.  What
	 will the PS say if they hear "We'll help, but first give us
	 everything we've ever wanted?" And if this rosy scenario could
	 be sold at all, it would be developing already.  It lacks the
	 immediate appeal of cooperation with the Soviets as an
	 alternative to (or at least in parallel with) the arms race--
	 which can only be sold to conservative voters and politicians
	 if a purely scientific objective, without large commercial or
	 strategic benefits, is involved.  NSS basically wants the space
	 funding "pie" to get bigger, and stay bigger.  This is very
	 very difficult in the present climate.  Sagan is trying for a
	 way to make the pie bigger, at least for a short time, fueled
	 by motives not related to scientific or commercial
	 considerations.  I suppose he hopes, five or ten years down the
	 line, to find a way to keep the pie from shrinking again.

One last point. The "Mars Underground," who started this snowball when
it was very small and had nothing to do with the Cold War, would be just
as unhappy as L5'ers with a one-shot rock-collecting mission. They want
maps, they want bases, they want an ongoing, detailed survey of Martian
science.  These things could perhaps be sustained against a background
of large-scale space activity near the Earth.  So perhaps NSS can find
allies within the Martian camp...


NANOTECHNOLOGY-- Eric Drexler's ideas about "nanotechnology," the
(allegedly) imminent techniques for building molecule-sized machines,
tools, computers, and factories, were much in evidence at the
convention.  It all seems a little too good to be true to me, but I
shouldn't comment until I finish reading Eric's book, *Engines of
Creation* (Doubleday Anchor).

A side issue: what the heck has this stuff to do with space travel?  The
development of teeny-tiny machines has exciting implications for wide
areas of technology and our relation to it-- but space is only
incidentally included in that.  (Although the advent of nanocomputers
and assemblers implies that you'd never again need to launch a payload
bigger than a few milligrams. (-: Makes the mass-ratio of a Delta look
really good.) Yet the SDC was full of talk about these ideas, and a
significant portion of the program was devoted to it.

The answer, I think, is that nanotechnology has a natural constituency,
a community of young (?) people fascinated by science and technology and
eager to explore the changes they bring.  And the space movement already
holds a subset of those people.  (Science fiction fandom, which is also
home to a lot of technophiles, is one major wellspring of the movement.)
It's certainly influential that Eric Drexler has been moving in these
circles for years-- he worked on Mass Driver One and did important
studies on manufacturing high-performance solar sails in space.  It was
natural that as he began thinking about nanotechnology, he bounced it
off such buddies as Keith Henson, L5 cofounder, who became a rabid
nanotechnological prophet.  I don't want to sound smug or elitist about
this group of people.  But there must be *some* good reason why
nanotechnology has taken hold among so many space buffs.  Comments?

THE SPACE STUDIES INSTITUTE-- Members of the Space Studies Institute
were prominent among the movers and shakers at Pittsburgh.  SSI's
purpose is to organize and fund research fundamental to space
development.  They put a modest research budget where it will do a great
deal of good, funding mass driver construction, lunar materials
extraction work, studies for a low-cost spacecraft to look for lunar
ice, a detailed External Tank usage study, a search for Earth-Sun Trojan
asteroids, and a number of other projects.  They're a very good group to
join if you want your money to go directly to advancing progress in
space-- these things need to get done to pave the way.

In addition, I was impressed by the hustle of the people associated with
SSI.  They gave important help organizing this conference and others,
and they seem to be in the middle of a lot that's happening in the space
movement. Check 'em out.

Space Studies Institute
285 Rosedale Road
P.O. Box 82
Princeton, N.J. 08540

NEXT YEAR IN DENVER-- The 1988 Space Development Conference will be held
in Denver on Memorial Day weekend, 27-30 May 1988.  The theme is "SPACE:
The Next Renaissance," and the conference will include tracks of
technical, space education, activist, and "socioeconomic" programming.
There will also be a professional Space Business Symposium, a design
contest for using the External Tank, and an art show.  For information
contact:

1988 International Space Development Conference
P.O. Box 300572
Denver, Colorado 80218
(303)692-6788

Admission is $50 for members of NSS, SSI, or other co-sponsoring
organizations, $80 for nonmembers, before 31 July 1987. It'll get higher
after that.  ***BUT WAIT!*** You can get a **BARGAIN** combined
membership in the 1988 Denver SDC and the 1989 Chicago SDC for $80
(member of a cosponsor) or $110 (nonmember).  The offer is good ONLY
THROUGH 31 JULY 1987.  This is a saving of at least $15 below current
membership rates (Chicago alone is $45 for sponsor members), and a whole
bucketful below the expensive at-the-door rates. Make checks payable to
1988 INT'L SPACE DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE.

The Chicago SDC happens 26-29 May, 1989-- the twentieth summer since
Apollo 11.  I won't go into much detail here, except to say that
information is available from:

1989 Space Development Conference
P.O. Box 64397
Chicago, Illinois 60664-0397
(312)446-8343 evenings

Or send e-mail to HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 87 15:35:30 GMT
From: mtune!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.edu
Subject: After the Space Station: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper

Below is the last of five position papers approved by by the North Jersey L5
Chapter and presented to all New Jersey congresspeople during a recent visit
to Washington by two of our members.  Other organizations are encouraged to
embark upon similar programs of Congressional education.  Individuals are
encouraged to send these papers to their congresspeople (or whatever national
equivalent may exist in your country) with a letter indicating their support
of these goals (if, of course, that is the case).  All we ask is that the
copyright notice remain with the paper.

The other four papers were be posted separately.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

===========================cut here to print=========================

			 AFTER THE SPACE STATION
		     A North Jersey L5 Position	paper
		     Copyright c 1987 North Jersey L5


			    EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

       We propose two projects for the Space Station era.  One
       focuses on prospecting for resources and	developing systems
       to return those resources to Earth orbit. The other suggests
       a way in	which those resources could be used to benefit
       humans on the Earth.  Both build	on the space shuttle, the
       Space Station, re-usable	orbital	transfer vehicle, the Lunar
       Geoscience Orbiter, and techniques proven by the
       construction of large geosynchronous satellites.	 Our
       proposed	goals are the:

	1.  Establishment of a lunar mining base, and an

	2.  Orbital solar power	station	prototype.

       In Fiscal '88 the joint NASA/DOD	SP-100 nuclear reactor
       program should be fully funded as part of support of the
       lunar mining outpost.

	      GOAL ONE:	ESTABLISHMENT OF A LUNAR MINING	BASE

       The report of the National Commission on	Space calls for	a
       lunar outpost to	be established "within the next	20 years."1
       In describing this project the NCOS states:

	    Early outposts on the lunar	surface	are
	    essential in the development of the	space
	    frontier. They will	permit the extension of
	    lunar exploration for the purposes of both
	    scientific research	and resource development.
	    They will be sites for pilot plants	that use
	    lunar resources, especially	to produce
	    propellants. . . .

	    Resource use will be the other major driver
	    for	lunar development.  The	resources that
	    will certainly be needed in	Earth-Moon space,
	    and	that can possibly be delivered to the


       __________

	1. National Commission on Space, Pioneering the	Space
	   Frontier, 1986; pg. 140.

       After the Space Station				     Page 2

	    points of use more economically from the Moon
	    than from the Earth, are shielding and
	    oxygen.  The first requires	no processing,
	    while the second could be obtained from the
	    lunar soil minerals	. . . Oxygen is	the most
	    abundant element in	the lunar soils,
	    constituting 40 percent of those soils by
	    weight.2

       Materials could be delivered to their point of use by a
       variety of systems, including the re-usable Orbital Transfer
       Vehicle(OTV), ion driven	tugs, or mass-driver based
       vehicles.3 In the case of lunar oxygen, it would	be most
       likely liquefied	on the moon and	shipped	to Low Earth Orbit
       via space tug. Here the lunar oxygen would be used to refuel
       Orbital Transfer	Vehicles as they lift comsats to
       geosynchronous orbit, as	well as	supply the Space Station.

       Plain lunar dirt	would be collected and placed into lunar
       orbit.  One system capable of doing this	economically
       involves	the use	of a dragline4 and a lunar mass	driver.5
       Once in lunar orbit the material	would be collected,6
       bagged, and transported to geosynchronous orbit where it
       could protect a "repair shack" used by the technicians who
       maintain	geosynchronous satellites. This	would allow the


       __________

	2. Ibid., pp. 138-140.

	3. Gordon R. Woodcock, "Transportation Networks	for Lunar
	   Resources Utilization," Space Manufacturing 5:
	   Engineering With Lunar and Asteroidal Materials,
	   Proceedings of the Seventh Princeton/AIAA/SSI
	   Conference, May 8-11, 1985.

	4. Richard E. Gertsch, "A Method for Mining Lunar Soil,"
	   Space Manufacturing 1983: Vol. 53 Advances in the
	   Astronautical Sciences, AAS,	1983, pp. 337-346.

	5. Leslie O. Snively, Gerard K.	O'Neill, "Mass Driver III:
	   Construction, Testing, and Comparison to Computer
	   Simulation (AAS 83-240)," Ibid., pp.	391-401.

	6. T. A. Heppenheimer, "Achromatic Trajectories	and the
	   Industrial-Scale Transport of Lunar Resources," Lunar
	   Bases and Space Activities of the 21st Century, W. W.
	   Mendell, Editor, Lunar and Planetary	Institute, 1985,
	   pp. 155-167.

       After the Space Station				     Page 3

       lifespan	of comsats to be extended by routine, low-cost
       repair visits while the shielded	repair shack protected
       these technicians against unexpected solar flares.  This
       lunar dirt also could act as a shield to	protect	U.S.
       space-based military assets, including early-warning
       satellites.

       Indirect	benefits from the construction of a lunar mining
       base include:

	  - Field testing of more advanced closed-cycle	life
	    support systems that could later be	incorporated into
	    the	Space Station as part of an effort to reduce
	    operating costs.

	  - Increased scientific knowledge of the Moon.

	  - Creation of	a lunar	base and lunar support system that
	    can	support	a wide variety of scientific endeavors.


       We endorse the NCOS's recommendation that a lunar outpost be
       constructed.  We	urge that the focus of this project be the
       return of valuable lunar	materials (such	as shielding matter
       and oxygen) by the most economic	means.	We anticipate that
       the lunar mining	base would be automated	to the maximum
       extent feasible with the	existing technology.  Overall, the
       program should aim toward the creation of a technology that
       could be	the foundation of a new	industry.

       We endorse the recommendation of	the NCOS that there be a
       "sustained commitment to	an integrated space nuclear power
       system."7 As part of this commitment, we	urge that the joint
       NASA/DOD	SP-100 space quality nuclear reactor program be
       fully funded.  Such a reactor would be necessary	to power
       the lunar mining	base.

		GOAL TWO: ORBITAL POWER	STATION	PROTOTYPE

       The concept of constructing Solar Power Satellites (SPSs) in
       geosynchronous orbit, and beaming the power they	generate to
       receiving antennas on the ground, has been discussed
       extensively in many books and articles.8	9 The basic


       __________

	7. Ibid., p. 101.

	8. O'Neill, G.K.(1975),	"Space Colonies	and Energy Supply
	   to the Earth," Science, Number 190, pg. 943-947.  Also

       After the Space Station				     Page 4

       advantage inherent in the SPS idea is that placing solar
       generators (which might use either solar	cells or more
       conventional thermal technology)	in geosynchronous orbit
       places them in full sun all the time. With no night or
       clouds, power can be delivered to the Earth without
       interruption. The major concerns	raised about SPS focus on
       either the possible environmental effects of beaming the
       power back to Earth or the large	cost of	lifting	the
       satellites skyward.

       Just as the early pioneers used local materials to build
       their homes and factories on arrival on the North American
       continent, so modern day	space pioneers must plan to use
       resources in space to build Solar Power Satellites. We have
       discussed how lunar materials could have	a variety of uses
       in near Earth space.  The construction of SPSs could be one
       of those	uses. As noted by the NCOS report, "Next after
       Oxygen, in order	of richness in the lunar soils,	is silicon,
       the `power element' useful for building solar energy arrays.
       The lunar surface soils are 20 percent silicon."10 Other
       lunar materials,	including iron,	aluminum, and titanium,
       could also be used in the manufacture of	SPSs.

       However,	before we can embark on	a full-scale program to
       build SPSs, assurance must exist	that all aspects of the
       technologies are	in hand, and that power	can be delivered to
       the Earth without adverse effect.  We propose the
       construction of a Solar Power Satellite Prototype to satisfy
       these needs.  Such a mini-SPS might have	a power	output of
       only a few megawatts, but otherwise would function much as
       an SPS would during a trial period.

       The SPS prototype project milestones include:

	  - Delivery of	the SPS	parts to the Space Station in LEO.
	    Unlike the production SPSs,	which would be built mainly
	    of lunar materials,	the prototype model is launched
	    entirely from the Earth.  Note that	the size of the


       ____________________________________________________________

	   see his book, The High Frontier.

	9. Glasser, P. E., Maynard O. E., Mackovcink J.	Jr., and
	   Ralph E. L.(1974), "Feasibility Study of a Satellite
	   Solar Power Station," NASA CR-2357. NASA, Washington,
	   D.C.

       10. Pioneering the Space	Frontier , p. 85.

       After the Space Station				     Page 5

	    prototype can be varied to match available funds.

	  - Construction of the	 mini-SPS in LEO, either via
	    astronauts doing EVA or via	teleoperated devices such
	    as the Shuttle Arm.	 At the	same time a receiving
	    antenna would be build on the ground.

	  - Movement of	the finished SPS to GEO, probably via the
	    use	of ion engines that provide very gentle	movement.

	  - The	test phase, during which power is beamed to the
	    Earth and the technology is	refined.

	  - The	production phase during	which the output of the
	    mini-SPS would be diverted to the needs of commercial
	    projects in	LEO, including Space Station clients, or
	    possibly to	lunar orbiting or geosynchronous Space
	    Stations.  Hence, sale of power generated by the mini-
	    SPS	to in-space customers would pay	back part of its
	    cost.  It might be possible	to use same technology
	    involved in	beaming	the power back to Earth	to
	    distribute power to	a variety of in-orbit locations.
	    Alternatively, the mini-SPS	could be moved close to	its
	    customers.

			       CONCLUSIONS

       We recommend the	construction of	a lunar	mining base and	a
       prototype SPS following the completion of the Space Station.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #231
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA26610; Fri, 22 May 87 03:03:29 PDT
	id AA26610; Fri, 22 May 87 03:03:29 PDT
Date: Fri, 22 May 87 03:03:29 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705221003.AA26610@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #232

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 22 May 87 03:03:29 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #232

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 232

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Gary's Red Frontier + White and Blue =?
			     L5/NSS name
		  Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP?
		Re: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP?
		Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's
		Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's
		Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's
		Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's
	      US presidential candidates' space policies
	      Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 May 87 04:47:15 GMT
From: prometheus!pmk@mimsy.umd.edu  (Paul M Koloc)
Subject: Re: Gary's Red Frontier + White and Blue =?

Satellite power sources would not match the inductive MHD thermal to
electric conversion efficiency (95%) of a fast-burn aneutronically heated-
blanket power generators at the earths surface.   There would not be any 
microwaved cooked Canadian geese either!  That would reduce the thermal 
waste load by 10 or 12, and could also provide the means for moving plague
free remnant populations into space.  But, of course it won't happen if it 
doesn't get into someone's five year plan. 

> .. . .  . .. . . . . . . . .  ... .  I am very skeptical
>that, with current technologies ..  .. .   .. .

>I think my negative reaction (and other readers of this digest, apparently)
>to Gary's proposal is sufficient evidence that is will not have the support
>needed for massive government funding; if space fanatics are not
>impressed, what will your average taxpayer think?  Not much.  Programs
>that benefit specific power groups will crowd out programs motivated
>by thinly supported artificial ideologies.

But the interest in pushing our frontiers forward (forgive me Bob) is
instinctive.  That means a drive to pressure the government for *manned*
planetary missions will not and should not abate.  It's a good thing,
because it forces Uncle Sam to provide response to this and other
demands, for after all your and other realities and Gary's dreams have
become their political reality.  That means that since the costs of
chemistry to put us on the surface of Mars and bring us back is so
overwhelming, NASA Hdqtrs. are beginning to at least THINK about
exploratory involvement in the ADVANCED (as opposed to DoE's fusion
program) exotic or aneutronic energy business.

It's seems to be the natural thing to do, but we all know that older
people sometimes need a little encouragement or help to do the "natural"
thing.  So continue your dream/realities exchange (not necessarily
respectively).

Paul M. Koloc

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 1987 15:00-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: L5/NSS name

As a board member (and supposedly someone with some influence in such
things?) I'd like to state my feelings about the future name of the
organization.

To put it simply, I don't think it is critically important and I feel
that anyone who expends a great deal of energy on it is wasting
valuable person-hours. The time is much better spent on trying to do
something about the abysmal state of the space program in the free
world. We've got a national gridlock on our hands. THAT is what we need
to deal with.

I have preferences of course, and I will state them:

	1) I prefer a name without a reference such as National. But
	   I don't feel it's worth fighting over. Other issues are more
	   deserving of attention than this.

	   Unfortuneatly there are IRS problems with the obvious
	   solution of making it the "International" whatever. But with
	   proposed changes in tax regs having to do with the way
	   lobbying is defined, maybe we'll have to become other than
	   501-C3. Glen has mentioned 501-C4 as being interesting.
	   If such happens, then this solution might become viable.

	2) I WOULD strongly oppose any name such as "US" or "American"
	   or even "North American". I don't expect this to be an
	   issue. Nobody is dumb enough to propose it.

	3) I am unworried about an association of our organization with
	   the name Von Braun. His writings had a great deal to do with
	   me becoming interested in space in the first place. He has
	   fostered the dream for many years, and I really see us as
	   the spiritual heirs of the VfR. We're the next generation of
	   UTTERLY committed spacers. We're dedicated to this for life,
	   no matter what it takes, as were the VfR. I hold a deep and
	   abiding respect for the man and his memory.

	4) Of the names proposed, I lean towards Space Frontier
	   Society. Not because I love it, but because it seems like
	   the one which will have the least amount of utterly wasted
	   man hours associated with it being accepted.

	5) I strongly feel the chapters should keep their old names if
	   they so choose. This issue I might get involved with if it
	   comes up. Of course chapters should be at the very least
	   identified in a format like:
		Pittsburgh L5, a chapter of the 'whatever'

For those of you who are involved in the society, I ask that you apply
your volunteer hours to things that are important. I personally feel
that we have little need for people who would leave the society over a
name issue. We might be better off without them.

We should propose names, vote on them and accept whatever the result
is. No big deal.

I hope I don't sound too angry, and I'm not trying to single anyone
out. It's just that we are so few and have such a depressingly big job
facing us. We all need to get on with it. The merger has taken up
our energies for far too long as it is.

Let's get to work guys.


PS: Kevin Kenny: This was not directed at you, but your article reminded
    me to make a statement on this issue. Say hello to Lauri, Terry &
    the rest for me...

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 87 01:28:30 GMT
From: mtune!io!granjon!edsel!dxa@rutgers.edu  (DR Anolick)
Subject: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP?

I just received a freebie magazine, and found this interesting 
article.  My comments/questions are at the end.

From: Design News, News for Design Engineers, a Cahners Publication
	April 6, 1987, page 37, section titled Engineering News:

       Rival to the 'Orient Express?'

           Atlanta - President Reagan has proposed spending
       billions of federal dollars to design a hypersonic transport
       -- the "Orient Express."  But, if a small engineering firm
       in Georgia has its way, space transportation could become
       affordable in about a year's time and at a cost of about
       $100 million.
            The secret lies in the Space Transportation Vehicle or
       STV.  A dream of Robert Talmage Jr., an engineer at the
       Atlanta-based TAAS Co., the design would convert just about
       any commercial airliner into a space transport that could
       deliver a 4000-lb payload into an orbit of around 200,000
       feet.
            Talmage's design is not complex.  It involves replacing
       the airliner's swept or delta wings with wings that are more
       nearly perpendicular to the fuselage.
            "We envision the STV to have an aspect ratio (ratio of
       the wing span to its average width) near 10," Talmage says.
       "It also would incorporate a metallic Thermal Protection
       System for reduced weight and increased durability.
       Conventional liquid-propellant rocket engines would serve as
       the propulsion system, but more efficient scramjet engines
       now under development could be used in the future."
            The STV wing design not only maximizes the lift-to-drag
       ratio, but it minimizes aerodynamic pressure, according to
       Talmage.  It also would enable the aircraft to be towed
       aloft, then fired into orbit.  Using the tow plane's power
       for lift-off and acceleration would unburden the STV from
       the weight of turbo and ramjet engines.
            Poor lift characteristics restrict delta-wing vehicles
       to piggyback lift-offs, Talmage explains.  Disadvantages of
       this design include:

          - Heavier aircraft configuration.
          - Lower load limits.
          - Decreased first-stage performance due to piggyback
            vehicle's fuel loss.
          - Higher risk factor because of physical mating and
            aerodynamic interaction between the booster plane and
            the space plane.

            Once in space, the STV's gliderlike wings would allow
       it to "skate" in and out of the atmosphere while still in
       orbit.  Talmage estimates that the STV would encounter a
       maximum temperature of 1400F.  The 42% reduced heating rate
       in the denser atmosphere permits use of the lighter, more
       desirable metallic skin on the STV.  The shuttle's ceramic
       skin totals nine tons -- about 14% of its empty weight.
       This weight penalty restricts maneuver ability.
            Talmage claims the STV could deliver loads into orbit
       for a price of $7 million per trip.  That comes to about 88%
       less than the cost of a shuttle flight.


   (The article was accompanied by a picture of a generic airplane with
    the lettering TAAS, in orbit.  The caption read: "Space
    Transportation Vehicle design adapts to today's commercial aircraft.)


Well, it sounds wonderful doesn't it?  But it sounds all too simplistic.
There seems to be holes in the above article, but since I am always
optimistic, I'll assume it was poor reporting rather than poor
engineering.

Has anyone heard of this before?  Has anyone heard of the STV, Talmage,
TASS or Design News magazine before?  Are any of these a known hoax?  I
hope not.  Assuming that it is real, even if the STV fails, it is the
type of commercial project that US space development needs.

The magazine itself was mostly advertisements for all sorts of design
tools, machine tools, computer tools, bearings, filters, you name it.

There were two other space related articles, one on a hypothetical visit
to a lunar station in 2010, and one on CAD's potential role in building
the space station.

I'll post a summary of any E-mail comments I get on the above.

droyan				David ROY ANolick

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 87 05:17:26 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP?

In article <270@edsel.UUCP> dxa@edsel.UUCP (DR Anolick) writes:
>       Atlanta-based TAAS Co., the design would convert just about
>       any commercial airliner into a space transport that could
>       deliver a 4000-lb payload into an orbit of around 200,000
>       feet.

	Is this a typo? Nothing will ``orbit'' at 200000 feet, there's
still substantial atmosphere there.

	Since the NASP is entirely a research project - and largely a
military one, at that - it's hard to see how this is a commercial rival
to it. ASSUMING NASP can be made to work, we might see the technology
being put into commercial vehicles sometime after the turn of the
century.

	An interesting sidelight: someone from Aerojet involved in
development of engines for the NASP gave a seminar last week in which he
claimed 15,000! people throughout the country were currently working on
the project. Perhaps the military backing will result in this project
being carried to completion in a reasonable amount of time (at which
point the results will no doubt be slammed under a security lid until
it's too late to make effective use of them... sigh. I remember the days
when we had a space program.)

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 87 12:18:48 GMT
From: pur-phy!newton!hal@h.cc.purdue.edu  (Hal Chambers)
Subject: Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's

The last I read of the ozone hole (Nat. Geographic, I think) it
was getting weaker ("closing").  It is now thought that this is
a natural phenomenon which may vary somewhat with sunspot cycle.

Hal Chambers

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 87 03:40:09 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's

In article <775@newton.physics.purdue.edu> hal@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Hal Chambers) writes:
>The last I read of the ozone hole (Nat. Geographic, I think) it
>was getting weaker ("closing").  It is now thought that this is
>a natural phenomenon which may vary somewhat with sunspot cycle.

	There is unambiguous evidence that CFC concentrations are
rapidly increasing globally. The important question is, what is the
relationship between CFC concentration and ozone depletion? I hope
this is answered before it becomes a moot question.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 87 13:45:03 GMT
From: cgs@umd5.umd.edu  (Chris Sylvain)
Subject: Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's

There is a known seasonal variation in the ozone concentration.
Apparently during the long, cold winter, the air mass over the Antarctic
is "cut off" from the rest of the planets atmospheric circulation
patterns. What has been observed for as long as records have been kept
of the concentration minimum during these periods, is that the
concentration has been decreasing.  The rate of decrease has accelerated
faster with the increase of CFCs in the upper atmosphere, leading the
scientists to conclude that CFCs are the cause. It's not the only
conclusion under investigation, but it is the first and currently the
most widely held explanation. NOVA (on public TV) a few months back had
an excellent program on the ozone layer, featuring the current work of
the folks in Antartica. It may be repeated soon in your area.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 87 16:26:11 GMT
From: ur-tut!ur-valhalla!moscom!de@cs.rochester.edu  (Dave Esan)
Subject: Re: Cleansing the Atmosphere of CFC's

Last I had heard, there was some thought that the hole over Antartica was
not really there but was a computer error.  Any further word on this?

David Esan

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 11 May 87 15:05 EDT
From: Chris Jones <clj@sapsucker.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: US presidential candidates' space policies

Here's this election's version of a question I asked last time:

What are the current presidential candidates' views on the space
program?  I'm interested in actions and words (it's likely that only a
member of the federal government will have had much in the way of
action).  I'm interested in *facts* rather than talk of the form
"Dukakis loves technology, so he must be pro-space, while Jack Kemp had
a bad experience with an Estes rocket as a child..."  (Don't worry about
refuting those statements, either; I made them up).  While I'm not going
to make my choice solely on this basis (obviously, since I voted for
Mondale last time), I count this as important.  I'm disturbed that I
don't hear anyone mentioning space exploration/space technology as an
issue.  (This doesn't mean they haven't; I just haven't heard).
Distressingly, the last candidate I recall making an issue about space
was Lyndon Larouche, and before him, Jerry Brown.  Sigh.

Actually, I guess I'm interested in what other countries' leaders and
likely leaders say too.  France has an election coming up; is any party
there particularly for or against their space program?  Other European
countries (my feeling is that the French are doing the most for the ESA,
followed by W Germany).  Japan?  Moderate Iranians?

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1987 21:21-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity

A new breakthrough in medicine strikes me as having potential
applications to space.

Ertyrhopoietin will jack up the red blood cell count of normal people by
factors of 5. Chimps have been done up to 10. The research article
discussed the major medical impacts it (and similar growth factors for
white blood cells) has on things such as AIDS, leukemia, fighting off
disease, transplants, chemotherapy, and on and on. No side effects. The
effects stop when the drug is stopped. The dosage to effect curve is
straightforward.

But the thought struck me: higher red blood cell count means more O2
transport. People living at high altitudes have higher counts. So it
could also mean a way to allow people to live comfortably in a lower
pressure environment? Typically pressures are lowered but the partial of
O2 is kept up, thus raising the fire hazard as the ratio of O2 to buffer
gases increases. What if you could also get away with a much lower O2?
Maybe 2 or 3 PSI O2 as a living environment. This would certainly make
suit structures easier. Right now they are talking hard suit for the
space station so they can keep a high pressure environment and the
consequent lower O2 ratio.

The shuttle runs high pressure and suiting up requires pre breathing and
decompression time.

I really wonder if for long term habitation and extensive outside work
if low pressure isn't the way to go.

And by the way, Some Andes indians have recently been discovered who are
adapted to hard labor (mining) at 17,000+ feet. Full time living and
working. I'm suggesting we may be able to pump up the average person to
handle something like this.

PS: I wanted to make sure I got this idea public so I get first credit
for it!!!!

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #232
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA28073; Sat, 23 May 87 03:02:46 PDT
	id AA28073; Sat, 23 May 87 03:02:46 PDT
Date: Sat, 23 May 87 03:02:46 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705231002.AA28073@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #233

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 233

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity
		     EVA -> what? (propose SCOBA)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #225
	    Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity
		       TRW Space Data Handbook
		  Solar power and thermal pollution
	     Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab
	   Re: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 May 87 17:34:55 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity

A high red blood cell count is not without risk.  The blood is more
viscous and there's a risk of stroke.

The Skylab crews complained of the low pressure environment.  Sound does
not travel well, so they had to yell at each other all the time.  Your
skin dries out because the humidity is low and food tastes bland.

I think I'd prefer normal blood and pressure.

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 January 19 20:39:14 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: EVA -> what? (propose SCOBA)

<DA> Date:  5 Jan 1987 14:54-EST 
<DA> From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu

<DA> But with private vehicles built to safety standards at which the
<DA> pilot is willing to fly, with a file drawer of documentantion
<DA> rather than a train of box cars worth, and industrial space modules
<DA> with people used to working zero G as a daily matter. Just because
<DA> NASA calls them EVA's and plans them out, doesn't mean it will
<DA> remain that way. I recommend we change the name from EVA to "going
<DA> outdoors", and then apply all the care and foresight one would use
<DA> before donning scuba and dropping into the ocean.

SCUBA means Self-Contained Underwater Breathing Apparatus. The acronym
seems to have caught on very well. I hereby propose EVA equipment be
changed to SCOBA, where O stands for Outside or Outerspace, and the rest
is the same as SCUBA. Easy to pronounce, similar to SCUBA so easy to
guess the meaning, there's an astronaut with similar name (Scobee or
somesuch, or did he die on Challenger?) so good hack play on words that
the astronaut corps might get a kick out of, so I think it might catch
on.

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 16 May 87 00:13:03 EDT
From: Steve Abrams <EXT768%UKCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V7 #225
To: Steve Abrams <Space@angband.s1.gov>

Recently, phoenix!pucc!EWTILENI@princeton.edu (Eric Tilenius) asked for
suggesttions for people to interview.  I am posting the following
suggestion here because the person/project haven't received much
press...

Eric, you might try contacting Peter Diamandis, the Foundation Director
for the "Space Generation Foundation" and Associate Administrator for
their International Space University Project (first planning conference
was held at MIT's Spacefair in April of this year).  He was also the
primary founder of Students for the Exploration and Development of
Space, so you can see that he has had a profound effect on the
popularization of space in this country.  You can contact him in care of
the Space Generation Foundation, 1011 24th St. NW, Washington, DC,20037
or P.O. Box 153, MIT Branch Post Office, Cambridge, MA 02139.

                                               Steve Abrams

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 87 17:24:30 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity

> The shuttle runs high pressure and suiting up requires pre breathing
> and decompression time.
> 
> I really wonder if for long term habitation and extensive outside work
> if low pressure isn't the way to go.

If the spacesuits were based on the Space Activity Suit concept (most of
the suit is just tight fabric to pressurize the skin, which is otherwise
exposed to vacuum; this has been tested in vacuum chambers and it
works), this would be a dead issue.  The problem with high suit
pressures is that nobody knows how to make arm and leg joints that stay
flexible with large pressure differences between inside and outside.
The SAS avoids the issue entirely since its joints have vacuum on both
sides; it has air only in the helmet.  It really is depressing that
after sponsoring the original work on the concept, NASA has not pursued
it, even though there seemed to be nothing really wrong with it except
that it was unorthodox.

"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 87 11:39:22 GMT
From: eagle!csw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (C.S.Welch)
Subject: TRW Space Data Handbook

 I have just come across a twenty year old copy of "TRW Space Data"
which, it claims, "is published biennially as a service to the aerospace
industry".  Despite its age it contains a lot of useful info, and I was
wondering if TRW still produce it and, if so, how I would go about
getting a copy on this side of the Atlantic.

 Any pointers in the right direction would be greatfully accepted.
Thanks is tendered in advance as I can't mail or reply, only post or
followup, outside the U.K.

Chris Welch,
Cranfield Institute,
U.K.

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 87 23:59:54 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Solar power and thermal pollution

> ... The lowest thermal
> polluting energy source is photovoltaic collectors on the roof of
> your house...

Only if your roof had a relatively low albedo to begin with.  Otherwise
those collectors are capturing energy that would have been reflected
back into space.  Note that photovoltaics are lucky to get 20%
efficiency, so most of that energy turns into heat at once.  Powersats
do better, because they put the low-efficiency part of the conversion
process out in space where the waste heat doesn't reach Earth.

> (which is the way the energy crisis will eventually be
> solved, see latest issue of Scientific American).

Ho ho.  Not in Toronto it won't be.  (Fred Hoyle commented that if you
talked about solar power in England, everyone would know you were
crazy.)  The Scientific American article didn't really dwell on little
problems like weather and darkness, both of which call for major
advances in energy storage technology if they are to be solved
adequately.

> Paul's SPS will pollute like crazy through its microwave connection.

It will affect communications.  The problem is substantial but manageable.

"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 87 18:10:23 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab

In Space v7, 219 Mike Caplinger repeats on of the often quoted myths of
our space age:

> Subject: heretical comment about Mir and the Russians' "lead"
> What's the big deal about Mir, anyway?  The diagram I saw in a recent
> AW&ST shows it to be quite a bit smaller than Skylab was, even with
> the addition of the "astronomy module" (shades of the ATM, eh?)
>    With the exception of extremely long duration missions, we already did
> everything Mir can do more than 10 years ago.
>    I realize there's a symbolic issue here, but it doesn't look to me like
> the Russians are "way out in front" now any more than they were in 1960.

Let us compare the advantages of the two stations.  As a reminder Soviet
stations have come in 3 generations: Their 1st containing Salyut 1 (Apr
- Oct '71), Salyut 2/Cosmos 557 (1973 - failures that were never
manned), Salyut 3 (Jun '74 - Jan '75), Salyut 4 ( Dec '74 - Feb '77),
and Salyut 5 (Jun '76 - Aug '77); Second generation with Salyut 6 (Sept
'77 - Jul '82) and Salyut 7 (Apr '82 - present); Third generation Mir
(Feb '86 - present).  Skylab was launched in May '73, the last crew left
in Feb '74, and decayed in July '79.

Where Skylab is currently ahead

(1) Skylab had a final mass of 77 Tonnes (with 2200 lbs per metric
Tonne), and the combined cluster Skylab + the Apollo Command Service
Module is listed as 90 Tonnes.  The current Soviet Mir/Kvant station has
a 33 Tonne mass as launched, while the combined Mir + Soyuz + Progress
cluster is 47 Tonnes.  However there are some caveats here.  The mass
for Skylab includes some 8 Tonnes of food, water, air, and fuel for that
were required for the entire mission.  By comparison the Progress
freighters bring that up to Mir.  There have been 5 Progresses to Mir,
each bring some 2.3 Tonnes of cargo/fuel/water for a total of 11.5
Tonnes added to Mir, plus about 1 Tonne more brought up by the Soyuz's
with the Cosmonauts.  Of course some of that has been discarded as
waste.  In Skylab all the garbage was kept in a tank at the "bottom" of
the station, so it maintained that mass (plus the astronauts took up
about 200 Kg per trip).  Also there is one other problem with Skylab's
mass - all the books I have found give the value as launched, with both
solar wings, but one was lost before orbit.  That probably reduces the
mass by 2-3 tonnes.

(2) Working volume for the Skylab complex was 357 cubic meters.  The
current Mir/Kvant combination is about 160 cubic meters.  From a
psychological point of view that was definitely better for Skylab crews.
However much of that volume had little useful value, and pictures of
Skylab show that its walls are not completely covered with equipment,
the way the Mir's is.  Also it should be noted that the new NASA station
has a volume per crew that is about the same as Mir's, or perhaps a bit
smaller.

Where Mir & other Soviet stations are ahead

(1) All Russian stations, right from Salyut 1 in 1971, have had orbital
manoeuvring rockets that use Hydrazine (UMHD) fuel and Nitrogen
Tetroxide oxidzer.  This allows the Soviets to do extensive orbital
changes with their systems. For example this lets them lower the orbit
to meet supply ships and Soyuz's (usually by letting the orbit decay a
bit so this does not cost them fuel), thus allowing those systems to
bring up more material.  Then they raise the orbit to keep the space
station up there.  Thus with this the orbital working lifetime of the
second generation Soviet Stations was about 5 years, and none of their
working stations have decayed from orbit (Salyut 2 and Comos 557 were
two early stations that were damaged on orbit, never manned, and allowed
to decay - the others were brought down by command from the ground).
Skylab had only a small Nitrogen gas system with 0.8 Tonnes of gas.  As
a result only small changes could be made to Skylab's orbit.  As we all
know it reentered in 1979 due to this.

(2) All second generation Russian space stations had 2 docking ports,
while Mir has 6.  Skylab had only one.  This has many implications.
First one crew could be docked to the station while a second crew came
up for a visit or to replace the first crew.  Without multiple ports
crew exchanges, where all or part of cosmonauts releaved those currently
manning the station, would be extremely difficult.  Secondly this allows
cargo to be brought to the station while a crew is on board (see point 3
also).  Thirdly the extra ports can be used to expand the current
station.  Salyut 6 & 7 had one extra module added to them at a time
(Salyut 7 had this done twice to it).  Mir currently has one expansion
module added (Kvant) but is designed to take at least 5 modules, plus a
Soyuz and one other vehicle.  Skylab was a one shot deal - no plans for
expansion.  Indeed the TRS rocket system that was being designed to
attached Skylab from the shuttle had two plans for it - one to boost it
to a higher orbit, the other to send it to reentry in the ocean areas.

(3) The Russians developed an automatic docking system back on Salyut 6
(1977) which allows unmanned cargo craft like Progress, or large "star"
modules (20 Tonne expansion unites) to attach to the system.  Since the
cargo craft are unmanned they do not need heat shields and can carry
more material.  This naturely cuts the effort and cost in supplying the
station and makes their long duration missions possible.  Indeed Skylab
was launched with 140 days worth of supplies on board.  The Apollo
capsule could only bring a few weeks worth up with them.  The plans for
a fourth mission to Skylab called for only a 30 day stay, due to supply
problems.  Again the Soviet autodocking system means the expansion
modules need no crew, making their design and testing simpler.  Skylab
had nothing like that developed for it.  Sure we could supply a station
from the shuttle and expand it that way, but not without developing
equipment which we do not have.  The Russians have had automatic systems
doing this for 10 YEARS!

(4) All Soviet stations since Salyut 6 (1977) have been refuelable via
Progress tanker craft.  In addition their water and air was resupplied
from the same vehicles via similar lines and transfer systems from the
Progress to the station.  Fuel supplied to Salyut 6 or 7 was about 5.3
Tonnes each, to Mir I estimate 2.2 Tonnes so far.  Since UMHD/Nitrogen
Tetroxide has a much higher specific impulse than Nitrogen gas that
gives them much more boost capability.  Water and air totaled about 11
Tonnes each for the Salyuts.  Mir is early in its cycle so that less
material has been supplied there.  The first generation Russian stations
where like Skylab - throw away cans.  You used them until they ran out
of supplies and then tossed them.  Second generation and the new Mir can
be used as long as you need or want them.

(5) Since Salyut 6 (1977) Russian stations have had a working partial
water recovery system.  The older versions recovered about 50% of the
water (Mir may be better from some comments).  Since water a human uses
about 4.5 Kg of water a day, but only 0.8 Kg of oxygen and 0.7 Kg of
food (dry) this is the most important thing to recover first.  Sure
better systems have been built on earth, but nothing else has flown in
zero g.  This is vital for a real station or long voyages to the
planets.  Nothing like this on Skylab.

(6) Mir has a data/communications relay system through their TDRS system
(the Eastern Data Relay Network).  While the shuttle has this Skylab did
not.

(7) Mir's solar power system puts out more power, 9-10 KW, than
Skylab's.  People think Skylab was better because some books talk about
the total possible power there as 23 KW.  However Skylab's max
deliverable power was only 8.5 KW before they lost the solar wing, and
about 6-7 after the repairs.  The difference comes from looking at the
area of the solar cells and their efficiency, while ignoring shadowing
effects, losses in the power cables, and other power system losses which
reduce the output to 33% of the max value.  Mir's values are for the
actual system output power. In addition the Soviets will be doing a
space walk to add more solar panels to Mir in the next month or so.

(8) The Russians have put a lot of work into making the crew
psychologically comfortable on their stations, from the experience they
have gotten from their long voyages.  They send up gifts from home and
fresh fruits on the Progress tankers, have a TV studio set up to set up
weekly vido conversations with friends and families.  Color schemes on
the station are for maximum comfort etc.  Again we can do this, but they
have 10 years of experience of what people miss most in orbit (they get
great pleasure in tending the small gardens in the space station for
example).

Where Mir will probably exceed Skylab:

(1) The Mir complex will exceed the combined Skylab complex mass when
two more 20 Tonne "star" modules are added, probably by the end of next
year.

(2) The Skylab's working volume record will fall if the Soviets add the
announced 4 "star" expansion modules that Mir was designed to take.
This will take several years to occur.

All of this was only hardware.  It ignores the experience the Soviets
have gained: 10 years of materials science experiments, zero g life
science work, the knowledge of how space station system work in orbit,
how joined structures behave in orbit over years of time.  If you think
that the Russians having more than twice the number of man hours of
space experience means nothing then you must argue that space is
different in that reguard than any activity on here earth - experience
counts when things must be done well or quickly.  Right now the US is
not even on the top 10 list of space flight durations.

Look it, Skylab was a wonderful house in space, but we have done nothing
real in space stations since.  Saying that Skylab is better than Mir is
like arguing that the Titanic ocean liner is better than a flying 747
aircraft.  Sure the ocean liner was more comfortable and larger, but it
was older technology, goes less places, is generally less flexible than
the 747, and no longer exists.  We have no working space shuttle, and a
space station which will not be operating probably for another decade.
To say that there is no problem because we are still ahead of the
Russians on the basis of Skylab is to deny the reality of the world.  It
makes people feel good in this country but it does not help solve our
problems.  Let us get the US program moving.

                                          Glenn Chapman
                                          MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 87 17:11:34 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab

One quibble:

> (2) All second generation Russian space stations had 2 docking ports,
> while Mir has 6.  Skylab had only one.  This has many implications...

If you check, you'll find that the forward end of Skylab was the
Multiple Docking Adaptor.  Note the word "Multiple".  There were
something like five Apollo-compatible docking ports on it in the
original design, and I believe at least two and probably all of them
were functional as orbited.  (Mmm, one or two may have been obstructed
by the solar telescope module.)  Only one was ever used, though.

"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #233
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA29419; Sun, 24 May 87 03:02:50 PDT
	id AA29419; Sun, 24 May 87 03:02:50 PDT
Date: Sun, 24 May 87 03:02:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705241002.AA29419@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #234

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 234

Today's Topics:
			 Soviet Space Shuttle
			    Soviet Jamming
	   Re: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab
		       Re: Soviet Space Shuttle
		    He's outdone himself this time
		    Question about Meissner effect
			 Re: Meissner effect
		  Re: He's outdone himself this time
				Towers
			       Amroc ad
			 Re: Space Elevators
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 May 87 21:00:46 GMT
From: dromedary.utah.edu!u-jeivan@cs.utah.edu  (Eric Ivancich)
Subject: Soviet Space Shuttle

I would like to start a discussion on the Soviet Space Shuttle.
Considering the technical problems we've had and the fact that they are
supposedly behind us technologically, what are their chances of success?
I've heard it said that our Space Shuttle is the most complex machine
ever built to date.  How will their's compare?  What about their
on-board computers?  I understand our shuttle uses computers of early
1970s vintage.  Let's here some speculation.

Eric

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 May 87 09:00:56 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Soviet Jamming

Though it has nothing to do with space, Jan Wasilewsky made a remark
that requires a response:

>The Soviets have never found it necessary to jam foreign broadcasts in
>English, though they have done it in Russian, Ukrainian, Yiddish, and
>other indigenous languages.

I listen to the BBC World Service on short wave, religously.  I can
assure the readers of Space Digest that the Soviets subject the BBC
English broadcasts (as well as the VOA) to vigorous jamming.  Soviet
jamming is in four forms.  The first is a noise jammer with a periodic
morse code call sign.  The second is a babble of noise and music called
"Markov Jamming" that is designed to sound like normal interference but
is really deliberate jamming.  The third method is having Radio Moscow
occupy the same frequencies as the BBC and VOA.  Finally the last
jamming technique is only partially deliberate, and this is with the
Soviet over the horizon radar, known as the "Moscow Woodpecker".  The
Moscow Woodpecker interfers with all frequencies.  Jan is right about
few Russians understanding English.  However what Jan doesn't appreciate
is a whole lot of other East European people do understand English, i.e.
English is fashionable in Poland.  Soviet jamming is a serious breach of
international law and demonstrates the Soviet Union's opposition to the
freedom of information.
       --- Apologies for posting this with this news group ---
                           Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 87 15:38:45 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Superiority of Soviet Mir station to Skylab

> > (2) All second generation Russian space stations had 2 docking
> > ports, while Mir has 6.  Skylab had only one.  This has many
> > implications...
> 
> If you check, you'll find that the forward end of Skylab was the
> Multiple Docking Adaptor.  Note the word "Multiple".  There were
> something like five Apollo-compatible docking ports on it in the
> original design, and I believe at least two and probably all of them
> were functional as orbited.

Keith Lofstrom suggested that I re-check this, and I did.  Turns out I
was right in spirit but wrong in detail.  Thusly:

The original MDA design did indeed have five docking ports.  At that
point, the MDA was basically just an empty metal shell devoted entirely
to holding said ports.  However, the Skylab concept at the time was the
"wet workshop", in which Skylab would actually operate as a rocket stage
during the boost to orbit.  Once in orbit, it would be vented to space
to clear out propellant residues, and then pressurized and fitted out.
The problem was that most of the equipment could not stand immersion in
liquid hydrogen, and the Apollo command modules bringing crews up had
limited cargo capacity, so as much equipment as possible had to be
stowed in the airlock and MDA during launch.  As equipment demands
increased, the MDA gradually filled up, and the pressure for more cargo
space gradually reduced the number of docking ports from five to two.

Then came the switch to the "dry workshop", in which Skylab was
launched, dry and fully-equipped, by the bottom two stages of a Saturn
V.  The MDA emptied out because it was no longer needed for cargo
storage.  At this point the missing docking ports could have been
reinstated... but it was now clear that Skylab was a one-shot and they
would never be used.  So the count stayed at two: it was handy to have
an extra port in case of problems of one kind or another, but there was
no reason for more.  The empty space in the MDA gradually filled up
again as the switch to the Saturn V permitted adding yet more equipment.

The basic point remains valid:  Skylab did have multiple docking ports,
and would have had a substantial number of them if there had been any
hope of finding a use for them.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 87 21:58:59 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle

> I would like to start a discussion on the Soviet Space Shuttle.
> Considering the technical problems we've had and the fact that they
> are supposedly behind us technologically, what are their chances of
> success?  I've heard it said that our Space Shuttle is the most
> complex machine ever built to date...

That is a bug, not a feature.  The Soviet space program has a long
history of building on its successes instead of dismantling them; this
means they are still using a lot of old, unsophisticated hardware.
(Their military is the same -- they never throw anything away.)  The
Vostok design that carried Gagarin is still in use (although not as a
manned vehicle).  So is the booster that launched it.  When you want to
*fly* *missions* instead of developing technology, there is a lot to be
said for *not* building complex machinery.  Their Shuttle will probably
be a lot simpler than ours.  That means it may well work better.

"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 87 18:35 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: He's outdone himself this time

(Warning: this message is not entirely serious.)

Emboldened by the warm reception received by the idea of building 100 km
towers, and by the recent work at IBM showing high current densities are
achievable in YBaCuO, I wondered about macroengineering applications of
superconductors.

An obvious application springs to mind: enhancing the earth's magnetic
field. Wait, isn't this absurd? Well, yes, but perhaps not impossible. The
earth's dipole magnetic field contains (if I recall correctly) about 200
megatons of energy. Proposed superconducting magnetic energy storage (SMES)
rings would be about 1 km across and store 1E-5 of that. Scaling a SMES to
global dimensions gives it an energy of on the order of 10 megatons. If we
make several global coils spaced about +- 200 km around the equator, we can
make the magnetic field in low equatorial orbit quite large.

A high magnetic field in equatorial orbit will make electrodynamic
tether propulsion much more practical, since operating currents will increase
and resistive losses will decrease.  A stronger magnetic field will extend
further into space, shielding more volume against solar flares.  The Van Allen
belts will get bigger, though.  Perhaps the large coils can be used to
generate power inductively from solar wind gusts.

Other applications might include levitation of current carrying wires,
aircraft and launchers using MHD effects, damping of ocean currents, or
inductive transmission of energy from space (by an even bigger coil in
geostationary orbit).

	Paul Dietz
	dietz@slb-doll.csnet
	No, no, put away that straightjacket...

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 1987 20:54-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Question about Meissner effect

I know that the effect excludes magnetic fields. I wonder if it works
equally well for rapidly changing fields. I'm pretty sure it works for
varying fields up to some point, but I've never heard if there are
limits to how fast it can generate an equal and opposite field to
exclude the impinging field.

What I'm saying is the Meissner effect means a perfect mirror for some
frequencies of EM waves, and I'm curious how high a frequency. RF?
Visible? X-Ray? Gamma-ray? How high a field density can be handled by
typical superconductors? Is the limit a factor of both frequency and
field density at the same time?

Such a capability at near room temperature has rather interesting
fall outs, like perfect optics for all-frequency telescopes and
perfect optics for all sorts of SDI systems. I don't think I need go
into all the good things this does from an engineering viewpoint.

And with such optics, an x-ray laser would not have to be a once
through operation, assuming of course we can get something to lase in
the x-ray region without evaporating it the process.

------------------------------

Return-Path: <TESTA-J%OSU-20@ohio-state.ARPA>
Date: Wed 13 May 87 22:39:59-EDT
From: ~joe testa~ <testa-j%OSU-20@ohio-state.arpa>
Subject: Re: Meissner effect

>The Meissner effect is another aspect of the fact that superconductors
>exclude magnetic fields from their interiors.  They do this by
>developing an internal current which creates a field in the opposite
>direction of sufficient strength to exactly balance the applied field.

Actually, the current is at the surface, rather than in the interior
(for type I superconductors at least).  Similar to the way conductors
shield electric field from their interiors by moving charges to the
surface.

					~jt~

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 87 12:27:17 GMT
From: rocksanne!sunybcs!schneck@cs.rochester.edu  (Nelson Schneck)
Subject: Re: He's outdone himself this time

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't all those with information stored on
magnetic media have something to say about this?  Just how strong a field
are you interested in?

Curious...  could be a good way to knock out "the enemy's" defenses if one
could "beam" a magnetic field at their computer installations.  *Does the
pentagon know about this?*

Amazing what a little not_entirely_serious idea can do...

	Nelson T. Schneck

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 12 May 87 18:05 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Towers

Gratified by Dani Eder's confirmation that tall towers are not obviously
impossible, I thought about two additional applications.

Beamed power receivers. By placing a rectenna above most of the atmosphere,
we can use much shorter wavelengths. This reduces the size of the
transmitter and the rectenna, and (if a wavelength is chosen that is
strongly absorbed by the lower atmosphere) allows one to use much higher
power densities without frying birds, aircraft or cities. Most importantly,
the size of a powersat could be reduced greatly, since smaller diameter
beams can have low power. This all assumes I can generate, receive and
rectify millimeter waves efficiently (perhaps superconductors will help).

Charging the atmosphere. One might be able to pump charge into the upper
atmosphere, which is quite conductive. I seem to recall that thunderstorms
are constantly recharging the atmosphere with a power of about 300
megawatts; we can do better than that. I'm not sure why one would do this
(maybe to make ozone?), but the environmental impact statement would be
interesting.  Would charging the atmosphere increase the strength of
thunderstorms?  Interesting possibilities for weather control here.

------------------------------

Date: 12 May 87 20:02:59 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!homxc!brt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (B.REYTBLAT)
Subject: Amroc ad


Amroc has an ad in the May 11 issue of AWST (p. 97).
Interesting details:

	1. 2 cu. ft. payload weighting 50 lb or less, can be launched into
	269nm (500km) orbit.

	2. Several such payloads are launched at once on a satellite bus.

	3. Cost ~= 1M$

	4. Amroc is teamed up with Globesatr Inc. (anybody heard of them?)

	5. The service is called Orbital Express.

Ben Reytblat
ihnp4!homxc!brt

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 87 01:30:09 GMT
From: centauri!bohica@sun.com  (Tom McReynolds)
Subject: Re: Space Elevators

I've been following the space elevator with interest, so I'm going to add
my 2 cents (or 1/2 wit :-)) in.

I have seen two major criticisms of the idea; first, the weight per unit
length is too high for any practical material, second, space debris will
sever the tower at low orbit altitudes.

After reading all the hoopla about superconductors, I have a question to
ask those out there who know more than I: Could an elevator be made of 
physically separated electomagnet modules, perhaps superconducting?


Disclaimer:
The entire idea has a ring of impracticality to me too. I am just curious
as to whether the numbers say its possible.

I could see it working one of two ways, by attraction or repulsion. Either
way, the arrangment would be something like this:

			***
		       ***** counterweight
			***
			 o
			 o  ----- geosychronous orbit
			 o
			 o  (rings, modules, etc of magnets,
			 o    strung in a line)
			 o
			 .
			 . (a long way down etc, etc.)
			 .
			 o
			 o
                --------------------
		     the ground

I guess you could say that each magnet would be a bead on a necklace,
with the "string" being the magnetic attraction (or repulsion, perhaps
superconducting diamagnetism?).

The modules could be as wide as necessary. The distance between modules
would not add to the weight the tower carried.

Problems I can see:

The whole thing might not work at all: The attraction or repulsion
would not be strong enough per unit weight of magnet module to make
it practical.

Stability problems: An attractive system would be unstable with respect
to distance between magnets (two modules would want to stick together)
a repulsive system would not want to stay in line. Perhaps active controls
would solve the first problem, and modules of decreasing diameter, or some
special shape, to produce a potential "well" for the magnet above to sit in
would fix the second. Again, input on this would be appreciated.

I haven't really solved the impact problem: Although the nature of the
problem would be different. I wonder how a very high speed metallic objects
going to react to a very strong magnetic field? :-)  The target cross
section of the tower might be smaller. I haven't thought this out enough.

Stress: What stresses would the magnet module "feel"? Would forces be
trying to tear it apart? Compress it?

Unknown problems: This idea leaves a lot of loose ends. So far I have been
thinking of it as a different sort of cable or column. What will *really*
happen?

I think this is an interesting idea to think about, even if it doesn't
work. If it does, that would be nicer still!

What do you all think? How incredibly stupid is this idea? I'm really
curious!

				-Tom

	Warning: I cry when flamed! (cringe, whine :-))	

	All misspellings are intentional (right...).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #234
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00964; Mon, 25 May 87 03:03:18 PDT
	id AA00964; Mon, 25 May 87 03:03:18 PDT
Date: Mon, 25 May 87 03:03:18 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705251003.AA00964@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #235

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 235

Today's Topics:
	  Interviews, and such for "Space Business" article
			Re: How far can we go?
	   Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets
	 Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets
		       Comments on old postings
no problem, just use more than one hop to reduce beam-divergence area
       concrete proposal for simple telepresence in LEO station
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:           Wed, 13 May 87 17:00:38 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu>
To: ewtileni@pucc.princeton.edu
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu, liberty
Subject:        Interviews, and such for "Space Business" article


The Reason foundation recently published a 38 page Issue Paper by
James Bennett and Phillip Salin called "Privatizing Space Transportation".

The paper is logical, well reserched, easy to read and very interesting.

I have also heard James Bennett on several national radio programs
(Michael Jackson, Larry King..) talking about the space program.
He is a good interview.

For more info on how to locate authors or a copy of the paper:

"Privatizing Space Transportation"
James Bennett, Phillip Salin
$5.00 + 5% mailing (CA rez + 6.5% Sales Theft)

The Reason Foundation
Federal Privatization Project
2716 Ocean Park Bl. Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(213) 392-0443

(bill)			lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 87 01:52:54 GMT
From: jade!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Re: How far can we go?

In article <765@mcgill-vision.UUCP> mouse@mcgill-vision.UUCP (der Mouse) writes:
>... I would point out that the ship must get its kinetic energy from
>somewhere, and the only place available is its own mass.  If we
>consider conservation of momentum, we see that we must lose mass,
>either to rocket exhaust or accelerating waste mass.

   The special-relativity formula for distance traveled under constant
acceleration:

	D = 1/a (cosh(aT) - 1),		where D=distance and T=ship time,

is of course not affected by whether the mass of the spaceship is constant.
It requires only that the ship accelerate at a constant rate.

   For a ship accelerating at constant acceleration a, using perfect rocket
propulsion (i.e., expelling its reaction mass at light-speed):

	M = M0 exp (-aT),		where M=mass and M0=initial mass,

so as aT grows the fuel-to-payload ratio grows dramatically.

   Since useful travel requires turnaround at the midpoint, we have:

	D = 2/a (cosh(aT/2) - 1).

The following chart shows a few possible points on this curve:

			Fuel-to-Payload Ratio
A
c		1.72:1 (aT=1)	7.39:1 (aT=2)	54.6:1 (aT=4)
c
e .97g (a=1)	D = .25 ly	D = 1.1 ly	D = 5.5 ly
l		T =   1 yr	T =   2 yr	T =   4 yr
e
r .291g (a=.3)	D = .75 ly	D = 3.3 ly	D =  18 ly
a		T =   3 yr	T =   6 yr	T =  12 yr
t
i .097g (a=.1)	D = 2.5 ly	D =  11 ly	D =  55 ly
o		T =  10 yr	T =  20 yr	T =  40 yr
n

   Constant-acceleration travel is not really very interesting, unless
some new physical principle were to make it desirable, because it makes
far more sense to expend fuel at the beginning and the end at a higher
rate.  I will post something about optimal fuel-consumption rates soon.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 15 May 87 21:58:23 GMT
From: jade!brahms!desj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (David desJardins)
Subject: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets

   Consider a perfect rocket -- one whose exhaust velocity is c.  Let D
be distance traveled, T elapsed ship time, t elapsed rest time, V ship
velocity, M ship mass, and M0 initial mass.  Let c=1 (e.g., time in
years and distance in light-years).
   We assume that the ship starts at rest but free of gravitational
forces; to first order, this is the same as traveling outward from a
solar system at precisely the escape velocity.  If the ship accelerates
at constant acceleration a, then a straightforward if tedious
calculation from the identities

	dD/dt = V,
	dt/dT = (1-V^2)^(-1/2),
	dV/dT = a(1-V^2),
	M dV  = dM

gives

	V = tanh(aT),
	D = 1/a (cosh(aT) - 1),
	M = M0 exp(-aT).

   The first conclusion that we draw from this is that our final
velocity after a period of acceleration depends only on the amount of
fuel expended and not on the rate at which is is consumed.  This is
because

	V = tanh(aT) = tanh(log(M0/M)) = (M0^2-M^2)/(M0^2+M^2).

   This tells us, if it were not already clear, that it is advantageous
to burn the available fuel as quickly as possible.  The final velocity
after the period of acceleration will be the same, so it is best to
reach this maximum velocity as soon as possible.

   If we let Ta be the acceleration (and deceleration) period, and Tc be
the coast period in the middle of the trip, so that the total trip time
T = 2 Ta + Tc, then we can solve for the distance traveled:

	Vc = tanh(a.Ta),
	D  = 2/a (cosh(a.Ta) - 1) + Vc (1-Vc^2)^(-1/2) Tc
	   = 2/a (cosh(a.Ta) - 1) + sinh(a.Ta) Tc.

   If we wish to travel a known distance D, and the maximum acceleration
we can accept is a, and our initial fuel-to-payload ratio is r, then:

	(M0/Mc)^2 = r+1,
	a.Ta = ln(M0/Mc) = 1/2 ln(r+1),
	sinh(a.Ta) = 1/2 [(r+1)^(1/2) - (r+1)^(-1/2)]
		   = r/2(r+1)^(1/2),
	cosh(a.Ta) = 1/2 [(r+1)^(1/2) + (r+1)^(-1/2)]
		   = (r+2)/2(r+1)^(1/2),
	D = 2/a ((r+2)/2(r+1)^(1/2) - 1) + Tc r/2(r+1)^(1/2),
	T = 2 Ta + Tc
	  = 1/a ln(r+1) + 2/r (r+1)^(1/2) (D - 2/a ((r+2)/2(r+1)^(1/2) - 1))
	  = 2s/r D + 1/a [ln(r+1) - 2 - 4/r + 4s/r]  where s^2 = r+1.

   So our formula tells us that the total travel time can be written as
the sum of two terms: one which is linear in the distance to be traveled
and one which is inversely proportional to the maximum acceleration we
can produce.

   Let's plug in some numbers.  A reasonable fuel-to-payload ratio might
be the middle entry on the chart I posted last time, 7.39:1.  This gives

	T = .784 D + 1.15 / a.

   Consider a distance of 11 ly.  The minimum acceleration would be
.097g (.1 ly/yr^2); this gives a constant acceleration throughout the
whole trip and leads to a travel time of 20.1 yr.  Tripling the
acceleration to .29g gives a travel time of only 12.5 yr, and increasing
it to .97g gives a travel time of 9.8 yr.  Beyond this the gains are
slight; enduring a thrust of 2.9g gives a travel time of 9.0 yr, and at
9.7g the trip would take 8.7 yr.

   It is not clear what "typical" fuel-to-mass ratios might be, or
indeed if Man will ever build interstellar self-contained rockets.
Also, since these calculation use ship time they ignore the advantages
of reducing the rest time for the trip.  But within these constraints
they seem to imply that accelerations much above 1g are not particularly
valuable, and they also give a lower bound of 2s/r D (or 2 r^(-1/2) D)
on the travel time, regardless of the acceleration.

   -- David desJardins

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 87 23:49:20 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets

> ... But within these constraints they seem to imply
> that accelerations much above 1g are not particularly valuable...

A simpler, if less rigorous, way of reaching this conclusion is to
observe that an acceleration of 1 G is roughly c/yr (i.e., speed of
light per year).  Obviously relativity will stick its nose in well
before the end of the year, but the message is clear: if you can get
fairly close to the speed limit in a small fraction of a typical trip
time, there isn't much point in higher accelerations.

"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 14 10:37:59 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: "MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU"@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov

<M> Date: Mon, 27 Apr 1987  22:39 EDT
<M> From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu

<M> "Trillion dollar" projects will often become trivial when self-reproducing
<M> machines become available.  It would be rash to assume that this stage
<M> requires more than 1000 post-industrial years.

I think you're being sanguine about a big question. The critical
questions are what is the doubling time of the self-reproducing machines
and how much do they cost to run. We already have self-reproducing
machines which take something like 15-30 years to reproduce and due to
low fecundity take even longer to double (except in Africa and India),
and cost an awful lot to operate, and have mostly acquired a meme which
diverts their energies away from useful work towards "recreation".
Presumably the non-biological self-replicating machines we build will
reproduce over a much shorter time cycle and have sufficient fecundity
to greatly diminish the doubling time, and presumably they will be much
cheaper to operate than our biological units, but those are just
presumptions, not established facts, at the present time, and should not
be stated as if they were established facts.

However, I basically agree with Minsky, 1000 years is an awful long
estimate of time from startup to $1e12. I'd put the upper bound at 100
years myself, and hope for more like 20 years if things go our way, with
the median-expectation at 30 years, but again these are just guesses,
not established fact.

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 12 May 87 10:41:15 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Comments on old postings

     Just got back from a conference and have been reading old SPACE
digests.  A few comments on some of last week's postings:
    >"Solar cells in space don't need protective coverings"...
       Yes, they do; to protect them from the ambient radiation environment.
    By the way, Spire corporation just announced production of an 18%
    efficient solar cell made from indium phospide, which is virtually
    immune to radiation damage.  Best silicon and gallium arsenide cells
    are about 23-25 percent efficient.  Copper indium selenide, which is
    also virtually immume to radiation, comes in at 12%.  And amorphous
    silicon, best about 11%.  The point about making them microns thin
    so that the weight is low is correct, but keep in mind that you do
    need a substrate to put them on.  This, the coverglass, and the
    panel support structure will dominate the weight anyway.

     >"We can extract gold from asteroids by carbonl processes or by
   (the standard mining technique) cyanide leaching."
       I expect this to be difficult in space.  Also, hydrogen (eg.,
   water) and nitrogen (eg., cyanide) are unavailable.

     >"Finding comets in the Oort cloud: >"Use a H-bomb as a flashbulb"
       Neat idea, but has problems.  Remember, the density of comets in
     the Oort cloud is about one per solar system volume (there are alot
     of comets out there because there is a lot of volume out there).
     Unless I blew the calculation, which is possible.  Anyway, a H-bomb
     won't illuminate that much volume.  Unless--if we surround the bomb
    with a huge amount of some element with a very distinctive emission
    spectrum, and look through filters for that particular spectrum to
    seperate out the signal from noise?  Still a tough problem--there's
    a huge area to search--at any one time you can only point your tele-
    scopes at a small portion of it--
        Acutually, the idea of searching the Oort cloud for comets is
    an interesting one; even verifying the existance of an Oort cloud
    would be an important thing to do.  But I don't see the funding
    ever materializing for a mission to blow off H-bombs in near-
    interstellar space....

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 14 10:48:27 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: no problem, just use more than one hop to reduce beam-divergence area

<DM> Date: 27 Apr 87 17:30:10 GMT
<DM> From: tektronix!reed!nscpdc!don@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Don McGlauflin)
<DM> Subject: Re: oort-cloud mining?

In article <8704231021.AA13527@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robe
rt Elton Maas) writes:
>whether we could mine the Oort cloud effectively. I don't think the
>beaming that distance is much of a technological problem given that we
                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

<DM> Hmm. I seem to remember reading somewhere that when they started
<DM> bouncing laser beams off the Apollo retro-reflectors on the Moon,
<DM> that the beam diverged from a .25" diameter to about 3 feet at the
<DM> other end.  A quick calculation indicates that the same divergence
<DM> at a distance of 100 A.U.  would require an energy collector about
<DM> 21 MILES in diameter.  Whew!

Only if you do it one-hop. Better would be to have several relay
stations, so you lose a few percent of your energy at each hop, maybe
end up with only half what you started with, but your collectors need be
only maybe one mile in diameter if you have 21 hops. Since area of
collector increases with square of diameter, whereas total area
increases only linearily with number of hops, you save area by having
multiple hops. For example, with 21 hops, you have 21 times your basic
1-mile-circle area, compared to 441 times your basic area if you have
just one hop. Since you are transmitting immense amounts of energy,
levitating in space is no problem (just bleed off enough energy to power
an ion rocket for station keeping), so you can have fixed instead of
orbiting stations and not have to worry about your relay stations moving
out of position, just servo each one into center of incoming beam from
previous one.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 17 13:35:51 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: "MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU"@xx.lcs.mit.edu, "REM%IMSSS"@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov
Subject: concrete proposal for simple telepresence in LEO station

<MM> Date: Sat, 9 May 1987  16:21 EDT
<MM> From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu

<MM> Proposal: a practical space station should be equippped with at
<MM> least three movable mechanical arms with dextrous hands.  They
<MM> should be able to be moved to any location inside or outside of the
<MM> station, if necessary, by using one another's help.

<MM> How versatile should those telepresence hands be?  Proposal: it
<MM> should be possible to dissassemble and repair any one of them, by
<MM> using the other two.  If this is set as a principal design
<MM> requirement, the station could be capable of self repair.

I like this proposal. It's brief and to the point, useful, possible with
present technology, and we can get it almost fully working on Earth
during the present lull in USA-launch capability if the arms are short
so that gravity isn't a big strain like it was on the CanadaArm.

What say we present this to Reagan and Congress and see how they react?
Should this be funded by public funds, or should some private company
volunteer to do all the R&D out of its own funds? If the latter, which
company? If the former, how soon (which FY budget) and how do we get it
moving as a "new start"?

<HS> Date: 10 May 87 19:28:07 GMT
<HS> From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)

<HS> My understanding -- this isn't an area where I'm expert, so I could
<HS> be wrong -- is that this level of telepresence technology does not
<HS> exist today even as a laboratory experiment, much less as
<HS> off-the-shelf hardware.

Note that we're not talking here about really advanced telepresence, and
not at all about autonomous robots, just remote servo using cameras for
visual feedback. Is the problem that hands aren't dexterious enough, or
that gloves for transmitting human finger motions to remote fingers and
for reflecting strain at remote fingers back to human fingers don't work
well enough? Video cameras are cheap nowadays, so we should be able to
install enough "surveilance" cameras to cover every nook and cranny of
the station from several angles, so that to get a new view we just
select (remotely) which camera will be multiplexed into the data feed to
Earth.  Perhaps somebody at CMU or other robotics lab which has worked
with the kind of equipment needed can comment on the mechanical and
servo quality presently available for this purpose?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #235
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02623; Tue, 26 May 87 03:03:28 PDT
	id AA02623; Tue, 26 May 87 03:03:28 PDT
Date: Tue, 26 May 87 03:03:28 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705261003.AA02623@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #236

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 236

Today's Topics:
	     Let's build a space station out of orbiters
			Satellite observation
 supernova, "if the right one don't get you, then the left one will"
			  Yeager's response
		  Re: Why haven't they found us yet?
		  Re: Why haven't they found us yet?
		  Re: Why haven't they found us yet?
		  Re: Why haven't they found us yet?
			   Where are they?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 19 May 87 21:25:28 PDT
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Let's build a space station out of orbiters

	In the course of building a model, I recently realized that
Mir is roughly the same size as one of our shuttle orbiters.  This
led me to the following series of guestimates, which may be flawed
in part because I am estimating sizes of space-station-sized objects
by comparing them with people in pictures and drawings.

 1. Mir is roughly the same size as a shuttle orbiter
    [source: models, photographs]
 2. The Shuttle cannot carry in its payload bay objects as large as an orbiter.
    [obvious]
 3. The Shuttle cannot carry in its payload bay objects with diameters
    as large as Mir.  [see 1,2]
 4. The proposed NASA space station is to be built of modules roughly the
    size of SpaceLab (i.e. half a shuttle bay.)
 5. Owing to weight restrictions, no more than one space station module can
    be launched at one time.
 6. The total volume of the proposed NASA station is LEQ than 11 modules.
    [source: LA times article on threatened Rockwell engineers]
 7. The number of shuttle missions required to launch the proposed NASA
    station is GEQ 11 flights.  [ibid]
 8. If the payload bay of a shuttle were sealed, the internal usable volume,
    including the regular quarters, would be roughly 3-4 times that of
    the internal volume of a space station module.
 9. I propose to launch 4 shuttles to space station orbit, connect them
    with some sort of docking ball, and call that our space station.
10. This configuration would provide between 12/11 and 16/11 of the volume
    of the proposed NASA station.
11. It would have volume available in larger chunks; eg. for ingesting
    satellites and repairing them "indoors."
12. It would have a greater volume/surface ratio.  (Good for heating.)
13. It would have a much stronger casing; on the tiled parts at least.
14. It would have 4 escape vehicles, if necessary.
15. The whole station could be returned to Earth for refit in 4 flights,
    if necessary (versus 22 flights for the NASA model).
16. It could be built by one contractor (Rockwell) instead of N.
17. It would cost $8 billion instead of $12+ billion.
18. It could be deployed in 4 years instead of 10.  (Remember that the NASA
    plan consumes at least 11 flights, or one year's worth, of the existing
    shuttles.  They should be willing to give up one to my proposed station,
    which would give us a head-start and free up the other two to
    non-space-station duties.)

This seems too easy.  What's wrong with this plan?  (I know I've left out
a few things like solar panels.  Does the other stuff add up to $4+ billion?)
--Christopher V.A. Schmidt
-------

------------------------------

Date: 14 May 87 17:04:54 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Satellite observation

Join Amateur Satellite Observers.  Write Jim Hale, HCR 65, Box 261-B,
Kingston, Arkansas, 72742, send $1 and sase for monthly newsletter and
satellite elements.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 14 11:03:22 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: "DIETZ%slb-test.csnet"@relay.cs.net
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: supernova, "if the right one don't get you, then the left one will"

<PFD> Date:     Tue, 28 Apr 87 15:39 EDT
<PFD> From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%slb-test.csnet@relay.cs.net>
<PFD> Subject:  Supernova

<PFD> According to Nature, about .1% of the people on earth had a
<PFD> neutrino from SN 1987A interact with them.  Assuming each neutrino
<PFD> deposits 5 MeV in the body, you can compute that a person 10 AU or
<PFD> so from the star at the time of core collapse would have received
<PFD> a lethal dose of neutrinos.

Well, if you're that close, you probably were destroyed by the general
blast of atomic hydrogen and dust etc., or by the radio waves, or the
microwaves, or by the infrared, or by the visible light, or by the UV,
or by the x-rays, or by the gamma-rays, or the neutrons, or by the
charged particles. I guess you're saying that even if you somehow
managed to shield against *all* those modes of energy and blast, the
neutrinos will get you, i.e. being very close to a supernova is even
worse than we thought??

------------------------------

Sender: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com
Date: 12 May 87 08:58:32 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Yeager's response
From: "Norman_Schuster.XSIS"@xerox.com

Several months ago, in response to a message from me concerning some
remarks made by General Chuck Yeager related to the Voyager flight,
Eugene N. Miya of Ames-Pioneer suggested to me off-line, that I write to
the General regarding my questions.

I sent him a message at the time, also off-line, that I would take his
advice.  I wrote to General Yeager on January 19 and I received an
answer dated February 5, 1987 from the General's wife, Glennis Yeager,
who is listed on the letterhead as Chief Executive Officer of Yeager,
Inc.

Due to the pressures of other business, this is the first opportunity
I've had to write about it. I don't know if everyone will find this of
interest now, but since the response is relatively brief, I'll copy it
for Space Digest , below:

Dear Mr. Schuster:

	Thank you for your letter of January 19th regarding General Yeager's
comments about the Voyager Flight. You had asked for some background on
the questions asked of General Yeager.

	The press made the statement that: "The Voyager Flight was a
breakthrough that would affect all commercial aviation in the future."
General Yeager said that that statement was not true due to the fact
that the materials and technology used were "off the shelf". He did not
say anything that would take away from the marvelous job that Dick and
Jeana did, in fact, stated that they had shown great stamina and courage
to undertake the flight.

	He was misquoted in many interviews and his comments were taken out of
context. Even the Voyager crew stated so on a television talk show and
said that he had given them much support.

	Also, you must understand that General Yeager flys for Piper Aircraft
and the flight he made on December 17th from Edwards to Kitty Hawk was
done for publicity and aircraft demonstration purposes, as part of his
job, and that anyone who has the backing can set such a record at any
time.

	We hope we have clarified the situation for you. We also hope that
people realize that press releases are not always complete and accurate.
Thank you again for writing; we appreciate your comments.

							Sincerely,
							(signed)
							Glennis Yeager

------------------------------

Date: 10 May 87 13:29:00 GMT
From: necntc!adelie!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@ames.arpa
Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet?

>I'm not saying that the first few advanced civilizations couldn't have
>arisen near the galactic center, but I find no compelling reason why this
>should be so. Life is likely to arise near a star anywhere in the galaxy

Aren't there simply more stars in these central regions?  Also, star
travel is more likely to develop where distances between stars are
smaller.

------------------------------

Date: 11 May 87 22:40:33 GMT
From: mike@arizona.edu  (Mike Coffin)
Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet?

If there are only a few --- say 20 or 30 --- advanced civilizations per
average galaxy then most of them will close to the center, where most of
the suns are.  Not only that, but the few that arise on the fringes
would probably realize that and make a beeline for the center, where the
action is.  I would guess that chances would be small that they would
notice us on on the way by.

						Mike Coffin
						mike@arizona.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 1 Apr 87 00:00:00 (just kidding)
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 17 13:38:31 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: tikal!slovax!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet?

<DF> Date: 8 May 87 05:37:42 GMT
<DF> From: tikal!slovax!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dan Flak)
<DF> Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet?

<DF> I'm not saying that the first few advanced civilizations couldn't
<DF> have arisen near the galactic center, but I find no compelling
<DF> reason why this should be so. Life is likely to arise near a star
<DF> anywhere in the galaxy with roughly equal probability.

Getting to where we are now, I agree, it's random among candidate stars
that have enough Carbon and other "heavy" elements manufactured earlier
in first-generation stars and spewed out via supernova or stellar wind.
If 75% of the candidate stars are in the gallactic center, then out of
the first four industrial civilizations, three should be in the center
and one in the outskirts, on the average. But past this point, there's a
difference. Out here it may take hundreds of years before we can
significantly colonize "nearby" stars (4-10 lightyears away). But in the
gallactic hub, where stars are much closer together, it may be a gentle
step from initial spacefaring to interstellar colonization. Therefore
the three gallactic-central civilizations may all expand rapidly, while
the one out here may colonize its own planetary system then stop
expanding for a long time because interstellar colonization isn't
cost-effective in some sense. The result is you have three advanced
interstellar civilizations, all three in the gallactic center, not one
in the outskirts, just an isolated Dyson sphere in the outskirts.

<DF> There are many more interesting places to visit in our galaxy than
<DF> old sol. Unless a spacefaring civilization is within 50 light years
<DF> of us, and has received our transmissions (never mind if they can
<DF> understand them), it would be *extemely* unlikely that they'd
<DF> stumble upon us accidentally.

I mostly agree, although it's possible an advanced civilization might
have enough technology and resources to set up observations of every
visible star in the galaxy, down to class M dwarfs, including even small
planets such as Earth and Venus lost in the glare using our crude and
relatively tiny 200-inch telescopes. Spectroscopy will tell which
planets have free Oxygen, indicating photosynthetic life, and
high-resolution spectroscopy of those free-Oxygen planets should show
the chemical structure of any common chemicals that are released into
the air for mating purposes or when a creature is killed. That way,
they'd know already a billion years ago that multi-cellular life had
developed on Earth, and have plenty of time to send automated probes to
monitor us more closely. But if they are deep in the dust as Asimov and
I proposed, and can't see us except by low-resolution infrared masked by
all that dust, they might not detect our free Oxygen much less our
organic chemicals.

<DF> Even at that, I refuse to believe that the galaxy is *so* densely
<DF> populated that spacefaring cultures occur every 100 light years or
<DF> so.

In the central bulge, our galaxy may in fact be nearly everywhere
populated, or it may be empty, but we'll have to await more infrared
information to put an upper bound on such. Out here in the nearby arms,
I agree with you, it's rather difficult to believe they are so close yet
haven't dropped by for a survey to watch our past few million years of
evolution. Probably they don't exist so closeby.

------------------------------

Date: 18 May 87 19:42:15 GMT
From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@AMES.ARPA  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet?

The problem with this idea (and I'm not an astronomer, so those more
knowledgeable on the matters please set the record straight, if I'm
bending it), is that nearly all stars near the galactic center -- and in
dense concentrations such as globular clusters -- are what are known as
"Population II," meaning they all formed at approximately the same time,
out of the original constituent materials of the galaxy -- namely
hydrogen and helium.  The stars of the central region formed prior to
the great cooking of heavier elements (performed by early generations of
stars, then spewed into interstellar space via supernova explosions)
which in the outer parts of the galaxy enriched the interstellar medium
for later star generations.  As a result, the planets, if any, in these
central realms would probably be either like Jupiter (that is, balls of
hot but non-fusing hydrogen and helium, minus Jupiter's heavy elements)
or else balls of frozen hydrogen, perhaps with helium lakes.  In either
case, pure hydrogen and helium are not at all suitable materials out of
which to construct living systems.  (Helium is inert, and hydrogen with
its single chemical bond will combine with itself but once to form
molecular hydrogen H2.  How could complex chemical mechanisms equivalent
to life be built on _that_ flimsy a chemical basis?)

It may well be that supernova explosions in the central regions
performed some enriching of the local interstellar space.  However, with
nearly all gas and dust already swept clean by the great star
condensation earlier, it would seem likely that only a few heavy element
enriched star systems could form (amidst a huge number that were
sterile), and the number of third-generation enriched systems (such as
the Solar System is thought to be) would be miniscule.  (Anyone out
there have quantitative estimates for these effects?)

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Santa Clara, California

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 87 05:49:53 GMT
From: tikal!slovax!flak@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dan Flak)
Subject: Where are they?


After two unsucessful attempts to get E-mail to Robert Maas, I gave
up. So here's the posting.

<DF> Life is likely to arise near a star anywhere in the galaxy
<DF> with roughly equal probability.

<REM> Getting to where we are now, I agree, it's random among candidate
<REM> stars that have enough Carbon and other "heavy" elements
<REM> manufactured earlier in first-generation stars and spewed out via
<REM> supernova or stellar wind.

The rest of your argument in this paragraph, which I deleted in the
interest of space, makes sense. The stars nearer the core are older.
Newer stars have a tendency to be born in the "dustier" arms. Therefore,
there is a higher probability that there are more 2nd and 3rd generation
stars near the core.  My original argument is reduced to "Well, maybe
there's higher radiation near the core - so there!" :-).  It's a much
weaker argument. Score one for you!

<DF> There are many more interesting places to visit in our galaxy than
<DF> old sol. Unless a spacefaring civilization is within 50 light years
<DF> of us, and has received our transmissions (never mind if they can
<DF> understand them), it would be *extremely* unlikely that they'd
<DF> stumble upon us accidentally.

My original E-mail message to you had an explanation of the Drake
Equation (which I probably didn't get 100% right). However, plunking in
my favorite figures I estimated approximately 50,000 intelligent
civilizations out there right now (although I'm not an expert, I figure
my guess is about as good as anyone else's). Figuring "average" density
of stars, that's one about every 40,000 light years. 40,000 years ago we
were still clubbing saber tooth tigers. If we received a message from
them today, it means that they are where we are now about 40,000 years
ago. A single civilization can do a lot in that time. A group of
civilizations would do even more. I'll have to rethink the model for the
uneven distribution of stars.

<REM> ... Spectroscopy will tell which planets have free Oxygen,
<REM> indicating photosynthetic life, and high-resolution spectroscopy
<REM> of those free-Oxygen planets should show the chemical structure of
<REM> any common chemicals that are released into the air for mating
<REM> purposes or when a creature is killed. That way, they'd know
<REM> already a billion years ago that multi-cellular life had developed
<REM> on Earth, and have plenty of time to send automated probes to
<REM> monitor us more closely. But if they are deep in the dust as
<REM> Asimov and I proposed, and can't see us except by low-resolution
<REM> infrared masked by all that dust, they might not detect our free
<REM> Oxygen much less our organic chemicals.

I like Sagan's analysis better. Spectroscopy will reveal methane and
oxygen in the earth's atmosphere. The ratio of methane to oxygen is too
high. They should combine to form a more stable mixture including
additional carbon dioxide and water. Therefore, the methane must be
produced by a continuing process. One such source is the flatuence of
cows.  Think about that as a sign of life on earth :-).

You are right, there *is* dust between us and the galactic core, which
is why we can't see it. It's only *slightly* brighter in that direction.

<DF> Even at that, I refuse to believe that the galaxy is *so* densely
<DF> populated that spacefaring cultures occur every 100 light years or
<DF> so.

<REM> In the central bulge, our galaxy may in fact be nearly everywhere
<REM> populated, or it may be empty, but we'll have to await more
<REM> infrared information to put an upper bound on such. Out here in
<REM> the nearby arms, I agree with you, it's rather difficult to
<REM> believe they are so close yet haven't dropped by for a survey to
<REM> watch our past few million years of evolution. Probably they don't
<REM> exist so closeby.

I contend that there is a certain maximum density of stars which
prohibits life. In the globular clusters, gravitational interaction may
have a tendency to "pull" planetary systems apart, or induce conditions
similar to the fabled "death star" that is allegedly stalking old sol at
a discrete distance, coming close enough to cause mass extinctions every
26 million years or so.  Also, in a densely populated neighborhood, it
is much more likely that a close neighbor will go nova (or supernova).
Having the house next door blow up doesn't do much for the property
values. Unfortunately, I've forgotten more math than I've ever learned,
so I don't know what these probabilities are, and I can't say how dense
is too dense. (Translation of last sentence - I'm too darn lazy to
figure it out).

Life in "downtown" Milky Way (i.e. at the core itself) is unlikely.
There are simply too many exotic cosmic creatures lurking there.  In the
suburbs (anywhere from 5,000 to 15,000 light years out - who knows?)
intelligent life, as you contend, may exist on nearly every block.  Out
here in the sticks, the intra-galactic dessert, I'll stick to a 40,000
light years between post boxes estimate. Even for an advanced
civilization, that's considerably more than a Sunday drive.  I'd think
they'd give us a call first (using radio astronomy) to see if anyone's
at home before dropping by. When your paper route includes 400 billion
addresses, it seems like the only sensible thing to do.

Then again, (my final thought), maybe they ain't here 'cause they ain't
there. Somebody has to be first. It could be we!

Thanks for the response.

{psivax,ism780}!logico!slovax!flak  :  {hplsla,uw-beaver}!tikal!slovax!flak
Dan Flak-R & D Associates,3625 Perkins Lane SW,Tacoma,Wa 98466,206-581-1322

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #236
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04611; Wed, 27 May 87 03:04:15 PDT
	id AA04611; Wed, 27 May 87 03:04:15 PDT
Date: Wed, 27 May 87 03:04:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705271004.AA04611@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #237

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 237

Today's Topics:
		 NASA News Space Station Development
		NASA NEWS - General Dynamics Agreement
		     Re: TRW Space Data Handbook
			  Meissner effect...
		  Soviet's launch new large booster
		      electromagnetic structures
			      Two things
			low cost launch system
		  Reprise to 'heretical comment...'
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 May 87 03:18:52 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (UUCP Admin)
Subject: NASA News Space Station Development

NASA NEWS - April 24, 1987
NASA ISSUES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS FOR SPACE STATION DEVELOPMENT
	The National Aeronautics and Space Administration issued
Requests for Proposals (RFP) to United States Industry for detailed
design and construction of a permanently manned Space Station to be
operational in low-Earth orbit in the mid 1990's. Proposals are due
by July 21.
	NASA has asked offerors to submit proposals for each of two
options. Option one is the phased program, that would lead to permanent
manned operations in space by 1996. Option two is the enhanced 
capability Space Station configuration.
	Under option one, the first phase of the Space Station would
include the U.S. laboratory and habitation modules, four resource nodes,
the U.S. polar-orbiting platform and experiment provisions outside the
pressurized modules. The initial configuration would also include
elements to be provided by the international partners. Funding for such
international participation will be provided by other governments who
will conduct their own detailed design and development work in phase
with NASA.
	FOR THE FIRST PHASE
* 75 kilowatts of power will be available on orbit before any foreign 
modules are brought to the Station. The power will be provided by 
photovoltaic solar arrays. NASA will continue preliminary work on solar
dynamic power system to retain the ability to incorporate that system in
the second phase of the program.
* Offerors are to submit proposals based on the following Space Station
program dates: January 1994 for first element launch; January 1995 for
man-tended capability; and the fourth quarter of 1995 for permanent
manned capability.
* The U.S. laboratory shall be confined only to life sciences
experiments compatible with microgravity materials research. Any
non-compatible requirements, such as large centrifuges or animal holding
facilities, would be provided for in an alternate module or resource
node. Resource nodes are pressurized environmentally controlled elements
that link other pressurized elements such as laboratory and habitation
modules. They serve as passageways for people and equipment, as well as
providing an environment for crew activity, Space Station command and
control operations and system support.
	Development of the second phase of the Space Station will be a
priced contract option for the second phase, if exercised, would be
accomplished starting in 1991. The second phase would add the upper and
lower truss structure, additional external payload attatch points, the
solar dynamic power system, a free-flying co-orbiting platform and a
servicing bay.
	Industry also will submit separate proposals for an enhanced
Space Station configuration which combines all the elements of the
phased program. The enhanced configuration was the product of a 2-year
definition and preliminary design study which was completed in January.
	The industry proposals and an independent technical and cost
review of the Space Station to be performed by the National Research
Council will provide the basis for a decision on the overall Space
Station configuration, capabilities, cost and annual funding projection
to be incorporated in the fiscal year 1989 budget.
	Four separate RFPs were issued from the four NASA "work package"
field centers. NASA plans to let contracts for each of the work packages
and has scheduled November 1987 as the effective date of the contracts.
	The work packages and the NASA centers responsibilities are:

	Work Package One, Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Ala.
-- detailed design, construction, test and evaluation of two pressurized
modules, one outfitted with appropriate systems for use as a
microgravity research laboratory and the other to serve as a habitation
module for the crew; three logistics transport systems; four resource
node structures; the environmental control and life support system;
internal thermal management system; and internal audio and video
systems.

	Work Package Two, Johnson Space Center, Houston -- detailed
design, construction, test and evaluation of the structural framework to
which the various elements of the Space Station will be attatched;
resource node outfitting; two airlocks; subsystems such as propulsion,
external thermal management, communications and tracking, data
management, guidance, navigation and control, and external audio and
video; interface between the Space Station and Space Shuttle; assembly
and external systems maintenance; and provisions for extravehicular
activities. Work Package Two elements provided for int the second phase
of the Space Station would include the upper and lower truss elements
and the mobile base for the Canadian mobile servicing system.

	Work Package Three, Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md.
-- detailed design, construction, test and evaluation of the automated
free flying polar platform and provisions for instruments and payloads
to be attatched externally to the Space Station. Work Package Three
elements provided for in the second phase of the Space Station would
include the co-orbiting free flying platform; additional external
payload attatch points; and the servicing facility. Goddard also is
responsible for building the Flight Telerobotic System, a telerobotic
device that will be capable of manipulations in space such as Station
assembly and payload servicing. It will be procured separately for the
Work Package contract.

	Work Package Four, Lewis Research Center, Cleveland -- detailed
design, construction, test and evaluation of the electrical power
generation, conditioning and storage, and power management and
distribution systems.

	Other NASA centers will support the detailed design adn
construction activities.
	The Kennedy Space Center, Fla. will be responsible for preflight
and launch operations and will be involved in logistics support
activities.  KSC will develop and outfit the launch site facilities and
ground support equipment and will develop transporation equipment for
moving large Space Station elements between work package contractors or
from the development site to the launch site.
	The Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, will be responsible for
program requirements and assessment, and the Langley Research Center,
Hampton, Va., will be responsible for evolution planning for the Space
Station.
	The Space Station will be capable of growth both in size and 
capability and is intended to operate for several decades, well into
the 21 st century. It is planned to be placed in orbit about 250 miles
above the Earth and at an inclination to the equator of 28.5 degrees.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 87-65 April 24, 1987
By Mark Hess Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted for electronic distribution with permission
-------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 19 May 87 03:19:43 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (UUCP Admin)
Subject: NASA NEWS - General Dynamics Agreement

NASA NEWS - April 10, 1987
NASA SIGNS COMMERCIAL AGREEMENT WITH GENERAL DYNAMICS
	The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has signed
the first United States government agreement transferring commercial
operations of an expendable launch vehicle (ELV) to the private sector.
	The agreement is wil General Dynamics Space Systems Division, 
San Diego, Calif., for the Atlas/Centaur launch vehicle. The agreement
transfers authority to General Dynamics to use NASA controlled facilities
and capabilities for commercial manufacture and launch of the Atlas/Centaur.
	Under the terms and conditions of the agreement, Atlas/Centaur
production and operating rights are transferred to General Dynamics. 
General Dynamics can initiate production on a commercial basis but will
reimburse the government for any direct costs which the government incurs
as a result of their commercial activities. General Dynamics may sell the
launch vehicles and services to customers and also may enter into agreements
with any third party or agent to market the launching service as a systems
operator.
	NASA endorses the development of U.S. private sector launch
capabilities and has proceeded to transfer authority to the private
sector to use NASA controlled facilities and capabilities for commercial
launches.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 87-55 April 10,1987
By David W. Garrett Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted for electronic distribution with permission
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 87 15:28:51 GMT
From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: TRW Space Data Handbook

Chris Welch, Cranfield Institute, U.K. writes:
>  I have just come across a twenty year old copy of "TRW Space Data" which, it
> claims, "is published biennially as a service to the aerospace industry".
> Despite its age it contains a lot of useful info, and I was wondering if TRW
> still produce it and, if so, how I would go about getting a copy on this side
> of the Atlantic.
>  Any pointers in the right direction would be greatfully accepted. Thanks is
> tendered in advance as I can't mail or reply, only post or followup, outside
> the U.K.
 
As far as I know, TRW put out three of these books, the third and last
in 1967 (I have all three).  They also published the "Space Log," which
described launches and gave orbital information.  In 1962, when I started
reading it, it was quarterly.  The most recent edition I have is 1984-1985;
I don't know if it's come out since.  An interesting feature was its "Box
Score of U.S. Launches," a year by year bar chart of successes and failures
by which the rise and post-Apollo fall and shuttle rise of the U.S. Space
Program can be seen clearly.  Paging through back issues sure makes one long
for the future we thought was coming.

From the 1984-1985 "Space Log" frontispiece:
 Professional personnel in the aerospace industry, the military and other
 government agencies may request Space Log by writing (on company or
 organization letterhead): Editor, TRW Space Log, TRW Electronics &
 Defense, One Space Park, Mail Station 102/1100, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.
 Please include your internal mail location.

			-Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer
			 mink@cfa.harvard.edu
			 {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 12 May 87 12:24:25 EDT
From: Steve Abrams <EXT768%UKCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov
Subject:      Meissner effect...

   The "Meissner effect" is one of the confirming clues of super-
conductivity in a material.  When a superconducting loop or tube,
in a weak magnetic field (<< hc), is cooled down through its
transition temperature (forever may it rise! -- steve), tc, the
magnetic flux is trapped in the loop.  The flux is then constant,
being unchanged by variations in the external field.  It is
sustained by supercurrents circulating around the loop.  Any
field variation is countered, by lenz's law, by the induction of
an "equal and opposite" supercurrent that seeks to minimize the
effect of the original variation.  The superconductivity can,
however, be destroyed if the magnetic field or the current in the
loop approach the transition field or the transition current
(respectively).  The current produced in a closed ring by the
Meissner effect will continue to flow for a considerable time
after the external field is removed *** as long as the temperature
is maintained below tc ***.  This effect is used in superconducting
magnets (which are then used in machines like the proposed super-
conducting supercollider).
   The only reference I can find (and its ten years old) discusses
various niobium alloys with current densities of 2 ka/mm(sup 2) at
4.5 K leading to flux densities of over 10 T.  Anyone have any more
current (pun intended ... no matter how poorly it is received)
information?

                        Steve  Abrams
                         EXT768@UKCC

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 May 87 17:01:46 EDT
From: weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Soviet's launch new large booster


> ...
>	OK people, space race part 2 is on.  Just like the first one our
>   lauchers are blowing up while theirs are flying.  Are we going to stand
>   still or are we going to get moving again?
>

	The scariest (I think) difference between now and then is that
then, everyone knew about the Soviet lead and was scared as hell, the
government was forced to move.  But now, there is no news coverage,
few people realize how much the soviets are doing, and the government
feels no pressure to do ANYTHING!  They are as usual sitting around
and bickering over petty budget problems for things they don't
understand...gad it's nauseating...anyway my point being WHY ISN'T THE
PUBLIC BEING MADE AWARE OF THE CURRENT SITUATION.  We are way behind
the USSR in terms of space development, but no one seems to care.
Don't get me wrong, I just care about space development (manned, esp) -
*I* don't feel threatened by the success of the
Soviets in space, nor do I particularly care about the spread of
communism etc, nor do I view the USSR as our nemesis/enemy - but some
people do, and somehow in the 60s someone managed to manipulate these
people into thinkning the space program was important to keep us safe
from those evil godless russians. 
	So my question (above in all caps) has two answers, either it
takes an effort to do what was done in the sixties to convince people
that there is reason to fear, and no one has done that yet - or
someone is suppressing news coverage of soviet success for some
reason... I don't know...

					-Chris

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 97 19:46:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: electromagnetic structures


>Bless you, you've stumbled onto one of my favorite areas of interest--
>electromagnetic structures.  Not that I'm interested in building space
>elevators of the sort that have been getting so much discussion here
>of late, but you can use them to build a more practical alternative.

  Just what *IS* an electromagnetic structure?   Does it fall apart
  if there is a power failure?
                                               --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 May 87 16:44:07 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Two things

At this moment, the next shuttle launch date was released as June 1988
from Fletcher's Office.

Second, I was driving the backwoods of the Rockies when I heard about
some big Soviet Booster.  Since I just got back and am still swiming thru
the usenet, could some one mail be quick specs.  If you read this after
5/22, don't bother.

Oh, third thing on ignorance, like mine.  The other day, we had
a big supercomputer convention in Santa Clara.  Friends from NASA GSFC
Massively Parallel Processor came by.  They wanted to see the Cray-2,
we took them over (now in another building).  In the machine room
was a model of the National Aero Space Plane.  Two of them asked
what's that?  My jaw dropped.  It's hard to know everything which
goes on in the Agency, it's a big place, but the NASP?

Oh well.
From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 21 Oct 97 19:51:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: low cost launch system


>           Atlanta - President Reagan has proposed spending
>       billions of federal dollars to design a hypersonic transport
>       -- the "Orient Express."  But, if a small engineering firm
>       in Georgia has its way, space transportation could become
>       affordable in about a year's time and at a cost of about
>       $100 million.
>            The secret lies in the Space Transportation Vehicle or
>       STV.  A dream of Robert Talmage Jr., an engineer at the
>       Atlanta-based TAAS Co., the design would convert just about
>       any commercial airliner into a space transport that could
>       deliver a 4000-lb payload into an orbit of around 200,000
>       feet.
>
> [...]
>
>            Talmage claims the STV could deliver loads into orbit
>       for a price of $7 million per trip.  That comes to about 88%
>       less than the cost of a shuttle flight.

  200,000 feet is pretty low.  How long will something remain in 
  orbit at this altitude?  Is this altitude useful for anything or 
  would the customer typically supply his own booster to get into a
  higher orbit?
                                     --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 87 14:18:26 GMT
From: halleys!frog!john@bu-cs.bu.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Reprise to 'heretical comment...'

> > What's the big deal about Mir, anyway?

From the 20 May 1987 Boston Globe:

"Soviet launch points up US lag in space

   The Soviet Union's successful launch of the world's most powerful launch
vehicle, space program analysts said yesterday, has driven home a point that
many [ like Henry :-] say was already becoming clear -- the United states has
lost the lead in space technology.
   When the 197-foot Energia rocket thundered skyward from the Baikonur Space
Center on its first test flight last Friday, it gave the Soviet Union a launch
capability comparable to what the United States had -- and abandoned -- with
the Saturn V rocket, which was developed in the 1960's to send astronauts to
the moon.
   ...
   The Energia can lift into orbit a payload about five times larger than that
of the space shuttle, the most powerful launch vehicle in the US fleet...
   ...
   [Space officials from around the world meeting at a symposium in Pasadena,
Calif., said yesterday that the Soviet exploration of the solar system in the
next decade includes missions that eclipse many proposals still in the
planning stages in the United States and Europe, the Los Angeles Times
reported.]"


--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

"Happiness is the planet Earth
	in your rear-view mirror."
		- Sam Hurt, in "Eyebeam, Therefore I Am"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #237
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06595; Thu, 28 May 87 03:03:56 PDT
	id AA06595; Thu, 28 May 87 03:03:56 PDT
Date: Thu, 28 May 87 03:03:56 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705281003.AA06595@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #238

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 238

Today's Topics:
       space news from March 16 AW&ST, and long nasty editorial
		    space news from March 23 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 May 87 01:06:27 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 16 AW&ST, and long nasty editorial

SDI and NASA in agreement that space debris is becoming a serious hazard
to large low-orbit satellites.

Weinberger approves new DoD space policy, calling in particular for new
assessment of the role of military astronauts and for better monitoring
of "militarily significant" space activities.

Morton Thiokol delays first full-scale post-51L SRB test until mid-May,
after discovery of insulation-bonding problems in earlier small-scale test.
This may have been an artifact of the manual assembly technique.  The test
delay will not delay the shuttle schedule if the test does not slip further.

DoD unveils plan to restructure antisatellite program, including live-fire
tests in 1988.  Congress not pleased.  Plan also calls for evaluation of
switching to a ground-launched system using a Pershing 2 as a booster, to
increase the altitude capability.

Soviet Union does flight-readiness firing of its heavylift booster.  Launch
expected before midsummer [successful launch a week or so ago -- HS], first
flight carrying the Soviet shuttle expected within a year, possibly before
US shuttle flies again.  The Soviet shuttle was not attached during the
firing, but does not have to be since it has no major engines of its own.

Soviets claim to be planning to launch small unmanned materials-processing
missions that will process as free-flyers and then dock with Mir so that
their products can be returned to Earth as part of Mir operations.  [Can
you say "operational space station"?  Sure you can.  -- HS]

Large article on NASA prospects for unmanned planetary exploration, notably
the prospect of a Mars rover/return mission circa 2000.  Other prospects
are the CRAF mission to comet Tempel 2 and a Saturn orbiter + Titan probe
mission.  If the latter were launched on a heavylift booster instead of
a Titan 4, it could add a Titan hard-lander and a Saturn atmosphere probe.

Pictures of shuttle work at KSC.  Common belief among the people doing the
work is that summer 1988 is more realistic than Feb 1988 for first launch.
Safety constraints are likely to cause a lot of launch scrubs, at least in
the beginning, because more formal new procedures will make it impossible
to resolve difficulties quickly enough after T-5min to continue the launch.

New major shuttle safety problem.  The 17-inch disconnect valves in the
main plumbing between the External Tank and the orbiter were earmarked for
special attention as a serious worry, but the worry has just gotten much
worse because bench tests show that the valve disks flutter violently in
the fuel flow instead of just standing open.  This means considerable
re-assessment.  Discovery's valves have been pulled for inspection and
testing.

There is also an open question about weld quality in the heat exchanger
coils on two of Discovery's engines.  They are nearly impossible to inspect,
and replacing the engines would mean several months of delay.

KSC runway to get barriers capable of stopping an orbiter at 100 knots.

Picture of American Rocket Co.'s first full-scale engine test at the USAF
Rocket Propulsion Lab; combustion stable and vibration comparable to a
liquid-fuel engine.  Amroc has started negotiations with the USAF for a
suborbital test flight from Vandenberg late this year.  USAF supports the
idea but details are yet to be sorted out.  One question is which pad to
use, the problem being what's close to the flight path if something goes
wrong.  The Titan failure has led to particular worries about the Vandenberg
shuttle pad, which is at the south end of Vandenberg and is near the path
of almost any polar-orbit launch there.  Some facts and figures about the
Amroc engine.

GOES-H checkout proceeding well, movement to its permanent station to start
March 25th.  That, plus the planned shift of GOES-6 immediately afterward,
will restore full US weather monitoring.

Next few US expendable launches:

March 19	Palapa (Indonesion comsat) aboard Delta [okay I think -- HS]
March 26	FltSatCom (military comsat) on Atlas [failure -- HS]
November	SDI Delta
3rd qtr 1988	SDI Delta
Feb 1989	Cosmic Background Explorer, Delta from Vandenberg
3rd qtr 1989	SDI Delta

Comsat to buy SBS-1 and SBS-2, currently owned by MCI but getting low on
fuel.  Comsat's new stationkeeping maneuver to be used to extend their life.
Deal is subject to FCC approval since Comsat's current licenses are for new
satellites rather than old ones.

[Editorial:    Starting Over and Doing It Right, Part 1:  Who's In Charge?

NASA employees are warned to have fire extinguishers and rabies vaccine handy
before reading this editorial.

In my previous editorial, I said "It's time to give the West's dying space
program a decent burial, so we can start over -- from scratch -- and do it
right."  Before I start on the "do it right" part, I should comment that I
don't favor scrapping the existing systems instantly.  This would be another
repetition of an all-too-frequent past mistake:  trading working hardware
today for promises tomorrow.  However, we must recognize that the working
hardware of today is a dead end that urgently needs scrapping, even though
we need to keep it operational until the replacements arrive.

Okay, so how do we do it right?

Well, this begs the question:  "do *what* right?".  What do we want?  I'll
discuss this at greater length later, but for now I'll sum it up with a
phrase that was common in the early history of the Shuttle, but is rarely
heard today:  "routine access to space".  "Routine" means it doesn't cost
an arm and a leg, it doesn't require ten years of advance planning, it isn't
subject to arbitrary cancellation because some bureaucrat gets up on the
wrong side of the bed, and it doesn't require that one's objectives be
politically correct.  (Those who think this last refers only to the Soviet
Union should consider that the US Office of Commercial Space Transportation
can veto any private launch which is "not in the national interest", even
if it meets safety requirements and is fully paid for.)  In short, subject
to obvious safety rules, when we want to put something into space, we can
depend on being able to plunk down a modest amount of cash and do it.

As I observed in the previous editorial, we are far away from that today.
I further commented that the current system won't get us there, either.
Which brings me to a radical observation:

*Getting routine access to space absolutely requires getting NASA out of
the space-transportation business completely.*

This may sound a little drastic.  After all, didn't I praise NASA's Apollo
program as mankind's highest achievement?

Yes, I did.  But that wasn't today's NASA.  That was the NASA of the early
1960s:  a new agency, relatively small and streamlined, capable of making
fast decisions and getting results.  That was the agency in which Del
Tischler could write the spec for the F-1 engine -- still the most powerful
liquid-fuel engine ever flown -- himself in 24 hours, have it reviewed and
out to contractors in a week, and have contracts signed and work underway
within a few months.  That was the agency in which Mariner 1 went from a
back-of-the-envelope sketch to the launch pad in 11 months.  That was the
agency in which Wernher von Braun's crews built the first Saturn Vs in NASA
facilities, with production shifting to contractors only after the problems
were ironed out.  That was the agency in which Kurt Debus -- director of KSC
and one of von Braun's original Peenemunde bunch -- could cancel a scrub of
a Saturn 1 launch and order the launch to proceed despite problems, not
because he was a bureaucrat under schedule pressure but because he knew what
he was doing and assessed the problems as unimportant (he was right).  That
was the agency that put a man on the moon in 8 years.

Doesn't sound much like today's NASA, does it?

A large part of the reason why the space program is dying is that NASA is
senile.  To some extent this is due to external factors, to wit the lack of
a well-defined mission with high-level backing.  That could be fixed.  But
more serious problems would remain.  Bureaucracies ossify.  Decisions have
to be made by committee, because that way no one person ever has to risk
taking the blame for a mistake.  Preferably they should be mulled over for
a few years first, and run past everyone who might possibly object, just
in case.  Upper management has to review every detail, because otherwise
they might actually have to defend a subordinate who made a mistake.  And
of course upper management then needs another platoon of paper-pushers
to do all this reviewing.  Nobody, anywhere in this glorious edifice, has
the slightest incentive to simplify procedures and remove obstacles.  Well,
except for the poor people trying to get work done, and they have no say!
Bureaucracies, and indeed most organizations, make most of their real
contributions to mankind early, before the rot sets in.  The rot set in
quite some time ago at NASA.

Anyone who thinks this can be fixed should remember what an uproar it
caused when NASA tried to make some modest management changes in the space
station.  We're not talking about moving a few lines on the chart; fixing
the overall problem means turning NASA upside down and shaking vigorously,
and getting rid of a lot of what falls out.  (Ever try to fire a civil
servant?)  Forget it, no hope.

The implications of all this ossification are profound, and bad.  The drive
to reduce uncertainty and risk means that competition cannot be allowed.
NASA pushed awfully hard to get the shuttle declared to be the only official
US launcher, remember?  Less overtly, NASA did its level best to harass,
discourage, and scuttle plans to develop private launch systems.  (It was
not an accident that a private-enterprise-minded administration setting up
a single regulatory agency for private spaceflight took pains to separate
the Office of Commercial Space Transportation from NASA completely, despite
NASA's objections.)  (NASA is quite upset that NOAA wants to buy expendables
direct from the suppliers instead of going through NASA.  One major reason
why NOAA wants to do this is to reduce the manpower and paperwork needed.)
Oh sure, NASA wants private companies in space... as junior partners to NASA.

Another way to reduce risk, of course, is to deal only with people you know.
That is, aerospace contractors.  The people who can't build anything in less
than a year or for less than fifty million dollars.  Especially if they're
doing it for the government.  Guess who NASA is buying the space station from.

NASA also has another problem, a more subtle one.  NASA was founded as an
R&D agency, in the footsteps of its highly-successful predecessor NACA.
And this orientation goes deep.  Deep down in its heart, NASA does not want
to build on its past successes -- it wants to do new things, not do the old
ones better.  (The aerospace contractors are all in favor of this, because
they get to pad the bills more that way.)  NASA wants to *develop* things.
What's wrong with that, you ask?  Nothing, in isolation.  NACA followed
that philosophy, and did a powerful lot of good for aviation.  But notice
that it isn't enough, by itself.  What the space program most needs today
is *not* new launchers, *not* aerospace planes, *not* aerocapture systems,
*not* fifteen-billion-dollar space stations that will be ever so much better
than those silly Soviet tin cans.

The space program needs somebody who can FLY MISSIONS.  And fly them
cheaply and often.  The Soviets do it pretty well.  And you know something?
Most of the hardware they use for it is twenty or thirty years old.  The
booster that launches the Soyuz missions is a somewhat souped-up version
of the one that launched Sputnik 1.  Their standard unmanned recoverable
vehicle is a minor variant of the Vostok capsule that carried Gagarin.
They never develop anything they don't have to.  That's a large part of
why they've got a much more successful space program.  They build on their
successes, instead of dismantling them.

NASA simply is not oriented towards flying operational missions.  It is
an R&D agency.  But NASA wants control and will not give up the operational
role.  Notice how every attempt at getting NASA cooperation for a privately-
funded orbiter has failed, not rejected outright but stalled until it died?
Notice how reluctant NASA is to buy expendables, rather than using its own
in-house launcher?  NASA is determined to stay in the driver's seat, even
though it can't drive worth beans.

NASA is not part of the solution, it is part of the problem.

If we want a solution, we must keep NASA out of it.		-- HS]

[Next:  Doing It Right, Part 2:  The Government Does Have A Role.]
-- 
"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 87 23:31:49 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 23 AW&ST

Next Mir add-on module, late this year, will be an Earth-resources
photographic unit.

Rockwell budgets $20M of internal funds to get the Challenger replacement
underway.  NASA funding starts August.  NASA has agreed to repay the $20M,
assuming the project is not cancelled for some reason.

DoT Sec. Dole appeals to the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting to
let NASA acquire a mixed launch fleet... provided that NASA buys launch
services from industry, rather than buying hardware and managing its own.

NOAA tells NASA that it will buy commercial expendables for the next 3
GOES Clarke-orbit metsats directly from industry, not through NASA.  NOAA
would still like NASA's help in evaluating and monitoring the contracts,
although NASA may refuse on the grounds that it would have no control but
would still be blamed if something went wrong.  NASA claims that since the
government does not insure its payloads, it needs to oversee booster work
to assure success.  NOAA says that DoC contract monitoring staff will total
5-10, only 1-2 of them working for NOAA; NASA was planning to use about 40
people to run the NOAA contract, and in the past has used up to 70.  NOAA
will officially ask for bids in April, for first launch by fall 1989.
Something in the Titan 3 or Atlas-Centaur class will be needed.

General Dynamics optimistic about commercial Atlas-Centaur, despite losing
the USAF MLV.  Three/year would be enough to make it viable, with Pad 36B
at the Cape able to support five/year with surge to six.  36A could be
reactivated if more launches are needed.  Satisfactory agreements with NASA
and the USAF are imminent.  Three different diameters of payload fairing are
planned: 10 ft (current), 10.8 ft (PAM-D2, Ariane 2-3 payloads), and 13.8 ft
(Shuttle, Ariane 4 payloads -- slight loss of payload weight due to drag of
the oversize fairing).

[Prediction:  the GOES contract will go to GD to help keep Atlas-Centaur
alive.  That will be the reason, regardless of the excuses offered.  -- HS]

Orbital Sciences, which makes the TOS upper stage for Mars Observer, has
offered to finance a Titan 34D to launch MO in 1990, and has put a deposit
on one.  NASA would like to launch MO in 1990 but has no money just now
to get a Titan started.  OSC would use the Titan itself as collateral on
loans to buy it, with NASA repaying the loans, interest, and costs in 1989.
No commitment would be required until Oct 1988 (when the FY89 budget arrives);
if NASA didn't go for it, OSC would simply sell the Titan to someone else.
NASA is thinking about this novel arrangement, and is under pressure to
decide quickly because minor changes to MO and TOS would be needed.

Soviet Union is examining accelerating its Mars program.  Penetrators,
balloons, and maybe a small rover will launch in 1992.  A large rover would
go in 1994, with a sample-return mission in 1998 or perhaps 1996.  The 1994
rover will include two robot moles for deep soil sampling.  The sample
return might be followed by sample return from a Martian moon, and perhaps
later by asteroid sample returns.  The Soviets, incidentally, have not given
up on life-detection experiments.  Soviets say that manned Mars missions will
have to wait at least until human on-orbit stay times reach three years or so,
so the effects of free fall for a 2.5-year mission are understood.

White House agrees to two-phase space station, to keep initial cost down.

Intelsat board votes to authorize talking to Martin Marietta about Titan
launches for two Intelsat 6s bumped from shuttle.  (Intelsat already has
Ariane reservations for three others.)

Voyager 2 fires thrusters for 70.5 minutes March 13 to fine-tune trajectory
for Neptune encounter (25 Aug 1989).

USAF metsat photo of Chernobyl accident released, showing a trail cut in
local cloud cover by radioactive ions six days after the accident.  This
has been predicted but never before seen.

NASA may take a relatively minor role in the new heavylift launcher.  USAF
says essentially "send some experts, then get lost".  Congress is muttering
about this; some think NASA should be in charge of the HLLV while the USAF
runs the Aerospace Plane.  The obvious problem is that NASA has no money
for it.  A related problem is that a recent memo from the White House seems
to order NASA to buy its expendables commercially, rather than managing
them in-house.  Loud debates continue about whether the HLLV technology
should be new or shuttle-derived; much will depend on how soon it is needed
and what for (the USAF wants low cost and doesn't mind losing a payload now
and then, while NASA wants reliability).

Dale Myers, NASA deputy admin, says the HLLV would be quite useful to NASA.
The space station and Galileo are obvious candidates for HLLV launch.

[AW&ST appears to have made a goof in its typesetting of that item -- stuck
in the middle of it are half a dozen totally unrelated paragraphs about the
sad state of the US semiconductor industry!     -- HS]

Rockwell is still considering tradeoffs in building the Challenger
replacement at the Palmdale plant or at Vandenberg.  The Vandenberg idea is
from the USAF, which hopes to reduce maintenance costs of the mothballed
shuttle facility there by using it for this.  Most everybody seems to think
this is a really dumb idea; in particular, most of the skilled work force
doesn't want to move away from the aerospace-oriented Palmdale area.

Picture from Japan's MOS-1 (Marine Observation Satellite), showing runways
etc. at Nagasaki airport.  MOS-1's CCD imagers are considered comparable
to those on Spot-1.

DoD says that DoC should turn its weather satellites over to DoD and divert
metsat funding to save the dying Landsat program.  [This really gets the
Turkey of the Month Award.  -- HS]  DoD wants to keep Landsat alive, but
does not want to provide funding for it.  DoD is Landsat's biggest customer,
using it for mapping, routine operations planning, and intelligence work.
Landsat is also useful in foreign intelligence collaboration, because DoD
can use its own highly classified spysats to figure out what's going on
and then supply unclassified Landsat pictures to foreign governments as
evidence.  DoD is already buying from Spot Image, and is interested in MOS-1.

DoC prepares to issue licensing regulations for commercial remote sensing.
News media fear the worst, and are pointing out that US licensing won't
solve anything because others are already doing it.

Mobile satellite communications work going ahead despite continuing squabbles
about frequency sharing and legal authority to operate such facilities.

Pan Am Pacific Satellite signs firm contract with Great Wall Industrial Corp.
to launch Pacificstar 1 on Long March 3 in 1988.  Price under $30M, insurance
being negotiated.

Letter of the week:

	"How is NASA to survive under the current budget priorities...

	"...the current commitment of our government ensures that executives
	of profitable space industries, space scientists, and employees
	living and working in low Earth orbit will be speaking French,
	Russian, and Japanese...

	"The conservativeness of our aerospace corporations also is dis-
	heartening.  They are submitting proposals for new launchers,
	timidly waiting for market appraisals.  As if orbital activity was
	expected to decline for the next 20 years!  If some daring company
	had risked producing more launchers than they had contracts for, we
	could be moving ahead with the unmanned space research bumped from
	the shuttle...

	"It's been a year since Challenger; a year since the launch of Mir...
	We've got to get moving!"

				"Michael K. Desorcie, Berkeley"
-- 
"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #238
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09457; Fri, 29 May 87 03:04:08 PDT
	id AA09457; Fri, 29 May 87 03:04:08 PDT
Date: Fri, 29 May 87 03:04:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705291004.AA09457@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #239

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 29 May 87 03:04:08 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #239

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 239

Today's Topics:
	 Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets
	 Re: Why haven't they found us yet?  The cold truth.
		     Re: Gas mix onboard Shuttle
	    Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity
    Re: robotics job opportunity at Kennedy Space Center, Florida
	 Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets
	      Prototype Solar Power Satellite: go for it
			 Hardware on the Moon
		  Photovoltaic cells for $.16/watt?
		Re: Soviet's launch new large booster
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 May 87 19:54:56 GMT
From: tektronix!cae780!leadsv!esl!dew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Douglas Wood)
Subject: Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets

In article <8052@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> ... But within these constraints they seem to imply
>> that accelerations much above 1g are not particularly valuable...
>
>A simpler, if less rigorous, way of reaching this conclusion is to observe
>that an acceleration of 1 G is roughly c/yr (i.e., speed of light per year).
>Obviously relativity will stick its nose in well before the end of the year,

Hmmmm, curious statement.  Acceleration at 1g does make sense from the
observer's viewpoint.  Remember that one is continuously increasing
one's energy, therefore mass is increasing from the earth's viewpoint
(if one left from earth).  So, from earth, it would appear that the
other ship is getting heavier and heavier when it is fairly close to
the speed of light.

But from the standpoint of the ship, time is slowing down.  (actually
your perception of your clock is not different).  Length contraction
gets more significant with energy.  Therefore, accelerating at 1g still
makes sense.

dew@esl.ESL.COM

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 87 01:47:53 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet?  The cold truth.

Why haven't they found us yet?  I'll tell you, but you won't believe me.
The Earth is a dumping ground for all kinds of political undesirables,
prisoners of war, anarchists, incurable loonies, and so on.  We keep getting
reborn into new bodies, forgetting about the process while in the bodies.

You heard it here first.  I'm writing a book about all this.

On the other hand, there's the theory that humans are what happens to 
>evil dolphins< when they die; this is dolphin Hell.  

Sorry to inflict this on >sci.<space.

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 87 01:40:37 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Gas mix onboard Shuttle

In article <414@telesoft.UUCP> roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:

>If the reduction weren't
>sufficient to entirely eliminate the pre-breathing interval, NASA
>mIght Figure That It Wasn't Worth The Liability exposure. 

This is a glib answer, but in an environment where there are all kinds of 
abnormalities, they might want to adhere to STP as a baseline for measuring
other changes, like calcium leaching.  

I drove from San Antonio to Albequerqe (sp?) without noticing any pressure
differential, but the next day, when I took the 20-minute tram ride to the 
top of Sandia Peak (gaining about 3500 feet, for an altitude of just over
10,000 feet) I got a mild case of Altitude Sickness.  It was scary; my limbic
system reacted as if my breathing were constricted by artificial means, and 
I became very anxious and bewildered before I figured it out.  I was ok once
I returned to the ground.  A pity; it was very nice up there in the clouds.
Don't try this trick at home, boys and girls.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 May 87 15:11:39 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity
Newsgroups: sci.space

Gee what about human heat?
What about water transport?

You are basically right about pressure and about joints being a problem,
but please don't over simplify by creating a straw man in NASA.

Al Globius should answer more suit questions since he was helping on
this.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 May 87 20:23:41 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: robotics job opportunity at Kennedy Space Center, Florida
Newsgroups: misc.jobs

Malcolm is doing it again (from misc.jobs)

>Seeking a robotics applications engineer interested in working with the 
>space shuttle ground operations, payload processing, and space station
>ground operations.  Applicants should have experience in one or more of
>the following areas:  machine vision, tactile and proximity sensors, 
>teleoperator applications, computer interfaces, collision avoidance and
>path planning, and knowledge-based approaches to the above fields.
>
>Applicant must have excellent communications skills, write clearly and
>effectively, assemble and give presentations, and have good administrative
>skills.  Must have US citizenship.
>
>Bachelor's degree in science, engineering, math, or computer science
>is required, advanced degrees are desireable.
>
>Positions are available immediately.  As soon as possible please send
>resumes (physical, no e-mail please) to:
>
>Malcolm McRoberts
>McDonnell Douglas Astronautics Company
>Dept. F880
>PO Box 21233
>Kennedy Space Center, FL  32815
>(305) 383-2569

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 20 May 87 18:55:49 GMT
From: amdcad!amd!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Howard A. Landman)
Subject: Re: Fuel Consumption Rates for Interstellar Rockets

In article <???> ??? (???) writes:
>> ... But within these constraints they seem to imply
>> that accelerations much above 1g are not particularly valuable...

In article <8052@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>A simpler, if less rigorous, way of reaching this conclusion is to observe
>that an acceleration of 1 G is roughly c/yr (i.e., speed of light per year).
>Obviously relativity will stick its nose in well before the end of the year,
>but the message is clear:  if you can get fairly close to the speed limit in
>a small fraction of a typical trip time, there isn't much point in higher
>accelerations.

Sorry, you're both considering things from the wrong viewpoint: that of
someone on the ground.  From the viewpoint of someone on the rocket,
further acceleration *DOES* substantially reduce the trip time.  The
observer on the ground will say that this is due to time dilation, but
either way the traveller will perceive a shorter trip (and hence less
in the way of supplies required).  I doubt that the saved food and oxygen
would make up for the extra fuel, though.
-- 
	Howard A. Landman
	...!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard
	howard%cpocd2%sc.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET
	"That weird shall never daunt me"

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 21 May 87 11:41:35 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Prototype Solar Power Satellite: go for it

   Evelyn C. Leeper>>
  >>We propose the
  >>construction of a Solar Power Satellite Prototype
I have my doubts about SPS for solving the energy crisis
(by my rough calculation, SSPS cannot be cheaper than
ground based solar using the same technology), but this
idea I really like.

  >>...Such a mini-SPS might have a power output of
  >>only a few megawatts, but otherwise would function much as
  >>an SPS would during a trial period.   [...]
Keep in mind, a few megawatts is huge by the standards of existing
space power sources, but is right on the line for the amounts of
power that will be needed for near-term experiments and prototype
industrialization.
     However, keep in mind that there *are* problems with small SPS's,
namely, the beam divergence gets SMALLER as the antenna
gets BIGGER.  This problem can be lessened, although not solved by
(1) using a large mirror to focus the microwaves.
(2) putting the SPS in an orbit much closer than geosynch.
If it is in a 500 mile high orbit and beaming to a space station in
100 mile high orbit, the maximum distance for the beam to travel
is only 6000 miles, not 24,000  (nb: the station is only powered
when in sight of the SPS)
  >>
  >>Construction of the  mini-SPS in LEO...  At the
  >>same time a receiving antenna would be build on the ground.
  >>The test phase, during which power is beamed to the
  >>Earth and the technology is refined.
This is where I would suggest a change, based purely on
politics.  The big, big problem that SPS will have politically
(aside from funding) is that people are going to object to
beaming microwave "radiation" at the Earth.  But, this is *not*
a major item in a test satellite anyway. Although atmospheric
tests *will* have to be made, most of the testing can be space-to
space.

  >>Movement of the finished SPS to GEO, probably via the
  >>use of ion engines that provide very gentle movement.
For a test SPS, it's silly to put it all the way up in GEO.
You want it down much lower, where you can tinker with it,
change configurations, fix problems, etc.

  >>The production phase during  which the output of the
  >>mini-SPS would be diverted to the needs of commercial
  >>projects in LEO, including Space Station clients...
Now you've hit the jackpot, and this is why I like this idea so
much.  You see, the space station has a *real* problem with power.
It is in low orbit, see, and solar power systems have, unfortunately,
a large projected area per unit power.  This means, they drag.
Solar panel drag is *the* limiting factor on the amount of power
that will be available to the space station.  But if the actual
power generators were in *high* orbit, and only a receiving
antenna (with much better power to area ratio, especially since
an antenna can be mostly open area) were on the space station...
bingo.  I actually think you may be able to make this idea fly.

  >>or possibly to lunar orbiting or geosynchronous Space Stations
Sigh, I think you're dreaming here.

  >>Hence, sale of power generated by the mini-
  >>SPS to in-space customers would pay back part of its
  >>cost. It might be possible to use same technology
  >>involved in  beaming  the power back to Earth  to
  >>distribute power to a variety of in-orbit locations.
  >>Alternatively, the mini-SPS could be moved close to its
  >>customers.
Or could have been there in the first place.  Actually, there's
a problem here.  If the SPS is in the same low orbit as the space
station, (a) it's so close to Earth that it's dark half the time,
(b) It's low enough that there is significant atmospheric drag,
made worse by the fact that a SPS would have a very large surface
area and relatively low mass.  You really want it much higher up.
(but not necessarily as high as geosynch.  In fact, preferably
in a minimum of the radiation belts).
However, in any other orbit it will be behind the Earth from the
space station during half of the space station's orbit.
A relay might be possible, essentially just a bit wire mesh in
the same orbit as the SPS, but this would be an operational
nightmare.  I think the only solution is going to be storage
batteries on the space station.

CONCLUSION:
Build a "prototype" SPS, put it in an orbit well below geosynch
but high enough to avoid drag, and use it to power experiments &
industrialization on the space station while debugging the feasability
of the space power concept.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Postscript:
What ever happened to the other "S" in the acronym for
"Satellite Solar Power System"

note to E.C. Leeper: is this address
   ARPA:  mtgzy!ecl at rutgers.rutgers.edu
correct?  Our mailer rejects it as an unknown host. Do you
have an alternate path via BITNET?  >>

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 May 87 16:48 PDT
From: Len Reder <Reder@white.sww.symbolics.com>
Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov
Subject: Hardware on the Moon
Cc: reder@white.sww.symbolics.com

I am interested in finding out if any of the experiments left by the
Apollo astronauts are still sending telemetry from the moon? If so does
anyone know where I might find information on the specifications and
locations on the moon of such experiments. I am interested is possible
amateur radio and/or astronomy experiments which might be possible.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 20 May 87 17:24 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Photovoltaic cells for $.16/watt?

In Electronics (5/14/87, page 22), there's a note about a new way to make
photovoltaic cells. According to the note, Allen Barnett at U. of Delaware
has developed a scheme that may make possible cells costing $0.16/watt (!).
The technique uses a ceramic substrate (which is less costly than
semiconductor grade silicon), onto which reflective silicon carbide and a
polycrystalline silicon thin film are deposited. The note said light
becomes optically trapped in the polycrystalline Si; I interpret that to
mean that some light gets trapped by total internal reflection in the Si
layer, increasing the interaction length. This is important because
crystalline Si is a (relatively) poor absorber of light. A thinner cell
means less high purity Si is used, so the cell is less expensive. The cells
so far have an efficiency of 10%; Barnett is shooting for 17%.

I hope this is more than vaporware; $.16/watt compares favorably to current
DOE targets and is well below the cost threshold for economic large scale
application.

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 87 19:24:17 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!hyper!harley@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Harley Grantham)
Subject: Re: Soviet's launch new large booster

In article <8705202101.AA18926@nic.nyser.net>, weltyc@NIC.NYSER.NET (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
> 
> 	The scariest (I think) difference between now and then is that
> then, everyone knew about the Soviet lead and was scared as hell, the
> government was forced to move.  But now, there is no news coverage,
> few people realize how much the soviets are doing, and the government
> feels no pressure to do ANYTHING!  

  ... extraneous data deleted for space reasons ...

> 	So my question (above in all caps) has two answers, either it
> takes an effort to do what was done in the sixties to convince people
> that there is reason to fear, and no one has done that yet - or
> someone is suppressing news coverage of soviet success for some
> reason... I don't know...
> 
  In the sixties space was new.  They had shown they were superior to us
in technology.  It was a blow to our national pride.  Now, we know we
can do anything they can do up there.  The soviets haven't done anything
in space that is truly spectacular.  Orbiting in a small space station
for months at a time makes lousy TV coverage.  The public is not
interested.

  Add to that the president and vice president, Kennedy and Johnson were
very interested in space travel.  The current administration seems to
care only about using space for military purposes.  There is no consious
conspiracy to prevent the public from knowing what goes on in space.
There is only the imposed limit of the thirty second news broadcast.
This is why some think showing a man setting foot on Mars for the first
time will have a galvanizing effect on the American public.  They may be
right, but I do not think it will last.

-- 
Harley H. Grantham, ihnp4!umn-cs!hyper!harley,  Network Systems Corporation

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #239
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00357; Sat, 30 May 87 12:48:59 PDT
	id AA00357; Sat, 30 May 87 12:48:59 PDT
Date: Sat, 30 May 87 12:48:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705301948.AA00357@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #240

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sat, 30 May 87 12:48:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #240

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 240

Today's Topics:
			   SRB Test firing
		  Re: Question about Meissner effect
		   Re: Reagan vs. a truck of gravel
 Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on
			  Frontiers and Men
      Re: The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work
		Re: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 29 May 87 11:33:12 PDT
From: Eugene Miya <eugene@ames-nas.arpa>
Subject: SRB Test firing

Yesterday there was an SRB test firing in the news.  A horizontal test.
I would have hoped a vertical test would have taken place, but
I don't work on the manned space programs.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames

------------------------------

Date: 13 May 87 16:08:00 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Question about Meissner effect

In article <547865654.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

... about Meissner effect in superconductors ...

> I know that the effect excludes magnetic fields. I wonder if it works
> equally well for rapidly changing fields.

In a superconductor, a large fraction of the conduction band electrons
are "normal", that is, not bound in superconducting Cooper pairs.  This
fraction becomes larger as the sample gets warmer, becoming 100% at the
critical temperature  (Sorry, I don't remember whether the fraction
becomes zero at zero Kelvin).  These normal electrons are subject to
the same incident magnetic fields as the superconducting pairs, and 
do get accelerated (using energy).  The effect can be modelled as a
zero resistance inductor (representing the superconducting electrons)
in parallel with a lossy inductor (for the normal electrons).  The
more quickly the field is changed, the more power is lost in the lossy
part.  The losses should go up as the frequency squared, I think...

The losses aren't very big, though;  if I remember right the Q of a
superconducting microwave cavity is on the order of 1e10 (pump it with
a milliwatt and watch it start arcing!).

At frequencies much larger than the frequency related to the energy
gap, (around a Terrahertz) I imagine you won't get much benefit
from the superconductor, as photon quanta are energetic enough to start
busting up the Cooper pairs.  No improvements for visible light, much
less X rays. 

Damn those fusty old solid state effects.  They just don't have staying
power.






-- 
Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 16 May 87 01:26:56 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Reagan vs. a truck of gravel


 >	What is to prevent the imfamous "bad guy soviets" from simply
 >	firing a truckload of gravel into space?  Sure, it would trash
 >	space travel, but war is hell...

Space debris is a problem, but not as bad as some would suppose. 
Scaling it helps.  Replace the gravel chunks with the same number of
sticks of dynamite.  That's a lot of sticks of dynamite.  Now, scatter
them out randomly over the entire Earth.  Drive around continuously
at 60 mph.  How often will you hit one?  (Hint:  the Earth is B*I*G!!!)

Not very often.  Space is bigger.  You are moving 300 times faster,
increasing the chance of collision 300 times.  However, you aren't
confined to a plane.  Things get RELATIVELY crowded the first 100 Km
up, but that's only in relation to farther up.  

The volume of a low earth orbit shell 100 kilometers high is 50 billion
cubic kilometers.  A hundred tons of gravel in 5 gram chunks would be
one grain every 2500 cubic kilometers.  If your spacecraft had a cross 
section of 5 square meters and was moving at 8 kilometers per second
relative to the average velocity of the gravel, you would encounter 
one chunk every 2 years or so.  Keep a patch kit handy.  Design your
solar panels to work with holes punched through them.

Geosyncronous orbit is tougher, because it is a line.  If you let 
your satellite deviate +/- 1 degree from geosync (an elliptical, non-planar
orbit), though, you haven't moved out of the aim of most ground antennas.
The volume of the torus this defines is about 40 billion cubic kilometers,
with retrograde gravel closing at a speed of 6 km/sec (twice orbital
velocity).  About the same rate as the LEO case.

If this still is bothersome, move out.  The volume inside the moon's
orbit is 2e17 cubic kilometers.  To create the same collision rates
in this region would require 30 million times as much mass, considering
that orbital velocity (and thus intercept rates) are much slower at
high altitude.  The average kinetic energy of impact would be 60
times smaller, too, so you would need about 2e11 tons of mass to 
cause the same amount of damage as the low earth orbit case given
before.  That much rock would form a ball 4 kilometers in diameter.


If the USSR ever can launch that much stuff,  I surrender!  Until then,
space debris is just another relatively small hazard.  Getting to
space seems much more hazardous than staying there.


-- 
Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 May 87 09:57:59 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on

Mars

In Vol. 7, No. 231 of Space Digest, Bill Higgins posted some remarks
from the Space Development Conference in Pittsburgh.  This conference
was very concerned with stopping the "Mars Juggernaut".  I've heard the
argument against Mars exploration before and it goes like this:  "A
program to explore Mars will be a replay of the Apollo program, where
billions of dollars will be focused on planting a flag on Mars and then
the whole project will be thrown away with nothing added to a space
infrastructure.  Therefore a Mars program should be opposed and various
space industrialization schemes such as Solar Power Satellites, should
be promoted instead." Like most fallacious arguments there is a certain
grain-of-truth to this position.  It is true that the Apollo program did
self destruct with no follow on projects after achieving its prime
(mainly political) mission.  Repeating this sort of stupidity is
certainly not in the interests of those who wish to colonize space.
However there exists two rather unpleasant questions that the Anti-Mars
people have not adequately addressed:  1) Does current economics and
technology admit the possibility for profitable commercialization of
space?  2) Is the political process capable of major sponsorship for
anything other than some flashy one shot space project?  I believe the
clear answer to both questions is "NO".  It is possible with alot of
government subsidies to make money in space with such mundane things as
weather and communications satellites, certain LEO processing
activities, remote sensing, etc.   However the grandiose stuff like
mining asteroids for gold will have to wait for three or four centuries.
I and alot of other people would prefer not to wait three or four
centuries for the development of Space Colonies.  The dilemma is:
How does one make a Space Colony that is not dependent on economics
and can be entirely financed through "one shot" funding?  As I see it,
only a 500 man Mars colony will fulfill this constraint.  There is
a move afoot to plant an American flag on Mars.  To simply put a
flag on Mars is pretty stupid.  However we can tap this gravey train for
something more useful.  Have the Americans planting the flag on Mars,
**stay** on Mars and form a permanent colony.  This can be done with 500
people.  The L-5ers see Mars as their great enemy.  They couldn't be
more wrong.  In actuality, the only way their dream of colonizing
space can be achieved is by going to Mars.  The trick is to convert the
Mars mission from being simply a propaganda exercise into a bonafide
colonization effort.
                            Gary Allen

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 87 19:52:07 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa  (MacLeod)
Subject: Frontiers and Men

I am one of the voices out there insisting that we go to the stars no matter
what the cost, justification, or political/social prices must be paid, short
of establishing a police state to do so (and of course it would not work).

For about 8000 years there have been individuals who have looked over the
current scene and said, "Screw this. I'm headed someplace else."  So they 
marched off.  Some headed towards Europe, some crossed the Bering Straits.
Eventually Europe filled up, and there were still dissatisfied customers.
They found America.

Today, people are still coming to California to get away from the calcified
East Coast.  But what about the next step, for those who find California/
America to restrictive?  Well, we've run out of frontiers, except for the 
obvious one.

The ones who value security more than liberty can't understand the lure of
the frontier.  They will seek to put more and more restrictions on individuals,
through fear and misunderstanding.  I see this as a nearly unavoidable natural
process: as new societies mature, they become dominated by security-oriented
special interests, which trash individual rights for assorted altruistic
reasons.  The New Land, the Frontier, is a natural, crucial safety valve
to bleed off the small, but virulent, percentage of anarchists.

I am becoming more and more convinced that a large part of the social chaos
we observe all around us is due to the perception of No More Frontiers.  I 
believe that unless we get out into space, and soon, that our society will
continue to be wracked by discontent and struggles over security versus
freedom.

The depressing point is that space travel is such a monumental undertaking
that it has been, so far, a government-run operation.  Advocates of space
colonization have had to convince those who have no use for it.  Perhaps the
real future lies in free-market space operations; I hope so.  

Ultimately we must leave Earth or discover a world-sized heat sink.  But I
don't think we'll even make it to that point unless we >get out there<.
I realize I'm preaching to the choir, but thanks for your attention.

Mike MacLeod

US out of America.

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 87 20:18:18 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work

In article <8053@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > ... The lowest thermal
> > polluting energy source is photovoltaic collectors on the roof of
> > your house...
> 
> Only if your roof had a relatively low albedo to begin with.  Otherwise
> those collectors are capturing energy that would have been reflected back
> into space.  Note that photovoltaics are lucky to get 20% efficiency, so
> most of that energy turns into heat at once.  Powersats do better, because
> they put the low-efficiency part of the conversion process out in space
> where the waste heat doesn't reach Earth.
> 

Just to throw some data into the discussion for people to chew on:

On the Earth's surface a photovoltaic array has at best (clear day,
sun at zenith) 1000 watts/square meter to work with.  In space, the
insolation is 1390 watts/square meter.  The difference is absorbtion
by the atmosphere.  To get the average available intensity on the
ground, you have to account for sun elevations of less than 90 degrees
above the horizon.  This lowers the intensity even more by having
more atmosphere to go through at a slant.  Adding additional factors
to account for clouds and night, a good location on the ground has
an AVERAGE of 200 watts/square meter to work with.


Now, in a 24 hour orbit, you are in the sun 99% of the time.  The
1% is when the Earth is in front of the sun, which occurs seasonally
around the spring and fall equinoxes.  Thus you have about 1375
watts/square meter to work with.  The decision on whether to install
your photovoltaic array on the ground or in space then rests on
whether it is less than 1375/200 times as expensive to put it in
space as to put it on the ground.

As for heat balance, the typical proposal for an SPS calls for
receiving 300 watts/square meter at the receiving antenna on the
ground, with 90% or so being converted to electricity.  The remaining
10% emerges as heat at the receiving antenna.  The part that gets
converted to electricity emerges as heat at the place where the
electricity is used.  To preserve the overall heat balance of the
earth, the receiving antenna should be painted white so as to lower
the amount of sunlight absorbed on the ground to compensate for the
added microwaves coming from orbit.  

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 87 19:54:35 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Commercial U.S. Rival to the NASP?

In article <270@edsel.UUCP>, dxa@edsel.UUCP (DR Anolick) writes:
>        -- the "Orient Express."  But, if a small engineering firm
>        in Georgia has its way, space transportation could become
>        affordable in about a year's time and at a cost of about
>        $100 million.
>             The secret lies in the Space Transportation Vehicle or
>        STV.  A dream of Robert Talmage Jr., an engineer at the
>        Atlanta-based TAAS Co., the design would convert just about
>        any commercial airliner into a space transport that could
>        deliver a 4000-lb payload into an orbit of around 200,000
>        feet.
> 
> Well, it sounds wonderful doesn't it?  But it sounds all too simplistic.
> There seems to be holes in the above article, but since I am always
> optimistic, I'll assume it was poor reporting rather than poor engineering.
> 
> Has anyone heard of this before?  Has anyone heard of the STV, Talmage, 
> TASS or Design News magazine before?  Are any of these a known hoax?
> I hope not.  Assuming that it is real, even if the STV fails, it is the
> type of commercial project that US space development needs.
> 
> droyan				David ROY ANolick
> ihnp4!edsel!droyan		^     ^^^ ^^
> -- 

Part of my job at Boeing is keeping track of what other people are
doing in the space transportation business.  When I first heard about
this idea, about a year ago, I called Talmage to find out more about
his concept.  I found myself explaining to him fundamental rocketry
(like ideal velocity and the rocket equation).  This does not give
me confidence in his design ability.  On the other hand, there was
a good idea buried in his concept.  I'm not proud, I'll use good
ideas wherever they come from.  

The idea of using a big airplane as a launch platform for something
that goes to orbit crops up periodically, ususally with a 747 as the
airplane, it being the biggest one available.  Unfortunately, a 747 
is only big enough to get a fairly small vehicle payload to orbit.
If you make a bigger airplane, say with twice the number of jet
engines and twice the takeoff weight, most runways cannot take that
much weight in one spot.

Talmage's concept has a tow rope in it.  The nice thing about a tow
rope is that it allows the 747 (or whatever) and the rocket vehicle
to run on independant landing gear, which lets you use a higher
total takeoff weight than a runway can support on one set of gear.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #240
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01486; Sun, 31 May 87 03:03:13 PDT
	id AA01486; Sun, 31 May 87 03:03:13 PDT
Date: Sun, 31 May 87 03:03:13 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8705311003.AA01486@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #241

*** EOOH ***
Date: Sun, 31 May 87 03:03:13 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #241

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 241

Today's Topics:
			    Nanotechnology
			       Re: STV
	    Re: low cost launch system (really low orbits)
	    Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity
		  Re: Why haven't they found us yet?
		      Re: Gravel, etc. in space
	  Supconductivity Speaker Needed for SF Convention!
	    Help Wanted re. Astronaut Training References
			  Re: Nanotechnology
		       Solar power for England?
		       Meissner effect at 225 K
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 May 87 20:57:06 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa  (MacLeod)
Subject: Nanotechnology

In article <8705201316.AA22835@angband.s1.gov> HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET writes:

>Herewith some more remarks about the Space Development Conference in Pittsburgh
>a few weeks ago.

>NANOTECHNOLOGY-- Eric Drexler's ideas about "nanotechnology," the (allegedly)
>imminent techniques for building molecule-sized machines, tools, computers,
>and factories, were much in evidence at the convention.  It all seems a
>little too good to be true to me, but I shouldn't comment until I finish
>reading Eric's book, *Engines of Creation* (Doubleday Anchor).

>A side issue: what the heck has this stuff to do with space travel?  

(some background on Eric Drexler deleted)

>I don't want to sound smug or elitist about this group of people.  But 
>there must be *some* good reason why nanotechnology has taken hold among 
>so many space buffs.  Comments?

For those unfamiliar with Drexler's book, let me add a few comments.
Nanotechnology is an umbrella term for the extension of engineering art into
smaller and smaller arenas.  To be accurate, perhaps there should be other
descrete levels: nanotechnolgy for cellular level mechanisms, picotechnology
for molecular engineering, and attotech for atomic (femtotech for below-Planck
-constant virtual (Tesla-effect?) engineering.

Anyway, we are making the first strides into nanotechnology with tools like 
restriction enzymes, which allow for gene splicing in a very gross batch
mode.  Drexler claims that within 10 to 30 years there will be a series of
breakthroughs that allow construction of molecular and (eventually) atomic
state machinery that will pack the processing ability of a hundred Crays
running in parallel into a single white blood cell, with all the I/O and 
memory it needs to rebuild gross structures (plaque in coronary arteries,
lipofuscin deposition in the brain, renal damage from high blood pressure,
detached retinas, you name it) and fine structures (repair of cross-linked
tissue [aging], free radical scavenging, DNA-RNA repair, cures of genetic
disease).

Needless to say, this unlocks the floodgates of genetic engineering.  Larry
Niven's solid-fuel stage trees become a reality.  Engineers create organisms
that excrete diamond fiber in various shapes and use it to build currently
unimplementable structures.  A dazzling new world opens up; even those weaned
on science fiction are caught up breathless by the Total Engineering of Every-
thing.

Of course, there's the Dark Side of the Force: the grey-goo catastrophe, 
where your classic Mad Scientist makes a nanomachine that eats anything
and makes a copy of itself every day (hour, minute, second), and turns it
loose.  In some (short) period everything is copies of the machine.  One 
would hope that this doesn't happen, and to Drexler's credit, he tries to
anticipate public-safety objections, such as this, to implementing nanotech.

To come around to the point...I had a brief discussion with Mr. Keith Henson
about nanotechnology, having heard that he was interested in what I considered
"fringe science".  He spoke with great feeling about such topics as I have
outlined above, and went on to talk of nanomachines eating PVCs and dioxin
and reclaiming toxic wastes of all kinds.  

Then I asked him what he forsaw in terms of physics breakthroughs on a 
fundamental level - the kind of unified field approach that would reduce
manipulation of all fields and particle interactions to engineering art.
He shrugged it off, saying, "What do you need hyperdrives for?  With nano-
machines in your bloodstream you can live virtually forever."  

I made several other attempts to draw him out, but gave up.  I wanted to 
talk about Tom Bearden's assertions that he has supplied the theoretical
background to Tesla's (alleged) scalar wave and virtual particle engineering
machinery, but it was no go.

I think that the attraction of the basket of engineering disciplines that
make up Nanotechnology  is that it is purely straight-line extrapolation.
There may be fallacies built into such assumptions, but when Drexler says
that we have X capability today, and we will have X squared capability in 
the future, he makes, in general, good engineering sense (I'm a layman, but
I've been a hard-science technical writer for ten years).  

Nanotechnology is Newtonian and appeals to those who are uncomfortable
with the atmospheric speculations of physicists like Jack Sarfatti or Nick
Herbert, who seem (to some) to be merging physics and metaphysics into 
a soft-science gruel.  This is not to detract from the very real benefits
of molecular and atomic engineering.  But it disturbs me to hear futurists
dismiss FTL drives.  Yes, I know that they are "impossible".  As long as
you call them "impossible", and refuse to look for one, your only chance
of achieving one is by accident.  Why not start with the premise that we
>have< to have an FTL drive, or else space travel will remain a parochial
enterprise?  Because it's unscientific?  Perhaps, but it's not unproductive.
History is full of things that were "impossible" but necessary; some were
eventually obtained.

If even a fraction of the promise of nanotechnology comes to pass, we will -
all of us on Earth - live in material abundance and prosperity previously
unimagined, and nanomachinery will do it in a matter of weeks or months
at most.  If we can avoid the pitfalls, and the demons within our own minds,
we may have it all - peace and plenty on Earth, and an active and expanding
spacefaring civilization, with reconstruction of astroids into habitats, 
and the terraforming of planets within years.  

I do recommend Eric Drexler's book, "The Engines of Creation", for those
who are interested.  And Greg Bear's "Blood Music" as a sobering chaser.

Mike MacLeod

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 1987 14:30-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: STV

Article on the STV idea appeared in L5 News (or Space Frontier
depending on when it appeared) sometime last year. Probably around
April-May-June 86.

I've not seen a lot of detail on the concept but it does look
interesting at first glance. The major concept is that he tries to
balance the velocity curve to altitude so that wastage of energy due to
drag is minimized. Maybe Dani Eder (Boeing) has some friends up there at
Seattle who could comment on Talmadge's design idea. (Preferably
someone who doesn't have a vested interest in the NASP airframe design,
Dani!)

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 22 May 87 16:07:46 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: low cost launch system (really low orbits)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <1865@hplabsc.UUCP> David Smith writes:
>In article <34fa7128.44e6@apollo.uucp>, nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes:
>>   200,000 feet is pretty low.  How long will something remain in 
>>   orbit at this altitude?  Is this altitude useful for anything or 
>>   would the customer typically supply his own booster to get into a
>>   higher orbit?
>>                                      --Peter Nelson
>
>The Apollo program considered re-entry to begin at 800,000 feet.
>John Glenn's "You are go, at least seven orbits" (i.e., he had at
>least that long before re-entry would be forced by orbital decay)
>was at around 550,000 feet.

I beg to differ, it was not orbital decay [reminds me of Star Trek
episodes (Oh Scotty!)].  It was only planned that way, lots of Sevens
in that program.

Certain, uh, satellites with extremely eccentric orbits fly as low at
60 miles (so I was told in certain classes).  Say can you say, "Cheese?"
Also we have programs (not computer) to study high altitude chemistry
in the 200-300,000 foot range, if you could call it chemistry.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 21 May 87 22:56:38 GMT
From: trwrb!wiley!doug@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Doug Rudoff)
Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity


I read an article in a recent space-oriented magazine (Space World or
Spaceflight or ???) about work being down at NASA on a 1 atmosphere
EVA suit. At the higher pressure they decided it was appropriate to to
have a rigid suit, similar to armor. However, for the gloves they
still needed a flexible material, but were having problems finding a
material that didn't get too stiff for use at 1 atmosphere.

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 87 10:35:55 GMT
From: nsc!nsta!instable!amos@decwrl.dec.com  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet?

What do you do when you find an anthill in your back yard? Send them
a delegation and ask them to take you to their queen? Or just leave
an automatic tracking device to monitor their behaviour? Some ant
colonies are studied, but most of them are just ignored by humans.
Why should aliens treat us differently?
-- 
	Amos Shapir
National Semiconductor (Israel)
6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel  Tel. (972)52-522261
amos%nsta@nsc.com @{hplabs,pyramid,sun,decwrl} 34 48 E / 32 10 N

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 87 03:31:21 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Gravel, etc. in space

In article <1591@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
>There is a good short story by James White ("Deadly Litter") set in 
                 ^^^^^^^^^^^ _novel_
>the next century, when intrasystem space flight is routine, and navigators
>must deal with the debris left by astronauts in the early years of
>space travel, before traffic control realized what a problem a cloud

Actually, White somewhat overstates his case. He is using _constant boost_
ships, thus most of the jettisoned material would be well above _system_
escape velocity.

The odds of running into something that is in a _significantly_ different
orbit are rather slim unless you are in orbit around a planet. Objects in
similar orbits aren't terribly dangerous as the relative velocity is low.

Of course, if you are following the same orbit as the Mars Limited (:-))
but in the opposite direction....

-- 
Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!leonard
CIS: [70465,203]		...!tektronix!reed!percival!!bucket!leonard
"I used to be a hacker. Now I'm a 'microcomputer specialist'.
You know... I'd rather be a hacker."

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 87 18:50:21 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Supconductivity Speaker Needed for SF Convention!

QUALIFIED SUPERCONDUCTIVITY SPEAKER NEARBY?

Indianapolis' annual science fiction convention, Inconjunction VII, is
looking for a qualified speaker to talk about what the layperson should
know about the recent events in superconductivity research-- e.g., what
kinds of fantastic devices, appliances, toys, machines, computers, might
be forthcoming, and how the future might change because of the new
phenomena.  We've heard predictions of pocket Crays, maglev vehicles,
robots, etc.  Can someone knowledgeable give an informative yet
entertaining talk, preferably using slides, videotape or other media
device?

Can someone close by (Purdue, I. U., IUPUI, etc.) give me a call if
you're interested in presenting this kind of short talk over the Fourth
of July weekend in Indianapolis?  We offer free memberships to the con,
a program book listing, and maybe a small remuneration (as well as
droves of adoring fans anxious to lap up the wonders of physics... :) )

If nearby (or planning to be in the neighborhood during that time) call
Inconjunction Co-Chairperson JoAnn Brooks at 317-769-6650.

Thanks,

Arlan Andrews
(ToastMaster for Inconjunction VII)

------------------------------

Date: 22 May 87 23:06:55 GMT
From: philabs!ttidca!jackson@nyu.arpa  (Dick Jackson)
Subject: Help Wanted re. Astronaut Training References

My son (highschool junior) has to write a term paper on the selection and
training of the astronauts for the Apollo program, Apollo 11 in particular.
He has had a lot of trouble at libraries finding bokks, articles etc.
describing the pre-flight  activities of Armstrong, Aldrin and Collins(?).

We would greatly appreciate advice from you space mavens. Thanks in advance.
(He already has a book called "We Seven", which is primarily about the
Mercury period.)

Dick Jackson

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 87 08:05:09 GMT
From: jade!topaz.berkeley.edu!newton2@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology

I think the reason it would be unfruitful, however inspiring, to search for
a FTL drive is that there wouldn't be much in the way of intellectual
tools to search for it with, since FTL is inconsistent with physics as
it is presently understood. I guess you could whittle away at the
definition of FTL travel until you came up with something that *is*
consistent with SR (like saying time dilation makes a trip subjectively
FTL); that's the way things which are shown to be impossible are
sometimes "done" (particularly in defense systems).

Doug Maisel

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 May 87 08:40 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Solar power for England?

Henry Spencer (mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov) said:

>> (which is the way the energy crisis will eventually be
>> solved, see latest issue of Scientific American) [referring
>> to ground based photovoltaics; the issue is actually several months
>> old.]

> Ho ho.  Not in Toronto it won't be.  (Fred Hoyle commented that if you
> talked about solar power in England, everyone would know you were
> crazy.)  The Scientific American article didn't really dwell on little
> problems like weather and darkness, both of which call for major
> advances in energy storage technology if they are to be solved
> adequately.

I think there's a good chance recent advances in superconductors may solve
the problems of long distance energy transmission and storage. Transmission
would be solved with underground superconducting cables. Storage could be
solved one of two ways: by small magnetic energy storage coils (in which
the energy stored scales as R log R, R the radius of the coil), or in
kinetic energy storage rings (investigated at Argonne after some
researchers were inspired by Lofstrom's launch loop proposal) in which the
energy stored scales as R**2 (so energy stored per unit system mass is
proportional to R).

The Japanese are investigating SMES coils in their "Moonlight" program.
These energy storage technologies are also useful for load leveling, so
they will be developed even if most electricity is generated from fossil
fuels or fission.

High Tc superconductors may make some designs for the kinetic energy
storage rings more feasible.  One design had a levitated loop made
of superconductor.  A current flows around the loop, and a vertical
magnetic field provides centripetal acceleration.  The problem with
this scheme was a small but troublesome amount of heating produced
by field inhomogenities.  The loop has to radiate any waste heat,
which is difficult at liquid helium temperatures.  At liquid
nitrogen temperatures the radiated power is many orders of magnitude
higher.  There are many other variants of this idea, all of which
are helped by cheaper s.c. magnets.

Fred Hoyle's comments about solar power in England aside, I don't see
anything wrong in the long term with the idea of generating electricity
with photovoltaic cells in the Sahara and carrying it to France and then to
the rest of Europe by s.c. transmission lines. The transmission lines and
PV cells would have to be sufficiently cheap for this to be practical, but
who's to say they won't discover near room temperature superconductors?

Paul Dietz
dietz@slb-doll.csnet

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 May 87 10:44 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Meissner effect at 225 K

I wrote:

> who's to say they won't discover near room temperature superconductors?

I should read the newspaper! After sending off the message with that line,
I read the NY Times (5/23/87). Wu & Chu at U. of Houston have detected the
Meissner effect in a small portion of a sample at 225 K (-54 F). The
Meissner effect is considered to be diagnostic of superconductivity. The
effect was detected in four different compounds. Chu also reports that a
fifth compound that shows tentative indications of losing resistance at
room temperature.

Cohen and Zettl at UC Berkeley have reported a drop to zero resistance
in a sample at above room temperature, but the measurements have been
hard to confirm.

P. Dietz (dietz@slb-doll.csnet)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #241
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03190; Mon, 1 Jun 87 03:03:52 PDT
	id AA03190; Mon, 1 Jun 87 03:03:52 PDT
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 87 03:03:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8706011003.AA03190@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #242

*** EOOH ***
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 87 03:03:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #242

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 242

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Soviet Space Shuttle
	 Mars-land colony begs question of true space colony
	   Get other tasks done before really going to Mars
Re: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on
		       Re: Hardware on the Moon
	    Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity
			  Re: Nanotechnology
			  Re: Getting There
    disagreement with some points of (otherwise good) NJ L5 papers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 May 87 18:42:28 GMT
From: trwrb!kraml@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert P. Kraml)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle

In article <4570@utah-cs.UUCP> u-jeivan%ug.utah.edu@utah-cs.UUCP (Eric Ivancich) writes:
>
>ever built to date.  How will their's compare?  What about their
>on-board computers?  I understand our shuttle uses computers of early
>1970s vintage.  Let's here some speculation.
>
>Eric
>
I dont have any speculation regarding the Soviets --- but why are
we using such old technology on the shuttle?

Bob
-- 
Phone: (213) 536-1871     {uscvax,decvax,randvax,ihnp4,sdcrdcf}
Address: One Space Park                      |
       	 82/2024                              ------>!trwrb!trwcsed!kraml
         Redondo Beach CA 90278

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 May 87 18:09:53
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 23 18:09:53 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 May 23 18:32:41 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: "ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Mars-land colony begs question of true space colony

<E> Date: Mon, 18 May 87 09:28:30 MEZ
<E> From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<E> Subject: The 500-Man Mars (seed) Colony is an idea that'll work

<E> However I'd like to see a space colony established within the next
<E> century.  This can be done with a 500 man Mars colony.

The surface of Mars is extraterrestrial in the sense of being not on
the planet Earth, or terrestrial in the sense of being on land as
opposed to water, but not space in any reasonable sense that doesn't
also include the outback of Australia.  I don't see the relationship
between a colony on the surface land of Mars and a colony in space,
unless you are merely using the word "space" to mean anything not on
the planet Earth. Are you?

<E> We would get to Mars **not** with an IFR (even thought this is the
<E> best way) but through a heliocentric space station that is in a
<E> resonant orbit between Earth and Mars.

Note that such a station, intermittantly occupied during personnel
transfer but normally unoccupied, is not the same thing as a space
colony. Perhaps it would be better to have a real space colony in
heliocentric Earth&Mars-transfer orbit. People living there could view
both planets close-up for a while each year and at such times have an
option of returning to Earth or joining the Mars colony (permanently),
and the rest of the trip could (behind a sunshield) perform astronomy
observations to their hearts content, unimpeded by planetary
atmosphere nor even by a nearby planet getting in the field of view
half the time as a LEO or GEO station would suffer.

<E> Only the 500 man [sic] Mars colony can establish a permanent space colony
<E> with a finite price tag and without recourse to economic viability.

I don't consider the Mars colony (or even a Lunar colony) to be a
space colony, therefore the above statement is incorrect in my view.
The question of establishing a permanent space colony with finite
price tag is still pending. Perhaps a large asteroid would have enough
material to supply a 500-person for the indefinite future (hundreds of
years, long enough to grow enough people and equipment to spawn new
colonies on other asteroids)? I *do* consider a large asteroid colony
to be a space colony, because the gravity is so low as not to prevent
people from leaving the colony, because there is no atmosphere to
impede astronomy, and because we currently have (or soon will have)
technology to move the asteroid itself as if it were part of the ship
rather than a fixed planet-in-orbit. A Lunar colony violates two of
those, and a Mars colony violates all three. If we can find a large
asteroid with all the essential chemicals for our long-term survival,
we could then establish the colony with fixed cost (no additional
continuing costs to keep it supplied from Earth).

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 May 87 18:13:44
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 23 18:13:44 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 May 23 18:37:56 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: "HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Get other tasks done before really going to Mars

<H> Date:  Wed, 20-MAY-1987 06:19 CDT
<H> From: <HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
<H> Subject:  More impressions of Pittsburgh: Mars, nanotech,SSI

<H> 3) Co-opt it.  All right, we're gonna go to Mars.  Let's do it
<H> the "right" way.

I like this way. Keep pointing out the things we should do first,
postponing the actual stunt until it seems the appropriate time.

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 87 00:05:17 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on

Let me see if I've understood your argument:

1. There is no economic justification for space colonization, so presenting
it as an alternative to Mars is doomed.

2. There is no political support for non-flashy non-one-shot space projects,
so presenting them as alternatives is also doomed.

3. Therefore, it is realistic to campaign for a non-flashy non-one-shot
space colonization project, to wit colonizing Mars.

Sure.
-- 
"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 87 00:02:30 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Hardware on the Moon

> I am interested in finding out if any of the experiments left by the
> Apollo astronauts are still sending telemetry from the moon? ...

They were turned off about ten years ago.  Not because they weren't still
sending useful data, but because there was no more funding for data collection
and it was thought undesirable to leave them using spectrum space when
nobody was listening.  This was an irrevocable shutoff, they cannot be
turned on again.  ARGH.

The laser retro-reflectors are still usable, but that's not quite the sort
of thing you were thinking of...
-- 
"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 87 23:58:45 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Erythropoietin for extra blood O2 capacity

> Gee what about human heat?

Cooling is done the same way it is here on Earth:  sweat.  The S.A.S. does
not seal the body inside an impermeable bag, remember.

> What about water transport?

I'm not sure what water you are referring to.  There is no water cooling
system such as conventional spacesuits use.

> You are basically right about pressure and about joints being a problem,
> but please don't over simplify by creating a straw man in NASA.

Well, read NASA CR-1892, "Development of a Space Activity Suit", by
James Annis and Paul Webb, and tell me what you think.  (Note to people
asking me about references:  this is the major one.)
-- 
"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 24 May 87 04:28:43 GMT
From: jade!tart8.berkeley.edu!c60a-4gd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stephan Zielinski)
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology


    Material abundance for everybody? That's what we said when we had the
agricultural revolution, the first industrial revolution, the second industrial
revolution, the Russian revolution...
    We've had the resources to feed the planet for at least fifty years. We
(America) don't because it's not profitable.
    What does this have to do with space? The best (i.e. most reasonable from
a moral point of view) arguments I've heard for settling space is that
it will make the standard of living higher for both a small group of settlers 
and the people left on earth. I'm sorry, but things don't work that way. Look
at every frontier in history, and look at the world today. Humanity always
blows it.
    In fact, the only way to set up a true Post Scarcity Economy will be to
build it from the ground up... which, unfortunately, implies a frontier.
Which implies space.
    However, I will never settle a frontier: I'm a soft hacker, not a test
pilot. Nor is it *likely* (although certainly possible) that any of you all
will. The vast bulk of settlers have always been those who are rejected from
society: religious outcasts, the poor, and criminals.
    The astronauts look upon a picture of a full Earth and feel in their souls
that the Earth is one planet, and man belongs in space. The vast bulk of 
humanity yawns and flips the page to read about Princess Di's hair.
    Our problems are: 1) Convincing the military-industrial complex to expand
into space, which implies demonstrating a profit can be made by the end of the
next quarter. 2) Building a NEW society when we get there; keeping the same
old, old mistakes from being made.
    Comments / flames?
_._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._._
               -Stephan Zielinski, evil person and defender of orcs

    All of this material is copyrighted. Integration of any of it into
your consciousness without express written permission from the author is
punishible by immediate confiscation of the offending neurons.

UUCP: {Your problem}!ucbvax!miro!stephan         (I don't *really* know...)
ARPA: stephan@miro.Berkeley.EDU

     "Another 'Helpful Hint for Living,' from... The Committee."
           (from A Boy and His Dog)

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 87 20:03:48 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Getting There

In article <1633@drivax.UUCP>, macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:
> 
> The depressing point is that space travel is such a monumental undertaking
> that it has been, so far, a government-run operation.  Advocates of space
> colonization have had to convince those who have no use for it.  Perhaps the
> real future lies in free-market space operations; I hope so.  
> 
> 
> Mike MacLeod

The current cost of getting payload into Earth orbit in the US is on the
order of $3600 per pound.  On the other hand the energy cost to reach
Earth orbit can be calculated as follows:

g=standard gravity=9.80665 meter/sec^2
r=radius of earth =6 375 000 meters
v=orbital velocity at surface= (g*r)^(1/2)= 7,906 meters/sec
kinetic energy= 1/2*m*v*v = 31.26 MegaJoules/kg * mass
	= 8.68 kiloWatt-hours/kg * mass
	approx. $0.60/kg = $0.28/lb (depending onlocal electric rates).

The fact that it costs about 10,000 times as much as the bare energy
cost to get into low Earth orbit leads me to an obvious conclusion:

WE ARE DOING IT THE WRONG WAY!!!

What, you may ask, are we doing wrong?

The most basic thing we are doing wrong, because it leverages
everything else, is we are using chemical fuels to power our vehicles.
The best reasonable propellant we have (discounting nasty combinations
like H2+F2=2HF = hydrofluoric acid) is 2 H2+O2=2 H20=steam.  This yields
about 15 MegaJoules /kg of propellant, or slightly less than half the
energy per unit weight needed to get to orbit.  Hence this fuel combination
cannot get itself to orbit, much less itself+vehicle+payload.

The way we get around this problem is to use a large amount of fuel
to push a smaller amount of fuel up to the point where the smaller
amount of fuel can get to orbit, with , hopefully, some vehicle and
payload coming along for the ride.  This is why a well designed modern
rocket is 85% fuel, 10% vehicle, and 5% payload.  If we want the
vehicle to be reuseable, we must increase the vehicle weight, at the
expense of the payload.  The propellant fraction remains the same.
If you wish to have a vehicle that lasts 10,000 flights rather than 1
flight, a typical result is that the vehicle now weighs 20% instead of
10%, and the payload now becomes -5%, an unsatisfactory result.

The only way out of this box is STOP USING CHEMICAL ROCKETS FOR ALL
THE PROPULSION TO ORBIT.  For example, if somehow half the propulsion
is provided another way, a one stage 10,000 flight vehicle stacks up
like this: 64% propellant, 20% vehicle, and 16% payload.  This is a
much nicer result.

Now, the question becomes how to provide this other propulsion.  In
ten years of working on getting into space, I have come across over
50 ways of getting to and moving around in space.  The list
includes:

Fanjet, Turbo-Ramjet, Ramjet, Scramjet
Chemical rocket, Scramjet Gun, Balloon Gun, Artillery, Rocket fed Gas Gun
Alpha particle rocket, Thermoelectric-Ion
Nuclear Rocket, Nuclear -Ion, particle bed reactor -gas gun
Pure fusion rocket, hydrogen augmented fusion rocket
Pure antimatter rocket, hydrogen augmented antimatter rocket
Orion (nuclear explosive rocket), nuclear pumped gas gun
Photon rocket
Electric rail rocket, Railgun, Mass driver, electric discharge gas gun
Microwave rocket, cyclotron absorbtion rocket, microwave-ion,
microwave lightsail (Starwisp)
Laser sustained shock wave (Waverider)
Laser rocket, laser-ion rocket, laser lightsail
Solar thermal rocket, Solar-electric arcjet, Photovoltaic -ion,
solar lightsail, Mass driver reaction engine, electrodynamic
railgun engine
Light Gas Gun, Underwater gas gun
Aerobrake, Hydrogen Tunnel, Launch Loop, Piston driven gas gun,
leveraged catapult, Static towers, orbital tethers, tow ropes
planetary flyby, on-site fuel manufacture, and extraterrestrial
dumb-waiter.

Now you just have to figure out which is cheapest , which is a
function of (time, amount of payload traffic, launch rate,
passenger carrying?, individual payload size, destination orbit)

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 23 May 87 18:07:23
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 May 23 18:07:23 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 May 24 11:09:49 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: disagreement with some points of (otherwise good) NJ L5 papers

<EL> Date: 8 May 87 23:50:48 GMT
<EL> From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
<EL> Subject: Commercial Space Incentives: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper

<EL>        We suggest that NASA make plans to use the capability
<EL>        provided	by the Commercial Space	Incentive Act to launch
<EL>        bulk payloads.  Such payloads would consist mainly of food,
<EL>        water, and other	supplies for the Space Station,	or rocket
<EL>        fuel for	use by Orbital Transfer	Vehicles. An implication of
<EL>        this scheme is that the a stockpile facility should be
<EL>        constructed near	the Space Station where	these payloads are
<EL>        collected until they could be used.

Without a remote-control space tug up there at all times, capable of
docking with the payload, carrying it to the stockpile, attaching the
payload to the stockpile, and departing without exhaust blast damaging
either the stockpile or the payload, all we have is lots of payloads
drifting in separate orbits creating a navigational hazard to other vehicles.

<EL> Date: 9 May 87 04:09:50 GMT
<EL> From: ihnp4!homxb!houxm!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
<EL> Subject: Goals for the Nineties: A North Jersey L5 Position Paper

<EL> ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

<EL> 3.  Focus on the resources most	easily returned	to the
<EL>     Earth:  information, energy, and high-value	light-
<EL>     weight products.  The mining of minerals in	space for
<EL>     use	on the Earth does not appear to	be practical for at
<EL>     least the next 20 years.

(Any chance you can flush tabs before distributing to the net?)

I dispute the above paragraph. You don't make it clear in the preface
whether you are in favor of using extraterrestrial materials in space
(to build habitat or to build large devices such as telescopes) or on
Earth (in the form of products that are extremely expensive to produce
on Earth due to interference from gravity and/or air pressure). That
is, are you concerned with building an infrastructure that will be
generally useful for future space-based projects we haven't yet
planned, so that someday we can seriously think about really major
things in space, or with building an infrastructure for directly
supplying Earth with stuff? As I started reading your paper I was
thinking you were working on the former, especially when you said we
shouldn't expect pay-back within ten years, but this paragraph seems
to be directed at the latter. I would rather see the former. In any
case I would like the purpose to be more clear: restrict the plan to
those few materials and products which are worth returning to Earth, or
also include materials and products which are of use only in space?

<EL> 	5.  Failure to exploit economic	opportunities in space will
<EL> 	    result in our international	competitors (USSR, ESA,
<EL> 	    China, and Japan) exploiting these opportunities
<EL> 	    whether we do or not.

From the scientific/human point of view, this statement means it's
rather moot whether we do it or not, since it's going to get done
anyway and that's what is really important, not whether we do it
ourselves. Are you saying it's crucial that WE (the USA) duplicate
what others are doing? Why?? Maybe, if they can do it better, we
should just help finance their efforts instead of trying to do it
ourselves too??

<EL>        The Space Station represents the	foundation on which all
<EL>        major future space efforts depend.

The USSR already has designed, built and launched several space
stations. Instead of re-designing our own from scratch, why not just
buy one of their old ones (we can have it THIS YEAR), or contract them
to build and launch a new one just for us? (Of course they won't let
us share the one they are using because of military experiments etc.,
which is why I suggested contracting another one.) Is there any really
good argument for re-inventing the wheel over ten years instead of
using an existing design this year??

<EL>   - Space Shuttle to lift components

Doesn't this contradict the other proposal for heavy lift vehicle, as
well as the present USSR heavy-lift capability we might be able to
contract payload on?

In conclusion, it is clear we need both a space station and an orbital
transfer vehicle or other kind of space-tugboat, but while the latter
doesn't yet exist and needs to be designed (therefore we might as well
be the ones to design it), the former already exists and we need a
good reason to design a new one instead of using existing designs.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #242
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05516; Tue, 2 Jun 87 03:03:47 PDT
	id AA05516; Tue, 2 Jun 87 03:03:47 PDT
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 87 03:03:47 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8706021003.AA05516@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #243

*** EOOH ***
Date: Tue, 2 Jun 87 03:03:47 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #243

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 243

Today's Topics:
		    space news from March 30 AW&ST
		       Re: Hardware on the Moon
	Re:  space news from March 2 AW&ST  <8020@utzoo.UUCP>
			    Deadly litter?
		Military Space $$$, Societies in space
		  Re: Why haven't they found us yet?
		  Soviet Mars Sample Return Mission
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 31 May 87 00:07:16 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from March 30 AW&ST

McDonnell Douglas is looking at modifying the Cape's Pad 13 -- an old
Atlas pad, retired but in good shape -- as a third Delta pad.  Demand
may be too high for the two existing pads.

Italy will play a modest role in France's Helios spysat project, and
Spain may join also.  Helios will be based on Spot; first launch early
1990s.

Arianespace has informally asked Pratt&Whitney and NASA about
availability and cost of the RL10 oxyhydrogen engine used in Centaur, as
a possible alternative to the troubled third-stage engine of Ariane.
The answer has been "ask us formally"; the US is unenthusiastic about
selling engines to its competition.

NASA has officially rejected Ali AbuTaha's latest theories about the 51L
disaster, after study of radar and camera records failed to confirm his
claim that breakup of the SRB started earlier than formerly thought.

Dial-A-Shuttle comes to the USSR: Russians wanting an update on
activities aboard Mir now have a number to call, Moscow 215-63-56.

Dept. of Yet Again: Atlas-Centaur carrying a FltSatCom military comsat
lost after launch March 26.  Range safety blew it up when it pitched off
course.  Launch was in heavy rain, ceiling 2500 ft, lightning nearby;
suspected cause is a lightning hit.  Launch rules prohibit launches when
known thunderstorms are too close, but rain is not a factor.  Launch
rules may be revised now.  The final FltSatCom launch, aboard the last
currently-available Atlas-Centaur, was scheduled for June 11 but will
not fly until the loss is understood.  The loss of the satellite is
annoying but not a disaster: the existing FltSatCom satellites are busy
but functioning well.

USAF says several US military satellites, including some early-warning
satellites, are operating on their final backup systems.  There is also
concern about the lifetime of the DSCS-3 military comsats, since
component analyses suggest possibilities for early failure.

The Soviet Union's small manned spaceplane, apparently distinct from the
Soviet shuttle, is expected to start manned tests soon.

Hermes design being rethought, may now include an ejectable cabin as a
launch escape system.  Another possible change is a pressurized cargo
bay with an airlock, instead of a shuttle-style open cargo bay.  Payload
mass targets have been scaled down, and the Ariane 5 launcher is being
beefed up a little.

Phase One of the space station will be essentially the central
horizontal boom of the Dual Keel design.  Deferred to Phase Two are
solar-dynamic power, the servicing facility, the rest of the booms, and
the co-orbiting platform.  The international contributions have been
moved up in the assembly sequence to make them part of Phase One.  The
lifeboat issue is not yet resolved.

There may be political complications in space station management again,
because the phase split heavily favors Marshall and defers much of the
work assigned to other NASA centers.

The deferrals, notably of the co-orbiting platform, may improve the
prospects for Space Industries Inc's Industrial Space Facility, which
could do some of the same jobs.

Peter Banks, chair of NASA science-on-space-station task force,
expresses dissatisfaction with current plans, wants cheaper and earlier
operational status, suggests launching a single large module with
multiple docking ports (in about 1992, aboard a heavylift launcher) as a
first step.  Task force also pushes more Spacelab flights and scientific
use of SII's ISF.  NASA is not pleased with all this.

India loses small scientific satellite after Indian-built ASLV booster
fails.

The last three Deltas currently in inventory will all be used for SDI
tests.

Indonesian Palapa comsat is on station after Delta launch March 20th.

Six arrested in France on suspicion of espionage, Ariane cryogenic
rocket- engine technology thought to have been a major target.

US Space Command completes large joint exercise aimed at clearing up
some problems seen in an exercise last fall.  Details of US military
space centers.

Picture of Galileo being dismantled at JPL, partly for storage until
launch and partly for changes needed for its new trajectory.

Proxmire and Boland (chairs of Senate and House appropriations
committees relevant to NASA) come out in support of space station, with
some concern about getting science going early, perhaps with an interim
man-tended station.

NASA will continue the shuttle processing contract with Lockheed Space
Operations, after review committee concludes that fixing its problems
will cause less disruption than making major changes.  Various groups
disagreed on preferred solutions, mostly on predictable parochial
grounds (e.g.  Rockwell said the only complete solution was to make
Rockwell responsible for all orbiter processing).

[Mini-editorial: If Rockwell really wants to make a contribution to the
US space program, what it should do is gather all its courage and commit
to building another orbiter (not the Challenger replacement, but
*another* one) with private funding.  *Not* ask NASA about it, *not*
propose the idea, but *do* it.  A bit of a risk, yes... but the odds
approach 100% that the extra orbiter will be needed within the next two
decades.  Unfortunately, my impression is that Rockwell is no exception
to the rule of US companies thinking that long-range planning means two
years, so I don't expect them to be brave enough for
this.					-- HS]

"The average nutritional value    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
of promises is roughly zero."     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 May 87 11:30:36 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Hardware on the Moon

A request regarding the instruments on the Moon was made, but I could
not reply to your message.  I suggest you contact the Public Information
Office at the Johnson Space Center for the number to the Lunar Receiving
Lab.
--eugene miya
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 16 May 87 19:04:17 EDT
From: "Eric W. Tilenius" <EWTILENI%PUCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Re:  space news from March 2 AW&ST  <8020@utzoo.UUCP>
To: utzoo!henry

I feel pretty stupid for asking this, but what is the full title of
AW&ST?  I'm trying to find if it is in the Princeton library.  How
could I get access to this publication?

Also, I'm doing an article on how business can help the civilian space
program - what would be the rewards for business, etc.  Do you have any
ideas for companies/business leaders to interview?

Thanks in advance...

- ERIC -

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  1 Jun 87 01:40:05 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Deadly litter?
To: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, SF-Lovers@red.rutgers.edu

> From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa

> There is a good short story by James White ("Deadly Litter") set in
> the next century, when intrasystem space flight is routine, and navigators
> must deal with the debris left by astronauts in the early years of
> space travel, before traffic control realized what a problem a cloud

Good writing but poor science.  He is off by many orders of magnitude.
Litter may someday be a problem in low Earth orbit, but, consider the
volume of interplanetary space.  The volume of the solar system within
Jupiter's orbit is well over 1.6E36 cubic meters.  If every person on
Earth owned their own spacecraft, flew it constantly, and discarded
one piece of litter per second for a century, that would be about
1.5E19 pieces of litter, or one piece per 1E17 cubic meters.  If the
average spacecraft had a cross-section of 100 square meters, and
traveled at 10 kilometers per second (much faster and the litter would
hurtle out of the solar system), it would collide with a piece of
litter about once every 3000 years on the average.

Yet White portrays littering as a very serious crime, and despite
extreme precautions taken, many spacecraft are destroyed by collisions
with litter.

It is clear that he has no feel for the sheer size of the solar system.
He has done worse.  He portrays chance meetings in interstellar space,
which ought to happen approximately never, even if every star system
has a million starships associated with it, which travel constantly
at half the speed of light and which can detect any other starship
within the Earth-moon distance of it.

And of course there is _The Watch Below_, in which several generations
live for over a century aboard a sunken WWII ship, by cranking a
generator to power light bulbs to grow green plants which produce
oxygen, in violation of a few laws of thermodynamics and common sense.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 87 09:54:59 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Military Space $$$, Societies in space

In article <1284@sics.UUCP> pd@sics.UUCP (Per Danielsson) writes:
>In article <3701@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> c60a-4gd@tart8.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Stephan Zielinski) writes:
>>    Our problems are: 1) Convincing the military-industrial complex to expand
>>into space, which implies demonstrating a profit can be made by the end of the
>>next quarter. 2) Building a NEW society when we get there; keeping the same
>>old, old mistakes from being made.
>>    Comments / flames?
>
>1) Let's keep the military out of this. They're usually not interested
>in commercially profitable schemes.

	It's impossible to keep the military out of it. They've been heavily
involved all along and they're the only people in the US who have a semi
coherent plan along with $$$ to back it up. Hopefully the Advanced Launch
Vehicle (formerly Heavy Launch Vehicle) will survive the likely SDI cuts
of the next administration - NASA sure isn't going to be able to build it.
The Delta II Medium Launch Vehicle and Titan 34D-7/Titan 4 programs are also 
dependent on the military supplying a guaranteed market and the development 
costs for these new boosters. Unless we want to buy launch services from the 
Japanese and Soviets in the 1990s, these 3 programs are likely to be our 
only choices. Hughes & Boeing were making noises about developing their 
large ``Jarvis'' booster without government support, but I haven't heard 
much about that recently. As for the shuttle, looking at the payload
manifest suggests that we might as well paint 3 of them Air Force blue 
once they finally fly again.

	The common wisdom is that the military space budget is ~$17G, over
twice NASA's. SDI is only a small part of this, incidentally. People should 
pause to think about what that really MEANS in terms of their role in 
originating projects and even more important, the amount of engineering 
talent that is NOT in NASA or elsewhere in the civilian aerospace community. 

>2) Kinda tough. How do you propose to accomplish that?

	We'll make lots of NEW mistakes and not so many of the old
ones. Hopefully, there will eventually be a large number of relatively
small habitats where people can experiment with lots of different systems.
Here's my acid test to see if Libertarianism (for example) is practical: 
put 10000 people devoted to the philosophy in a space colony for 10 years. 
If they can cooperate well enough to keep it running for that period, I'd 
be willing to give it a try down here.

	Freeman Dyson is a big advocate of this small-is-beautiful
concept for space colonization. I can't remember for sure where he talks
about it, but possibly in his semi-autobiography, Disturbing the Universe
(a fine book even if it doesn't talk about this). I remember an article
he wrote proposing that we will eventually have the technology to let
individual families colonize in the asteroids.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 87 19:00:10 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!sask!zaphod!wolfl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Wolf Lunscher)
Subject: Re: Why haven't they found us yet?

In article <8705062059.AA10910@angband.s1.gov> Rem@imsss writes:
>[Asimov once proposed that] the first few advanced civilizations in each
>galaxy are in the dense inner portions [and they tend to prefer that area].

One problem with this theory is that the inner region of our galaxy is
a pretty violent place.  Firstly the galactic core is known to have
regular explosions with a period somewhere between 10 and 100 million
years.  The bath of radiation may fry most evolving life in the
vicinity.  Secondly the stars there are much older than out here in the
spiral arms and so are more inclined to supernova.  That coupled with
the dense spacing of the stars will similarly fry evolving life (an
astronomer commenting on the recent Magellanic Supernova, remarked that
we'd be in serious trouble if there were a supernova within 50 light
years).

Much of this wasn't known to Asimov at the time of this early article.

			-Wolf-

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 87 10:20:59 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Soviet Mars Sample Return Mission


	SOVIET MARS MISSION AIMS TO BRING SAMPLE HOME
	By Lee Dye, Time Science Writer
	LA Times, May 21, 1987

	Soviet space scientists stunned their counterparts from around the
	world Wednesday when they announced that the Soviet Union plans
	to send an armada of unmanned spacecraft to Mars and bring back
	chunks of the Red Planet.

	The ambitious plan, which is to be completed by the end of the
	next decade, would require launching at least 60,000 pounds of
	scientific instruments, support equipment and automated rovers
	that could roam the surface of Mars, according to US space experts.

	``That's more mass in orbit than we have launched during the entire
	US planetary program to date,'' said Caltech planetary scientist
	[and former JPL director - Jon] Bruce Murray.

	...

	Roald Kremnev, director of the Soviet Union's Center for Unmanned
	Spacecraft and a top official in his country's scientific 
	establishment, said in an interview that he is ``assured'' that the
	project will move ahead.

	...

	The Soviet program will include one and probably two rovers that
	will be able to roam the surface of Mars. The larger of the two,
	possibly powered by a nuclear power plant, will be able to venture
	as far as 250 miles from its landing site, Kremnev said. The rovers
	will collect samples from a wide area of the planet and return them
	to a launch vehicle.
	
	Meanwhile, other scientific devices will poke and drill into the
	planet, collecting information and transmitting it back to scientists
	in the Soviet Union.

	At the end of the surface exploration, which could take several
	months, the samples will be blasted up to a spacecraft orbiting
	Mars, and then returned to Earth.

	It will require at least six launches of the large Proton rocket -
	the backbone of the Soviet space program - to carry the heavy
	payloads to Mars, Kremnev said.

	The launches will be conducted in three segments of two each, in
	1992, 1994 and 1996. The Soviets conduct parallel launches to provide
	total backup so that if one rocket fails, the entire mission will
	not be lost, according to US scientists.

	So if all goes according to plan, well before the end of the century
	Soviet scientists should have collected the first samples from another
	planet as part of a project many now view as a precursor to even bolder
	plans, most likely a manned expedition to Mars.

	...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

	Here are a few other headlines from the last week:

	SOVIET ROCKET HELD AS MOST POWERFUL
	`Energia' key to ambitious shuttle effort

	(referring to the new Soviet Saturn-class booster)

	FIRST SHUTTLE FLIGHT SINCE DISASTER DELAYED 4 MONTHS;
	9 OTHERS PLANNED

	(describing a delay to June '88. Anyone want to bet on September
	 or later?)

	NASA CITED FOR SHAKY US SPACE PROGRAM

	(a summary of the incredible Soviet mission annoucements at
	 the AIAA planetary science conference last week. Thomas Paine,
	 chairman of the National Commission on Space, is quoted as
	 saying ``The biggest problem is the lack of direction of the
	 US program.'')	

	
	Let's face the truth: the second phase of the Space Race is over.
	We've lost so badly we aren't even in competition. And I'm not
	at all confident about round 3. 

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #243
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10482; Wed, 3 Jun 87 03:03:15 PDT
	id AA10482; Wed, 3 Jun 87 03:03:15 PDT
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 03:03:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8706031003.AA10482@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #244

*** EOOH ***
Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 03:03:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #244

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 244

Today's Topics:
			shuttle aerobatics???
			NASA launch June/July
		    space news from April 6 AW&ST
	  Re: Help Wanted re. Astronaut Training References
			       Saturn V
			    nanotechnology
		       Re: Soviet Space Shuttle
		     Re: Solar power for England?
		       Re: Soviet Space Shuttle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 87 18:25:54 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: shuttle aerobatics???


A friend tells me that the shuttle performs a diving maneuver as part
of its ascent (yes, ascent) to gain speed.  I feel that this is 
off the wall but couldn't convince him.  I could see this as a 
possibility for air-breathing craft with an operating ceiling,
and I know all about the planet-diving trick for interplanetary
acceleration: but that the shuttle would do it during ascent is
completely unbelievable.  

Can someone say something authoritative on the subject?

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 87 03:18:03 GMT
From: hp-sdd!paul@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Paul K Johnson)
Subject: NASA launch June/July

I will be vacationing in Florida the last week of June and the first
week or two in July.  Is anybody aware of how to find out whether or
not there will be any launches in that time frame?

paul johnson
ucbvax!hplabs!hp-sdd!paul

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 87 23:58:17 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from April 6 AW&ST

Hughes shelves plans to build satellite test/assembly facility near KSC.
The facility was intended to eliminate having to ship large comsats
across the country by truck, but those comsats won't be flying on the
shuttle now anyway.  [What this really is, is a vote of non-confidence
in the US expendables industry.  Assembling near the Cape would still
make sense for launches aboard US expendables... but not for Ariane and
Long March.  -- HS]

The only commercial space processing facility in the US -- Astrotech's
one in Titusville -- has no work booked for at least 18 months, now that
Palapa has gone up.  SDI and commercial Delta customers remain
possibilities.

France suggests to ESA that Europe should consider its own space
station, a man-tended one serviced by Hermes, if the US will not be
reasonable.

NASA briefs contractors on Mars rover/sample-return concepts.  Study
contracts to be awarded this fall.  Nominal launch is 1998, return 2001;
accelerated schedule would launch rover and return vehicle separately in
1996 on Titan-4-Centaur-GPrime-class launchers.  Studies assume use of
aerocapture on both ends.  There is disagreement over separate launches
vs. a single launch (which would require an as-yet-conjectural heavylift
booster).  In-orbit assembly of spacecraft and upper stage was
considered before 51L but is now out of the running.

Next Ariane launch delayed a week or so; the third-stage engine may have
been damaged in a handling mishap, and another is being substituted.

NASA begins probe of Atlas-Centaur loss.  Lightning is clearly prominent
in the investigation.  NASA widely criticized for bad-weather launch.
Debris recovery is being hampered by rain, winds, and poor underwater
visibility.  Quick-look analysis of telemetry:

T+0 - T+48	everything nominal

T+48 - T+53	accelerometer data strange, major electrical transients
		in both stages, payload-adapter microphone off scale
		(also, four lightning strikes near pad)

T+59		radar sees multiple targets, then loses track altogether

T+71		Range Safety pushes button


Soviets launch Kvant ("Quantum") astrophysics module to Mir from
Tyuratam.  25th Soviet launch of year.  Automatic docking set for April
5 [delayed due to problems, rectified by EVA -- HS].  Kvant will dock at
stern port, then jettison its service module, freeing a docking port on
Kvant's stern for possible later use by Progress freighters [yup, first
one has docked -- HS].  Kvant also carries instruments and equipment for
Mir.

US grumbles that Europeans object to military use of US space station
but not to getting involved with Mir, which does military work too.

Congressional Budget Office says just carrying out programs planned
before 51L would require large budget increases for NASA; something will
have to give.

NASA asks USAF for major role in heavylift booster.  Apparently NASA and
USAF are close to an agreement giving NASA major technical
responsibilities, while leaving USAF with management, operational, and
funding responsibility.  Argument about cost vs. reliability continues.

NASA Langley study examines using heavylift booster for space station;
*officially* no design changes to permit this are being made, yet.
Study suggests either redesigning the boom and associated equipment to
make it collapsible for HLLV launch, or else launching some of the
pressurized modules on an HLLV.  It is not clear that the HLLV will be
needed once the station is manned, because the eight shuttle flights per
year needed for crew rotation may suffice for cargo transport.

NASA to proceed with competitive definition of an advanced SRB for first
use circa 1993.  Studies of liquid-booster technology to be undertaken
as well [ABOUT TIME!! -- HS].

DoD/intelligence bigwigs request meeting with Reagan over Landsat
crisis.  Commerce and Congress want the original two-satellite subsidy
deal, while the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting doesn't want to
spend that much (even though it was in the original agreement with
Eosat).  An added complication is the question of whether Eosat's plans
remain competitive in the face of sophisticated foreign competition with
higher-resolution imagers.

Rep. George Brown calls for an end to the secrecy surrounding US
spysats, on the grounds that it is no longer justified.  (This may be
the first time that the KeyHole satellites and the National
Reconnaissance Office have ever been mentioned in an open speech.)  He
wants the US to relax its 10-m limit on civilian imagesats (since other
countries will soon beat it anyway), start serious work on an
international arms-control verification agency, and declassify much of
NRO's work.  "Today, more than a decade after the first flight of the
KH-11, US officials still refuse to acknowledge the existence of the
satellite, even though the Soviet Union has owned a KH-11 oeprator's
manual since 1977..."

Nelson proposes multiyear funding authorization for space station, $15G
at max $1.5G/yr; NASA thinks the yearly limit makes the idea impossible.

Britain announces participation in the Soviet Phobos mission, possible
later participation in other Soviet Mars missions.

CNES (France space agency) and NASA sign cooperative agreement on ocean
satellite research missions.

Spot photo of the infamous Krasnoyarsk radar [violating Salt II],
excerpted from the latest edition of DoD's propaganda sheet "Soviet
Military Power".  (Yes, DoD bought the picture from Spot Image for its
own report.)

NORAD and US Space Command to request development of space-based
tracking systems: some system for detection of bombers and cruise
missiles, radar for detecting Soviet satellites covertly deployed by the
Soviet shuttle (Space Command could not see a southern-hemisphere
deployment, especially to high orbit, with current tracking stations),
and optical system for photographing Soviet satellites in orbit.

Cutaway drawing of Space Industries' Industrial Space Facility.  SII is
pushing it as an alternative to the postponed co-orbiting platorm for
the space station.  Interestingly, SII also says that DoD could use ISF
for technology research, but SII won't permit use for weapons testing.

Australia setting unusual terms for its Aussat 2 comsat program: it
wants to buy the satellites on orbit, with a penalty clause for late
delivery, thus having the supplier assume much of the responsibility for
launch delays and failures.

Three letters of note:

	"James C. Fletcher said that President Reagan was a space
	enthusiast. ... If Reagan is a space enthusiast, why did he
	cut $604M from NASA's budget after the space shuttle's first
	flight in April, 1981?"
					"Christopher Gamble, Geneva"

	"I read with incredulity the article on NASA's loss of space
	program leadership, especially the comments by 'an
	Administration official'.  He speaks of NASA being upset
	'because they see their empire being carved up and can do little
	to stop progress'.  What progress!? ... This same official
	states 'it's time they come down with everyone else and be part
	of normal Administration operations'.  'Normal' operations
	implies studying problems extensively in the hope that they go
	away, instead of facing them.  ... This person said that 'NASA
	is now finding they have to join the real world'.  Treasury
	Secretary Baker's letter to Fletcher, which said that Spacelab
	is not a shuttle-unique payload (!), makes one wonder which real
	world is being referred to..."
					"Edward J. Rudnicki, Teaneck NJ"

	"An editorial stated: 'Why were the needs of DoD space officials
	not thoroughly examined early in NASA's station studies?'.  For
	years the Defence Dept. has insisted repeatedly, almost to the
	point of rudeness, that it had no interest whatever in a space
	station..."
					"Ed Prior, Poquoson VA"

   Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 87 21:36:58 GMT
From: cbmvax!eric@rutgers.edu  (Eric Cotton)
Subject: Re: Help Wanted re. Astronaut Training References

In article <739@ttidca.TTI.COM> jackson@ttidcs.UUCP (Dick Jackson) writes:
>My son (highschool junior) has to write a term paper on the selection
>and training of the astronauts for the Apollo program, Apollo 11 in
>particular.  He has had a lot of trouble at libraries finding bokks,
>articles etc.  describing the pre-flight activities of Armstrong,
>Aldrin and Collins(?).

>We would greatly appreciate advice from you space mavens. Thanks in
>advance.  (He already has a book called "We Seven", which is primarily
>about the Mercury period.)

[Sorry for posting this but I am having problems E-mailing personally.
Besides, others might be interested anyway...]

You might try "Carrying the Fire", a book by Mike Collins, one of the
Apollo 11 astronauts.  It is a very personal, very revealing account of
an astronauts training, carreer, and opinions, as well as a first hand
history of the flight of Apollo 11.

	Eric Cotton

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 87 20:19:21 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Saturn V

All this talk about our now non-existant Saturn V has made me very
depressed. Does anyone know if any of our politicians tried to keep the
Saturn V capability? (I'll vote for them)

Thanks

------------------------------

Date: 25 May 87 03:11:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: nanotechnology

>I don't want to sound smug or elitist about this group of people.  But
>there must be *some* good reason why nanotechnology has taken hold
>among so many space buffs.  Comments?

A lot of SCI.SPACE people (including yours truly) are into science
fiction.  Also a lot of them think that OMNI is a SCIENCE magazine.
 
Seriously, I don't know if any of this nanotechnology will come to pass
in our lifetimes.  Technology has a way of advancing both faster and
slower than we expect.  A lot of 'futurists' of past decades thought
we'd all be flying around in air cars by now.  It was predicted that
skyscrapers would be 200 or 300 stories in major cities by the 1960's.
On the other hand advances in semiconductor and genetic engineering
technology were largely missed, except perhaps by some S.F. writers.

*BUT* most of us are space enthusiasts.  While we're discussing pie-in-
the-sky our own nation's space program is floundering from lack of
direction, lack of leadership, and lack of public support.  The Soviets,
using very UN-pie-in-the-sky technology have taken the lead in the
'space race'.
                                                     --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 87 07:24:58 GMT
From: hao!murphy@husc6.harvard.edu  (Graham Murphy)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle

In article <8079@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> I dont have any speculation regarding the Soviets --- but why are
>> we using such old technology on the shuttle?
>
>Same reason almost everything in an Apollo/Saturn was 1960 technology:
>long design lead times and a need for well-proven hardware.  As I
>recall,

There is another constraint imposed by the considerably higher radiation
levels inherent in being above the atmosphere.  This constraint is
severe and is only just being fully addressed.  The most significant
aspect of going to new technology i.e. faster cpu's and denser memory,
is that the design is built at substantially smaller physical scales. As
a consequence, stray cosmic ray particles, positrons, and electrons have
a much larger influence leading to more errors. These errors can be of
two types, either soft or hard, soft meaning a bit might get flipped but
no permanent damage occurs, a hard error means permanent damage to the
area effected.  (A bit of dynamic random access memory suffers badly
from being clobbered by a high energy proton.)

The point is that the 'old' shuttle computers (IBM370 cpus I seem to
recall from somewhere dim and dark) will suffer some soft errors (hence
the need for five of them) but are very unlikely to suffer hard errors,
so whilst they are slow (comparatively) they tend to be accurate (within
the limits imposed by Big Blue :-) An IBM PC/AT or Mac, would be very
difficult to use (I suspect) due to much higher rates of soft errors and
significant hard errors (though one could probably have 50 of them to
adjudicate with :-)

The solution is radiation-hardened technology, which I think was
developed by either Motorola or National Semiconductor over the last 5-7
years under the auspices of the DoD. It is still not 100% but has
significantly lower errors rates (soft and hard). (Of course, it is also
very useful if you want your Macintosh to work during a nuclear attack.)
Whilst I have no way of confirming, I would assume that the next
generation of shuttle computers would use this technology heavily.

To these considerations, one should add a general conservativeness of
design. It was not possible to easily test radiation sensitivity in
space in a manned environment at the time the shuttle was designed as
there was no manned capability - so it was important to be certain that
the computers would work (so a timing problem with them on the ground
delays the first launch :-) Again, I seem to recall that the Air Force
had a few satellite missions that were dedicated to testing these sorts
of things but it's never the same as being able to tell someone to "hit
the stupid thing with a screwdriver", and it's not cheap.


Graham Murphy
High Altitude Observatory

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 87 16:01:32 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solar power for England?

> I think there's a good chance recent advances in superconductors may solve
> the problems of long distance energy transmission and storage...

Hm, that hadn't occurred to me.  Could be, with some reservations.

> Fred Hoyle's comments about solar power in England aside, I don't see
> anything wrong in the long term with the idea of generating electricity
> with photovoltaic cells in the Sahara and carrying it to France and then to
> the rest of Europe by s.c. transmission lines...

I can see one major obstacle to this: it means that Europe is dependent
on the Sahara, not the most politically stable region in the world, for
minute-to-minute energy supply.

Don't underestimate the complications that politics can cause for
long-haul energy transmission.  For example, in Canada there is
considerable political opposition to large long-term sale of water or
power to the US, on the grounds that if the US becomes dependent on
this, Canada effectively loses what little political independence it now
has.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 87 20:31:38 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!allen@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Kurt Allen)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle

In article <686@hao.UCAR.EDU> murphy@hao.UUCP (Graham Murphy) writes:

>The solution is radiation-hardened technology, which I think was
>developed by either Motorola or National Semiconductor over the last
>5-7 years under the auspices of the DoD.

There have been radiation hardened versions of certain micro processors
for a while. The problem is that these versions of these chips tend to
not sell extremely well, because of the small numbers needed. Hence
there is not a large market, and small incentive to spend the money to
produce radiation hardened versions of newer processors.

BTW John Hopkins Applied Physics Lab was designing a special Forth
engine specifically designed for use in space. From what I remember it
was using larger lines/transistors that are less likely to change state
from random ionizing radiation (newer technologies tend to use smaller
transistors within the chip) and was running at 1 megahertz.
	Kurt W. Allen
	3M Center
	ihnp4!mmm!allen

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #244
*******************


1,forwarded,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02169; Thu, 4 Jun 87 03:03:27 PDT
	id AA02169; Thu, 4 Jun 87 03:03:27 PDT
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 87 03:03:27 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8706041003.AA02169@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #245

*** EOOH ***
Date: Thu, 4 Jun 87 03:03:27 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #245

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 245

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Shuttle flight profile
		  I was there, working my tail off.
				 HLV
			       Re: HLV
			       Re: HLV
			     Re: Saturn V
			     Re: Saturn V
			     Re: Saturn V
	Can one tap electricity from the solar wind bow shock?
		  Adult 10-day Space Academy Session
		 Re: Photovoltaic cells for $.16/watt
		    Polycrystalline Si solar cells
      Re: Can one tap electricity from the solar wind bow shock?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  3 Jun 1987 15:49-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Shuttle flight profile

"The shuttle now consists of the Orbiter and External Tank. It
continues to gain speed and altitude; 6.5 minutes into the flight you
are traveling 15 times the speed of sound at an altitude of 80 miles
(130 kilometers). Flying a path resembling a roller coaster, the
shuttle begins a long shallow DIVE to 72 miles (120 kilomters). During
this maneuver, you expereince the maximum acceleration of 3g. Near the
end of the dive, 8.5 minutes after you left the ground, the MAIN ENGINE
CUT-OFF (MECO) command is geiven. The External tank is discarded 20
seconds later. The Orbiter maneuvers down and to the left of the tank
which will splash down in a remote ocean area. Remember - throughout
the ascent, you travel "upside down" with your head toward the ground."

				The Space Shuttle Operators Manual
				Joels, Kennedy & Larkin
				Section 1.5


As far as I know, the only purpose of the maneuver is to insure that
the tank does not go into orbit and that it impacts quickly in a known
location. I believe that this maneuver is the reason it is said that it
would cost less fuel to take the tank into orbit than it does to
discard it.

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 87 07:34:29 GMT
From: k.cs.cmu.edu!jwa@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (James Anderson)
Subject: I was there, working my tail off.

This is in responce to ESG7, old subject was about Sagan groupies being
used to build the 500 man Mars colony.

As a (hard) working member of the conference crew I was there for the
whole thing, in fact almost from start to finish, with the exception of
the last few hours of the dead dog party since I was one by then.  By
the way, does anyone remember who the guy was that kept talking about
difficulties with submarine toilets?  I think he was from Chicago.

Anyway back to the original subject.  The point missed or at least
distorted in the article by ESG7 is that the Mars project as a one shot
deal is what is opposed, not the concept of a manned Mars mission.  The
main idea was to convince the Mars proponents to do things in a way that
was as reusable as possible, thus allowing inclusion into the fledgling
infrastructure and quite probably reducing the cost for future Mars
missions should the effort continue.  The point is to fight against the
build it cheap and pitch it later mentality that has caused the sorry
state of the U.S. space program.  Anyway Mr. Allen's statements that we
have not addressed the questions of economic and technical feasibility
as well as political environment are quite untrue.  The true "clear
answer to both questions is" not "NO" but "Yes" for the economic and
technical feasibility question if the problem of the "NO" for the
political situation is negated by allowing an increased degree of
COMMERCIAL and true CIVILIAN space access.  This is the big hurdle.  We
have already seen time and again that a government bureaucracy cannot do
ANYTHING at reasonable cost.  Let's face it the U.S. government has
become little more than a self perpetuating entity with delusions of
integrity while it's pork barrel members sell out to the highest bidding
power group.  Mr. Allen is sadly correct on this point.  I strongly
disagree with his assertion that mining of asteroids is hundreds of
years away.  The technology exists to handle it.  Mining is one of the
things we can do, getting there and back is the hard part and that
appears more than workable.  The other "mundane" activities will provide
a stable near Earth by product and as such are still highly desirable.
Other than these differences I basicly agree with the rest of the
mentioned previous posting, especially as I have said when it comes to
the incorporation of the two sets of desires.
							Jim
       uucp: ...!seismo!cmu-cs-k!jwa          ARPA: jwa@k.cs.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 87 20:11:11 GMT
From: hao!murphy@husc6.harvard.edu  (Graham Murphy)
Subject: HLV

I have memories of an American heavy launch vehicle that was developed
at about the same time as the USSR's Proton, could be used either manned
or unmanned, and which proved itself to be extremely reliable.

Does anyone know what the retooling time and cost of bringing back
Saturn V would be ? The electronics in the original design would need
replacing but the basic mechanical design is (compared to the shuttle)
simple and reliable. I was thinking of this as an interim measure in
these dark days. I assume it has been examined and rejected due to cost
and time but I have no idea how these compare to developing a new
vehicle 'as soon as possible', as the HLV would represent.

I realise it is a random thought with no possibility, but I periodically
get very depressed about the lack of 'space' in the USA. Honestly,
Doctor, that's what caused it.

Graham Murphy
High Altitude Observatory

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 87 09:07:57 GMT
From: philabs!ttidca!sorgatz@nyu.arpa  ( Avatar)
Subject: Re: HLV

Graham-
 There is really no need to modify _anything_ electrical on the Saturn
5. Those components were choosen because they meet the specs for HD use
in a near-vac environment. None of them are unavailable, since they were
all made-to-order for the Saturn vehicle. Just order up some more. Have
your friends @ NASA whip up a PO and zip it over to Rocketdyne's Canoga
plant...my father has it on good authority that the order could be
processed without delay. Afterall they're still making Atlas booster
parts for the Japanese, and the 'prints for the Saturn 5 stuff are still
on file! (-| Seriously, it's just a matter of money. You don't need to
change anything....especially the Turbopumps, or so the designer tells
me...;-)

-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 87 17:53:23 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: HLV

> Does anyone know what the retooling time and cost of bringing back
> Saturn V would be ? ...

My impression is that there are people seriously interested in the idea.
The plans are still *mostly* on hand.  The tooling went for scrap long
ago.  The biggest problem in building it would probably be re-qualifying
the engines.

There would then be some problems in launching it: the KSC facilities
are officially dedicated to the shuttle at the moment, and they have
also been modified substantially for it.  One obvious compatibility
problem is the service towers, which have changed a great deal, as have
(I'd assume) the service platforms in the VAB.

Almost certainly it's quicker and simpler than building an HLV from scratch,
but that doesn't mean it will happen.

    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
    {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 09:54:34 CDT
From: marco@ncsc.arpa (Barbarisi)
Subject: Re: Saturn V


This concept has probably been brought up before, but I was wondering if
anyone had considered using the Saturn design for the proposed Heavy
Launch Vehicle?  If not, why not?  We've already spent the cash on the
design and development.

Also, could a modified Saturn/Apollo system be used for an unmanned 
sample and return mission to Mars?  Enquiring minds want to know.

Marco Barbarisi
marco@ncsc.arpa

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 09:04:23 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Saturn V
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc: 

>Enquiring minds want to know.
>
>Marco Barbarisi

Just so happens in the SJ Merc yesterday was a copy of an NY Times
article on this subject.  It says that several companies (like Huge
Aircrash ;-), Boeing, and others have looked into this.  There are
several problems: 1) many of the original blueprints are now lost: as
momentos to the project, or trashed, 2) many of the machine tools were
sold as scrap and melted down, 3) some suppliers are now out of
business.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 87 20:15:06 GMT
From: vygr!mae@sun.com  (Mike Ekberg, Sun {Graphics Sub-Division})
Subject: Re: Saturn V

My question is why was Saturn V abandoned? Was it too costly on a
per/pound basis vis-a-vis the shuttle? I vaguely recall NASA doing a
study years ago that was something like a PERT chart of the Whole space
program. The gist of the study was, "Yup, to do all this {space
station,Mars,LEO sats} we need a shuttle". Was this an error?

It's interesting that many people express admiration for Soviet space
program, in particular their "build on existing hardware approach", yet
the same people don't attempt the same approach with the U.S. program.

My question to the world at large? Starting with what we have *NOW*, how
would you build a space station? Why not launch a shuttle and leave it
up there?
 
mike	- Sun uSystems, MStop 5-40

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 27 May 87 12:15:55 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Can one tap electricity from the solar wind bow shock?

Paul Dietz in an earlier posting came up with some wild ideas that
touched upon a screw ball idea that I've long had.  The Earth is in a
stream of charged particles that come from the Sun.  These charged
particles are often refered to as the "solar wind".  The Earth's
magnetic field shields the earth's atmosphere from the solar wind by
forming a bow shock which the solar wind passes around.  This bow shock
is similar to a super sonic shock wave around a sphere except the fluid
flow is free molecular rather than continuum.  The shock "discontinuity"
is not very thick.  I was told that it is on the order of a few meters.
The electric potential across this shock must be enormous.  Also, since
the sun is driving it, the total energy must also be enormous.  The
screw ball idea: From a platform in a sun synchronous orbit, extend an
electrode into this shock and tap electric current from it.  I've not
checked any of the numbers on this idea and it is probably totally
impractical.  Probably the particle density is too low, or the potential
difference isn't high enough, or there's some other show stopper.
However if someone wants to play with this idea, they're welcomed to it.

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 87 16:01:46 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Adult 10-day Space Academy Session

The Alabama Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville, AL (near but not part
of NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center) has for the past 2+ years run 3
day Adult sessions of their 5 day Space Camp/Academy.  This program led
to two 1.5 hour missions in the Center's shuttle simulator.  It was the
feeling of camp administrators that adults would not be interested in a
longer/more involved session.

Beginning in August 1987, they will be offering to high school juniors,
seniors and college freshpeople (frosh?) what they call Space Academy
Level II, a 10 day program leading to several 8-24 hour missions
including neutral boyancy work in their own tank, designing and "flying"
experiments and specialized training in three tracks: pilot, engineering
and science.

As a two time attendee of the adult session, this looked great, and I've
been trying to convince them to let me attend one of these sessions.
They have (valid) problems with mixing adults and "kids" (yes I know
some who qualify are on the net...I'm just a big kid myself), but are
very willing to run an adult session of the Level II camp this fall, if
there's interest.

Some details: Length: 10 days (Monday to following Wednesday)
              Price : $775 includes all food, housing and the camp
                      add transportation and souvenirs

I have no connection with Space Camp/Academy except as an attendee.

If you want more info, or are interested, please send me email
and we'll go from there.

For general info on Camp programs 800-633-7280

Rich Kolker

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 29 May 87 9:02:12 EDT
From: Thomson@udel.edu
To: dietz%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net
Cc: space@udel.edu
Subject:  Re: Photovoltaic cells for $.16/watt

This is not vaporware; I worked for Dr. Barnett through a summer research
program when I was a sophomore.  The guy definately knows his stuff when it
comes to device and solar cell fabrication.  He has several plans for making
low-cost solar cells, the ceramic substrate being one of them.  Another was
a plan to form a solar cell on a metal substrate, although I am no longer
familiar with the current status of these techniques.  I have confidence in
Dr. Barnett's ability to debug the cell to the point it can reach 17%
efficiency; he's one determined and dedicated individual.
						Rich Thomson

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 29 May 87 12:50:34 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Polycrystalline Si solar cells

Alan Barnett has produced the highest efficiency poly silicon/foreign
substrate solar cells made to date, with an efficiency of 12%.  (A paper
on this was in the 19th Photovoltaics Specialists Conference the first
week of may; the proceedings won't be out for a while yet.)  This
efficiency is the same as the best made by amorphous silicon
single-junction (12%, solarex), Cadmium Telluride (11.5%, ISET), and
Copper Indium Selenide (11.9%, Boeing); and slightly worse than the best
amorphous silicon multijunction cascades (13%, I think) and amorphous
silicon/Copper Indium Selenide cascades (14%, I think).
    All of the above are thin-film technologies on foreign substrates
and thus potentially low cost processes.  The efficiency needed for
economic viability is about 16%.
     The other technologies are being hotly pursued.  Poly thin film Si
and GaAs were a topic of research in the 70's, and mostly dropped, since
nobody could beat 10%.  Barnett may be the only person still doing
significant research on poly thin film Si.  He claims that efficiencies
of about 17% are feasable on poly si.  This sounds about right to me.
The best single crystal Si cells, by the way, are about 21% (for
unconcentrated sunlight, about 27% under concentration).
  16 cents/watt sounds awfully low to me.  My estimate of the technology
would be more like 50-80 cents/watt.  Are you sure that the figure
wasn't 16 cents/kilowatt-hour?  At 12% efficiency, that sounds about
right.  Possibly Electronics misprinted.
   Light trapping is now standard for amorphous si, and indeed is
important for thin-film poly si because of the comparatively low
absorption.  The highest possible pathlength enhancement for isotropic
light is a factor of 4(n**2) where n is the index of refraction; this is
a factor of 50 for silicon.  However, it is possible to beat this figure
for anisotropic light.  For more info on light trapping, see also
        M.A. Green and P. Campbell, "Light Trapping Properties of
Pyramidally Textured and Grooved Surfaces", Ninteenth IEEE Photovoltaics
Specialists Conference, New Orleans, LA, May 1987; M.A. Green and P.
Campbell, Journal of Applied Physics, to be published (1987).
   which includes an analysis of the trapping effectiveness of
      G.A. Landis "Cross-Grooved Solar Cell",
United States Patent 4,608,451 (1986).

If you're interested, I have several papers on economics on disk
somewhere that I could drag up and send a copy of.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 30 May 87 00:47:23 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;608C)
Subject: Re: Can one tap electricity from the solar wind bow shock?

Sorry to throw cold water on this idea but I think there's a major
problem with it.  The location of the bow shock is variable.  The solar
wind is not constant; when its flux is low the bow shock balloons
outward, when its flux is high the bow shock contracts.  The changes can
occur rather rapidly, much more rapidly than the satellite could change
orbit.  I remember hearing that one of the probes to the outer solar
system crossed Jupiter's bow shock about 5 times on its inbound path.

Dan Tilque
dant@tekla.tek.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #245
*******************


1,,
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04808; Fri, 5 Jun 87 03:03:33 PDT
	id AA04808; Fri, 5 Jun 87 03:03:33 PDT
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 87 03:03:33 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8706051003.AA04808@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #246

*** EOOH ***
Date: Fri, 5 Jun 87 03:03:33 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #246

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 246

Today's Topics:
   Soviet space advances: 2 big launches, Progress 30 & Big Booster
		Re Skylab's MDA & Mir's docking ports
		       Re: Soviet Space Shuttle
			    Soviet Shuttle
			       Re: HLV
		       Re: Soviet Space Shuttle
			    photon rocket
			      Re: FTL ?
			 Re: FTL ? (beliefs)
		      Just assume FTL exists :-?
			 intersteller rockets
				 FTL
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 May 87 11:16:34 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet space advances: 2 big launches, Progress 30 & Big Booster

     The Soviets have been running a very strong space program in the
past few weeks.  In addition to the launch of Energia, their big booster
on May 16th (see my note of that date) they launched in Gorbachev's
presence 3 other boosters during his visit to the Baikonur Cosmodrome.
First they sent up a Proton on May 11th with a Gorizont Communications
Satellite.  This was a very important launch as they have had two Proton
failures so far this year (on Jan. 30 and Apr. 24).  This lends credence
to the Russian statements that these were due to the testing of a new
high energy upper stage on those earlier flights.  In addition they sent
up a SL-16 (their new 15 tonne booster) and one of their standard A-2
boosters.  Gorbachev made the following statement while there:
"Everything here at the cosmodrome, from the rockets, space vehicles,
their life-supporting systems fitted out with modern computers and
highly sensitive instruments - all of this is Soviet-made, everything is
of a high quality and of modern technological standard."  By the way, a
person at Dartmouth who was watching Gorbachev's visit on Russian TV
said that when he went into one building they saw in the background a
"shuttle like vehicle".
    In addition to these the Soviets sent up the Progress 30 tanker,
which docked with Mir on May 21.  This means the Russians have sent some
6 cargo ships with 15 tonnes of supplies to Mir, along with some 5 other
craft.  They have also announced that the space walk the crew was going
do to attach additional solar panels to Mir has been delayed because the
men are overworked.  In the past month they have had to do an extra EVA
to save Kvant, unload the 10 tonne Kvant, and Progress 29 & 30.  Most
experts here ( eg. James Oberg) think that this delay is reasonable.
    Also the Soviet's have revealed more information about energai.  The
first stage uses Liquid Oxygen and Kerosene, while the second is the
LOX/Hydrogen system (not both stages as has been stated in the press).
Also they have stated that the vehicle contains its cargo section slung
to the side of the booster, where their shuttle would be placed.  They
are certainly proud of this ship.  In the past week statements about the
launch have appeared every night on the shortwave.
    Look, the Russians now moving faster than ever.  We must start going
forward now - not adding even more delays to the Shuttle's launch like
were announced this week.

                         Glenn Chapman
                         MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 26 May 87 14:07:10 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Re Skylab's MDA & Mir's docking ports

    In his reply to my posting on Mir's advantages Henry Spencer
correclty points out in Space Digest issues 233 -234 that the Multiple
Docking Addaptor on Skylab had two working ports (down from the 5 of the
original design).  Since only the axial port was used for docking
(including the time when Skylab 2 tried 8 times to dock before doing it
successfully after an EVA to fix their docking latches) I had assumed
incorrectly that the side port could not be used.  However prodded by
his note the reference to both being operational was found.  There even
was a statement that two command modules could be docked at once for
purposes other than crew rescue.  However the short duration nature of
Skylab is shown by their not making use of it.  Indeed consider that the
plans for a second skylab was killed as soon as the first one was shown
to be working in orbit.
    OK I was wrong on Skylab having only one, but Mir still has 6 ports,
3 times Skylab's.  Thus I still think that Mir is a long duration
operational station in the sense that Skylab was never meant to be.
When is this country going to stop living on past accomplishments?

                                         Glenn Chapman
                                         MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 87 01:42:44 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle

> I dont have any speculation regarding the Soviets --- but why are
> we using such old technology on the shuttle?

Same reason almost everything in an Apollo/Saturn was 1960 technology:
long design lead times and a need for well-proven hardware.  As I
recall, there is preliminary work being done on the notion of replacing
the shuttle computers with more modern ones.  Remember, those computers
had to be fully flight-qualified around 1980.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 87 13:34:03 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Soviet Shuttle

From information published in Aviation Week it appears that the soviet
shuttle is much simpler than ours. To start with our shuttle main
engines are attached to our shuttle and are designed to be reused. The
engines used to launch the soviet shuttle are part of the booster and
are thrown away after one use.  This gives a simpler vehicle design with
a lower dry weight. Meaning either higher return cargo capacity or lower
wing loading. Lower wing loading should mean less stress and less heat
load during reentry and lower speed when landing.

Other things to think about the soviet shuttle. 1) The shuttle launch
vehicle is also a heavy lift launch vehicle. Almost no extra work to get
both. 2) The strap on boosters are also capable of being used as medium
launch vehicles. It has been suggested that these boosters will be used
to launch the soviets small space plane. This is a Titan IIC class
booster.

So for the cost of developing a space shuttle the soviets got a medium
launch vehicle, a heavy launch vehicle, a heavy shuttle, and a space
plane. When we developed a space shuttle we got a space shuttle. Extra
work is needed to develop a heavy launch vehicle.

The soviets are developing a space transportation system. We developed a
space shuttle. Our space shuttle defined the state of the art. The
soviet shuttle will ( my opinion ) not advance the state of the art, but
will be cheaper to build and operate.

According to the 1987 "Soviet Military Power" the soviets are about 10
years behind the U.S. in applications of computers in industry and
science. I would bet that the thechnology level in the soviet shuttles
computers is about the same or a little better than that in our shuttle.

		Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 87 04:58:07 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: HLV

In article <753@ttidca.TTI.COM> sorgatz@ttidcb.UUCP (Erik Sorgatz - Avatar) writes:
>Graham-
>for the Saturn vehicle. Just order up some more. Have your friends @ NASA

    LOTS of money. I recall that the Jarvis booster concept (or perhaps
another HLV) was going to use F-1 engines, until they were quoted a
ridiculously high cost for restarting production, O($1 billion).
Extrapolate this to all the other components in a Saturn V and it
becomes clear why nobody has actually proposed this.

    Maybe we could license the `Energia' design from the Soviets for
export production... with less powerful engines, like the F-5s we sold
to all those 3rd world countries back in the 60s and 70s.  No, on second
thought, they wouldn't want to give technology that advanced to us :-(

    Question: did anyone actually see the Soviet TV coverage of the
`Energia' launch? The pictures printed in the latest AW&ST are so bad I
had to rely on the captions to make anything of them.  Was the actual
transmission that bad?

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

``There is only one spacefaring nation today. And it's not the United
    States, comrade!''

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 87 16:36:07 GMT
From: mike@ames.arpa  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle

>I dont have any speculation regarding the Soviets --- but why are we
>using such old technology on the shuttle?

The shuttle received its start in 1972. In the relatively conservative
NASA way of doing things, the rule is to go with the proven technology.
Apollo was not permitted to use technology beyond 1963. Some of the
systems on the shuttle were made to easily be updated, as appropriate.

I guess, that, that's the nature of the business. If something does the
job, use it. We're still launching Atlas rockets which are 30 years old,
and the Soviets are still using Vostock spacecraft and launch vehicles
for unmanned missions.

				   *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick ***

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 87 19:57:27 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!lew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Subject: photon rocket

A while back David desJardins posted an analysis of a photon rocket.  He
assumed constant acceleration, adjusting the rate of mass consumption to
be consistent with that assumption.  I found that the principal result,
which I take to be the velocity attained as a function of the fraction
of mass consumed, can be derived very easily from elementary
considerations.

Suppose the rocket operates for some unspecified period at the end of
which it has emitted a total photon flux of energy P, as measured in the
initial rest frame. In that frame we can equate the four-momentum ( or
two-momentum with only one spatial axis ) of the rocket+photons to the
initial four-momentum of the rocket:

(1)	( -P, P ) + ( gamma*m*v, gamma*m ) = ( 0, M )

M is the initial rocket mass and m is the final rocket mass.  v is the
final velocity of the rocket and gamma is (1 - v^2 ) ^ -1/2.  Also, c
has been set to 1.

We can immediately write ( from the second component of (1) ):

(2)	P = M - gamma*m

and then ( substituting for P in the first component of (1) ):

(3)	gamma*m*( 1 + v ) = M

(4)	m/M = sqrt( (1-v)/(1+v) )

Inverting (4) gives the desired result:

(5)	v = ( 1 - (m/M)^2 ) / ( 1 + (m/M)^2 )

This yields v as a function of proper time, T, simply by plugging in an
assumed m(T).  No calculus!

An interesting double check is to assume the rocket fires twice,
reducing its mass by the ratios r1, and r2, in succession.  We can
calculate the successive velocity boosts, v1, and v2, using (5).  Then
if we calculate the final velocity with the velocity addition rule:

(6)	v = ( v1 + v2 )/( 1 + v1*v2 )

we get:

(7)	v = ( 1 - (r1*r2)^2 )/( 1 + (r1*r2)^2 )

which is equivalent to a single boost with fractional mass reduction of
r1*r2, as it should be.

	Lew Mammel, Jr.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 87 17:47:46 GMT
From: mcvax!botter!klipper!biep@seismo.css.gov  (J. A. "Biep" Durieux)
Subject: Re: FTL ?

Questions about whether FTL is possible, and why or why not, and what
if, etc., belong in sci.philosophy.tech and are in fact being discussed
there.  The same is true for Quantum Mechanics, undecidability
(Heisenberg), but also for formal incompleteness in logics (Goedel's
theorem that no sufficiently strong logical system can be both
consistent ("correct") and complete (being able to prove all true facts
about it - "sufficiently strong" means e.g. able to describe natural
numbers), and things like logical paradoxes.

People in groups like sci.{math,physics,astro,space,lang} tend to get
bored to talk about those problems, that's why the new group exists.
So, if you want to tell/ask something about one of these subjects, do it
in sci.philosophy.tech.
					Biep.  (biep@cs.vu.nl via mcvax)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 16:59:28 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: FTL ? (beliefs)

>RE: "impossibility" of FTL
>"Anything the mind of man can conceive, and believe, can be
> achieved."
>					Napoleon Hill

Yes, I believe it is possible to trisect an arbitrary angle using a
straight edge and a "rusty" compass.  Exercise left to the reader.  Now
go to it, it will make you rich.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 17:26:19 PDT
From: ota@galileo.s1.gov
Subject: Just assume FTL exists :-?
Cc: ota@galileo.s1.gov

The problem with just assuming an FTL drive exists is that it just isn't
convincing enough.  If we want an FTL drive we may have to stupe to
stealing one.  The suggestion I've heard in this regard is to attract
the attention of passing ETs.  The trick is to do something so noticable
that anyone "out there" will be sure to show up and investigate if they
exist at all.

The cases where "they" don't appear at all or arrive at sublight speeds
are beyond the scope of this article.  The ETs that show up will fall
into three basic categories: Scientists, Social Workers and Beserkers.
The latter possibily is also outside this article's scope.  In the first
two cases there is a some hope that we can arrange to capture one of
their ships.  They probably won't know much more about FTL travel than
we do and ET graduate student field workers may be relatively careless.
How many radios, calculators and the like are pirated by aboriginies
being studied by today's anthropologists?

Even if we can't get one of their ships the "mere" existance proof of an
FTL drive will almost certainly be sufficient to motivate it's actual
invention.

In spite of the difficulties with this approach it may still be easier
than discovering an FTL drive ourselves.  Isn't that a daunting thought?
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date:  Fri, 29-MAY-1987 15:42 EST
From: GORDON D. PUSCH <PUSCHGD%VTVAX3.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <space@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  intersteller rockets

There has been considerable discussion here lately on the relative
merits of constant-boost vs boost-and-coast for intersteller flight, and
whether it's worth it in fuel to save some time and supplies by "piling
on the gees". However a constraint I haven't seen anyone mention yet is
the weakest link in the system, namely, the passengers ...

1) Additional acceleration puts all sorts of wear and tear on the human
body. I don't think the savings of a few subjective months (or even
years) of supplies will be worth the human cost in hernias and fallen
arches ...  particularly if the ship has a closed ecology.

2) Relativistic flight through the intersteller medium is much like
flying down the throat of FermiLab or CERN. At a mere .25c, and assuming
a density of 100 atoms/m^3, you've got 7.8*10^9 30MeV protons per square
meter per second hitting the front of your ship. This translates to 38
mW/m^2 of hard radiation, which doesn't sound like that much, until you
convert it to rads.  Then you realize that it's 1.5 rads per minute. I
think this might be cons- trued as a health-hazard ... unless some other
form of shielding can be worked out, either we're going to be limited to
velocities below about .5c, or we'll have to carry one of Arthur C.
Clarke's flying icebergs along for the ride ...

Gordon D. Pusch <puschgd@vtvax3>
Physics Dept., VPI&SU
Blacksburg VA 24061

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 31 May 87 20:49:54 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      FTL

>it disturbs me to hear futurists dismiss FTL drives.  Yes, I know that
>they are "impossible".  As long as you call them "impossible", and
>refuse to look for one, your only chance of achieving one is by
>accident.  Why not start with the premise that we *have* to have an FTL
>drive, or else space travel will remain a parochial enterprise?
>Because it's unscientific?  Perhaps, but it's not unproductive. History
>is full of things that were "impossible" but necessary; some were
>eventually obtained.

     For the record, I maximally disagree with this statement.  The way
to get things done is to study the universe we live in, not to sit
around wishing for another one.  I would claim that if we start with the
premise that we *have* to have FTL or space travel will remain
parochial, then we will be beaten to the stars by people willing to work
with what they have.
     History is full of things that were accomplished after people quit
trying to do things that were not possible, and instead started to find
out what can be done with what was possible.  Thousands of alchemists
looking for the philosopher`s stone to turn lead into gold got nowhere;
a handful who abandoned wishful thinking and started to ask questions
about how the world was really put together started to get real results.

    Also keep in mind that the main objection to FTL travel is that it
implies time travel as well, since space and time are a single four-
dimensional object.
 --Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #246
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07473; Sat, 6 Jun 87 03:02:50 PDT
	id AA07473; Sat, 6 Jun 87 03:02:50 PDT
Date: Sat, 6 Jun 87 03:02:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8706061002.AA07473@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #247

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 247

Today's Topics:
				FTL ?
		      Microwave beams, powersats
		     Re: Solar power for England?
			      Powersats
	 The SPS/Space Station idea has show stopper problems
		     Re: Solar power for England?
		     Re: Solar power for England?
			    Re: Powersats
			    Re: Powersats
			    RE: PowerSats
			    Re: PowerSats
			    RE: PowerSats
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon,  1 Jun 87 01:09:20 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: FTL ?
To: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa

> But it disturbs me to hear futurists dismiss FTL drives.  Yes, I know
> that they are "impossible".  As long as you call them "impossible",
> and refuse to look for one, your only chance of achieving one is by
> accident.

How would you suggest going about looking for one?  The problems with
FTL are:

1) Nobody has any idea how to go about making an FTL drive, or even how
   to go about researching the possibility of one being possible.

2) There is no evidence that FTL could exist, except that it would be
   a neat thing to have.  And that is no kind of evidence for anything.

3) It has been proven that FTL would imply at least one of the following:

   a) Causality can be violated, i.e. time travel is possible.

   b) There is an absolute frame of reference.

   c) The speed of light in a vacuum is not constant.

   None of these seem likely.

> Why not start with the premise that we >have< to have an FTL drive, or
> else space travel will remain a parochial enterprise?

That is not a very constructive attitude.  To say we can do wonderful
things given some unlikely technologoy which relies on unknown physics
isn't very interesting.  Nor does it provide any guidance as to what we
should do next.  Just sit around and wait for someone to discover FTL, I
suppose.  And if there is no FTL, we are out of the game.

It is more interesting and more useful to study what can be done with
known physics.  Better yet, with known technology.  The latter can get
us the solar system.  The former can get us the stars.  FTL would be
covenient, but it isn't a necessity.  Railroads are a convenient way to
cross the continent, but the first pioneers walked.

Fortunately, it isn't up to any one individual to decide what premises
we have to work from.  Hundreds of possible ways to get into space
efficiently, and dozens of ways to get to the stars, are being
researched.  FTL isn't one of them.  I don't know how anyone would go
about researching FTL.
							...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 87 05:53:11 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Microwave beams, powersats

In article <5893@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes:
>I really think this (as well as similar ideas for beaming power to
>Earth from solar-collector satellites) is extremely dangerous.  What is
>to keep someone (even a poor little bird) from flying through the beam
>by accident?

	Restricting the airspace and having a radio beacon should
suffice.  It's not as though people would be flying through a death ray.
Even in the case of SPS, the energy densities are comparable to
sunlight. Powersats are pretty much a dead issue until the Soviets or
Japanese build one, however.  DOE and others did the basic research and
then threw the idea away long ago (well, late 70's. That's long ago when
you're 24) for political and economic rather than scientific reasons
(i.e. SPS had no constituency in Congress, and the O($100G) projected
costs found no friends).

	Birds can take their chances. We haven't stopped flying because
the occasional bird gets sucked into an engine. I suspect they will
quickly learn to avoid beams when they start feeling warm.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 27 May 87 10:00:51 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Solar power for England?

In article <8082@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Fred Hoyle's comments about solar power in England aside, I don't see
>> anything wrong in the long term with the idea of generating
>> electricity with photovoltaic cells in the Sahara and carrying it to
>> France and then to the rest of Europe by s.c. transmission lines...
>
>I can see one major obstacle to this: it means that Europe is dependent
>on the Sahara, not the most politically stable region in the world, for
>minute-to-minute energy supply.

	This is worse than being dependent on Persian Gulf oil? It seems
like a wash to me, except that the Sahara is closer to home and certain
European nations have long had colonial interests in the area (Algeria,
for example), so they might well favor it for that reason.

	By putting your solar cells in orbit on a powersat, you reduce
the political risk to a certain degree (now you're only dependent on the
goodwill of the nations that can get a payload to GEO). Perhaps this
explains the Japanese interest in powersats; their dependence on
imported energy is ridiculously high right now (something over 90% if I
recall correctly).

	Note redirection to talk.politics.misc.

    -- Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 87 15:08:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: Powersats


 In regard to PowerSats, what is the proposed means of converting
 the beam to 60 Hz AC electricity once it is received on Earth?

                                                --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 30 May 87 11:40:38 MEZ
From: ESG7%DFVLROP1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: The SPS/Space Station idea has show stopper problems

In Vol. 7, No. 239 of Space Digest, Geoffrey Landis had the following
to say about an SPS prototype:

>  >>The production phase during  which the output of the
>  >>mini-SPS would be diverted to the needs of commercial
>  >>projects in LEO, including Space Station clients...
>Now you've hit the jackpot, and this is why I like this idea so much.
>You see, the space station has a *real* problem with power.  It is in
>low orbit, see, and solar power systems have, unfortunately, a large
>projected area per unit power.  This means, they drag.  Solar panel
>drag is *the* limiting factor on the amount of power that will be
>available to the space station.  But if the actual power generators
>were in *high* orbit, and only a receiving antenna (with much better
>power to area ratio, especially since an antenna can be mostly open
>area) were on the space station...  bingo.  I actually think you may be
>able to make this idea fly.

Unfortunately there are some technicalities that make this idea
unworkable.  Orbital period is a 3/2 power function of semi-major axis.
If the SPS is in a higher orbit, then it will have a longer period.
Since the Space Station will have an orbital period on the order of 90
minutes, there will be about 45 minutes where the SPS is eclipsed by the
earth.  You will be required to have at least 2 SPSs for this to work.
Second problem is the receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna
will have to be gimballed and very precisely pointed.  It is doubtful
that the microwave beam can be very parallel, so the collection antenna
will have to be rather large (which really defeats the whole idea).
Also the crew of the station and all electonics will be exposed to a
fairly intense beam of microwaves (this can mean cataracs, infertility,
etc.).  Finally there will be some slop over from the transmitted beam
that will miss the station and hit the earth.  Raster scanning the earth
with a high energy microwave beam lacks appeal.  Sorry Geoffrey, this
SPS/Space Station idea can be dismissed.
                         Gary Allen                    --last posting--

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 87 20:18:53 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solar power for England?

> 	By putting your solar cells in orbit on a powersat, you reduce
> the political risk to a certain degree (now you're only dependent on
> the goodwill of the nations that can get a payload to GEO)...

More significantly, a powersat in orbit is not actually on somebody
else's property.  This makes you dependent on people's unwillingness to
engage in piracy, as opposed to their unwillingness to flip a switch
that is located in their back yard.  The former seems more dependable.

Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 87 18:02:04 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Solar power for England?

> >I can see one major obstacle to this: it means that Europe is
> >dependent on the Sahara, not the most politically stable region in
> >the world, for minute-to-minute energy supply.
> 
> 	This is worse than being dependent on Persian Gulf oil? ...

Yes, it is.  Unless there are *big* storage facilities, in Europe not in
the Sahara, the slack time in the system is a whole lot shorter than for
oil.  It's the difference between being told that your power will be
shut off at the end of the month, and having somebody flip the breaker
without warning.  The former is trouble, but there is time to plan for
it and try to work around it; the latter is an immediate major
emergency.  That's why I said "minute-to-minute".

> ... Perhaps this explains the Japanese interest in powersats; their
> dependence on imported energy is ridiculously high right now
> (something over 90% if I recall correctly).

If not more.  I have been told that a tanker captain on the run from the
Persian Gulf to Japan can, on a clear day, see the funnel smoke from the
tanker ahead of him and the one behind him.  It's not obvious where the
Japanese are going to put their rectennas, though, except perhaps
offshore.

    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
    {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 31 May 87 02:08:37 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Powersats

> In regard to PowerSats, what is the proposed means of converting
> the beam to 60 Hz AC electricity once it is received on Earth?

The rectenna is called a rectenna because it incorporates rectifiers to
change the microwaves to DC.  Final conversion to AC is done with power-
semiconductor inverters of the sort already in industrial use for DC
power transmission.  With the rise of power semiconductors, this sort of
thing is no longer a big problem.

"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 29 May 87 23:54:08 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Powersats

The incoming microwaves are converted into DC electricity by a device
called a 'rectenna', which is short for 'rectifying antenna'.  It has
many many elements, each of which is a 1/2 wave dipole with a diode
connected to it.  Depending upon where the rectenna is, the voltage will
probably be stepped up in a DC transformer to long distance transmission
voltages (order of 100kV).  From there, you are in the existing power
grid.  60 Hz AC comes in after you get off the high- voltage DC
transmission lines.

(I worked on an SPS study in 1984, where we found that 99% of the SPS
parts can be made from lunar-derived materials.  Some of the people I
work with did the original SPS work at Boeing from 1976-1980).

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 87 00:35:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: RE: PowerSats

 RE: my question about how the microwave signal from a powersat gets
 turned into 60 Hz AC electricity.

Dani Eder says:
>The incoming microwaves are converted into DC electricity by a device
>called a 'rectenna', which is short for 'rectifying antenna'.  It
>has many many elements, each of which is a 1/2 wave dipole with a diode
>connected to it.

 OK, so far...

>  Depending upon where the rectenna is, the voltage will probably
>  be stepped up in a DC transformer

 What is a 'DC transformer'?  A transformer is an AC device.  There are
 circuits that perform DC to (different voltage) DC conversion by
 switching capacitors across diodes.  Is someone proposing to do this on
 a megawatt scale?  What kind of efficiencies to they get?

> to long distance transmission voltages (order of 100kV).  From there,
> you are in the existing power grid.  60 Hz AC comes in after you get
> off the high-voltage DC transmission lines.

 The existing power grid, you may recall, is AC.  How did you get to AC,
 specifically sine-wave AC?  The commercial power 'inverters' that I've
 seen tend either to generate square waves or tend to be relatively
 inefficient (due probably to having to operate in the linear part of
 some semiconductor's curve and therefore dissipating a lot of heat).

 N.B. I'm not nay-saying this stuff; I assume someone's already thought it
 all out.  I'd just like to know what they've concluded.
 
                                                   --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 87 16:46:49 GMT
From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: PowerSats

In article <35359e37.44e6@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes:
> What is a 'DC transformer'?  A transformer is an AC device.  There are
> circuits that perform DC to (different voltage) DC conversion by
> switching capacitors across diodes.  Is someone proposing to do this
> on a megawatt scale?  What kind of efficiencies to they get?

	Yep, there are DC transformers.  (Shocking isn't it.)  They are
solid state devices to do just that.  Capacity and efficiency are high,
and they are used routinely.  If you think about it, the term DC
transformer should be legitimate.

> The existing power grid, you may recall, is AC.  How did you get to
> AC, specifically sine-wave AC?  The commercial power 'inverters' that
> I've seen tend either to generate square waves or tend to be
> relatively inefficient (due probably to having to operate in the
> linear part of some semiconductor's curve and therefore dissipating a
> lot of heat).

	They ship power on the west coast using big DC line, about 500KV
as I recall.  There is an 1100 mile line running down from Washington to
California.  The cute thing is the way that they go from AC to DC.  The
voltage is stepped using big AC transformers.  They have a whole slew of
switchable power diodes floating on the line (each one handles a segment
of the output voltage, a few hundred volts each.)  The diodes are
switched using lasers -- no way to send control signals via wire to the
diodes.  They've been doing this for quite some time.

Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jun 87 21:52:21 GMT
From: voder!apple!ems@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mike Smith)
Subject: RE: PowerSats

I think you got it.  DC to DC converter is most likely what was meant.
But I don't think you will need one.  Take a field of 10**6 rectennas
each putting out a volt.  Hook them up in groups of 10 in parallel.
Take the groups and put them in series.  Viola, 10**5 kv with no voltage
conversion.  (These numbers are all made of whole cloth, but the logic
is real.)

A couple of things.  First is a low tech fix.  Motorgenerators.  Yup,
they still work.  About 85% effecient if you do a good job.  So the
problem is solvable even if a high tech high effeciency answer was not
so easy to come by.  Second is a trend: The world of power transmission
is moving toward DC as a grid power type due to the lower losses and the
dropping cost of inverters.  Third is an expansion: True sine wave power
inverters of very large size are becomming much less expensive.  DC to
AC on the power company scale is much different from what you see at the
local electronics shop.  The Japanese are running a commercial pilot
plant fuel cell right now.  Fuel cells produce DC...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #247
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09339; Sun, 7 Jun 87 03:03:02 PDT
	id AA09339; Sun, 7 Jun 87 03:03:02 PDT
Date: Sun, 7 Jun 87 03:03:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8706071003.AA09339@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #248

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 248

Today's Topics:
		    Re: The SPS/Space Station idea
		    Re: The center of the universe
			star Charting Routine
			  Yale Star Catalog
		     Flashes of light in the sky
			Astronaut information
		      Re: NASA launch June/July
		       Galileo cancellation??!!
			  Re: Nanotechnology
			 SPACE Digest V7 #244
		  this horrible ol'world we live in
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jun 87 18:50:29 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: The SPS/Space Station idea

In article <8705301939.AA00250@angband.s1.gov>, ESG7@DFVLROP1.BITNET writes:
> In Vol. 7, No. 239 of Space Digest, Geoffrey Landis had the following
> to say about an SPS prototype:
>> [advocates deriving Space Station power from SPS instead of
>>  using solar panels]
 
> If the SPS is in a higher orbit, then it will have a longer period.
> Since the Space Station will have an orbital period on the order of 90
> minutes, there will be about 45 minutes where the SPS is eclipsed by
> the earth.  You will be required to have at least 2 SPSs

Solar panels have the same problem.  Batteries have to be provided for
the ~30 (not 45) minutes the station is in shadow.  With an SPS, one has
a problem if either the SPS-Sun or SPS-station line crosses the Earth,
although the former is small if SPS is in a high orbit.  An alternative,
as you note, is to build 2 SPS's.

> Second problem is the receiving antenna and the transmitting antenna
> will have to be gimballed and very precisely pointed.

Again, so do solar panels.  The pointing accuracy required for either
transmitting or receiving antenna is proportional to the diameter of the
antenna, and the product of the antenna areas scales as the square of
the distance between transmitter and receiver (~= height of SPS orbit,
if that is much higher than station orbit).  Presumably one would put a
large antenna on the SPS, where the pointing direction doesn't change
much, and a smaller antenna on the station.  Pointing could be either by
phased-array techniques or by physically moving the antennas.  One would
have to have a proper engineering study to determine costs, but I
wouldn't expect pointing to add much to the basic SPS cost.

> Also the crew of the station and all electonics will be exposed to a
> fairly intense beam of microwaves

Not if they are surrounded by an electrically conducting shield, as they
would be if the station is made of metal.  (One might have to put screen
wire over the windows, as on microwave ovens.)

> there will be some slop over from the transmitted beam that will miss
> the station and hit the earth.

Or at least the atmosphere.  It won't get anywhere near the surface if
the frequency is one that is strongly absorbed.

> Sorry Geoffrey, this SPS/Space Station idea can be dismissed.
>                          Gary Allen                    --last posting--

SPS for powering Space Station may be too expensive to be practical, but
none of the reasons you give appears sufficient for instant dismissal.

Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

Date: 26 May 87 01:49:36 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The center of the universe

> ...The galaxies farthest out we see as they were billions of years
> ago, where they were billions of years ago. At that time, they were
> closer to the source of the "big bang". Which means they are nearer
> the center of the universe than galaxies close at hand, or ourselves.

Uh-uh, wrong, watch those verb tenses:  they *were* nearer the center then.
As were we.  Think of the surface of an expanding balloon:  all points on
the surface are receding from all other points, with the relative velocity
increasing with increasing distance.  There is no "center" on the surface
itself.

    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
    {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 87 03:41:47 GMT
From: mtune!akgua!ohgua!cels@rutgers.edu  (cels)
Subject: star Charting Routine


I'm looking for a program to display star information on an AT&T PC6300.
I saw something once about a routine called StarChart.  Does anyone know
anything about this or any similar programs.

I have also seen some information concerning the Yale Star Catalog.  I do
have C capability, and would be very interested in anything anyone has
to offer.

                                            Cliff Grimes
                                            ohgua!ohguc!ohce!cbg

------------------------------

Date: 28 May 87 04:02:12 GMT
From: labrea!Umunhum!paulf@decwrl.dec.com  (Paul A. Flaherty, N9FZX)
Subject: Yale Star Catalog

Some time ago, somebody posted a copy of the Yale Star Catalog.  Well,
true to form, I didn't copy it, and I need it, so if you have a copy
available via anonymous ftp, let me know.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 87 19:18:56 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Flashes of light in the sky

In 1986, Katz et al. (Astrophys. J. Lett. vol. 307, p. L33) reported
visual observations of 24 bright flashes of light in the sky.  One flash
was photographed.  The authors stated "While there is no doubt about the
reality of the sightings, their origin is a mystery."  Many astronomers
suspected that the flashes might somehow be connected with whatever kind
of objects produce bursts of gamma rays.

In the latest Astrophys. J. Letters (vol. 317, p. L39), P. D. Maley
reports a study entitled "Specular Satellite Reflection and the 1985
March 19 Optical Outburst in Perseus."  (This refers to the flash that
was photographed.)  The abstract is as follows:

"An analysis of the bright photographically recorded flash of 1985 March
19 shows that its celestial position is most conicident with the
trajectory of Cosmos 1400, a Soviet electronic intelligence spacecraft.
This artificial Earth satellite was found to have passed across the
coordinates of the flash point within the error box defined and has been
recently observed to have an optical behavior pattern capable of
generating intense mirrorlike glints.  Two other documented flashes are
found to be correlated to the simultaneous presence of Earth satellites
in the fields of view.  It is suggested that Earth satellites are a
likely source of many isolated, nonmeteoric flashes seen by ground-based
observers.  However, three unrelated transient optical emissions
reported fram a gamma-ray burst source in the supernova remnant N49 were
analyzed and found not to coincide with the known satellite population."

The last paragraph of the conclusions is:

"The ground-based astronomical science community will have to seriously
consider the side effects of the expanding population of space debris as
it continues to increase in the years to come.  The rate of intentional
insertion of new satellites into long-lived orbits exceeds the natural
decay rate of those already in space.  Without a mechanism to remove
these observation hazards, long-exposure survey plates and the apertures
of observatory detectors will experience increasing contamination from
this clutter.  Tumbling spacecraft may yet act as triggers for other
unexpected discoveries or observational anomalies."

The article includes two very interesting diagrams of all known
satellite positions at two instants.  For more on the hazards of space
debris to astronomy (and to HST in particular), see Shara and Johnston
(1986, Pub. Astron.  Soc. Pacific vol. 98, p. 814).

Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 11:04:10 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Astronaut information

I spoke to the Astronaut Selection Board office.  They no longer issue
Announcements of Opportunity but have gone into an `as needed basis.'
Decisions are typically made during Spring (the current review having
past).  I have asked that a copy of the requirements be forwarded to me
(or you could get your own copy at anytime by writing the ASB at the
Johnson Space Center).  If you need an address, let me know, but please
think about this VERY seriously.  You should be in good physical and
mental health.  The training is rigourous and very hard.  You will have
to make obvious sacrifices.  This is the real thing.  (also note that
the real thing also means that only 1 in 3 astronauts really do fly).

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 87 11:46:49 GMT
From: mtune!codas!novavax!hrshcx!hechcx!jfb@rutgers.edu  (Jerry Berlin)
Subject: Re: NASA launch June/July

According to the Kennedy Space Center launch information tape:

     "The next NASA launch will be an Atlas-Centaur rocket, now
     scheduled for no earlier than 7:58 AM, Friday, July 24, 1987."

The toll free (Florida only) phone number is:  1-800-432-2153

   Jerry F. Berlin                    Harris CSD - Education Center
   UUCP:  jfberlin@HEC.HARRIS.COM     2101 West Cypress Creek Road
   (305) 977-5603                     Fort Lauderdale, FL  33309-1892

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 87 11:14 EDT
From: Gary M. Palter <Palter@alderaan.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: Galileo cancellation??!!

From the "Washington Roundup" page of the June 1 AW&ST:

   NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher has discussed the possibility
   of canceling the Galileo mission to Jupiter in meetings with other
   NASA officials.  Although space science officials believe it is very
   unlikely that the $1-billion mission will be killed, they admit that
   Galileo could fall victim to difficult choices NASA currently faces
   associated with the Fiscal 1989 budget and the new shuttle manifest.
   NASA is developing a new shuttle manifest based on a June 1988 first
   launch and space scientists are once again facing a fight with other
   shuttle users for early flight assignments.

If they have the gaul to cancel Galileo, I'm writing my Congressmen and
ask that they cancel NASA...

  - Gary

------------------------------

Date: 23 May 87 08:17:01 GMT
From: k.cs.cmu.edu!jwa@pt.cs.cmu.edu  (James Anderson)
Subject: Re: Nanotechnology

To start off let me state that I had extensive oportunity to talk to
Eric Drexler while I was working the hospitality suite at the Pgh.
conference.  Since I was more or less just helping Wendy it was pretty
flexible when I really wanted to talk to someone, (and a good excuse to
get away from discussions of toilets).  Anyway, as the previous article
stated, Eric is taking a pretty straight forward progression view based
on current biotechnology.  Nothing really all that strange here just
some very logical conclusions about some of the permutations of this
kind of technology.  A reasonable individual in my acquaintance, as is
incidentally Dr. Forward, another person I had the pleasure to meet at
the conference.  These two people were the keystones of the conference
in my book and deserve a lot of credit.

>...I had a brief discussion with Mr. Keith Henson about nanotechnology,
>having heard that he was interested in what I considered "fringe
>science".  He spoke with great feeling about such topics as I have
>outlined above......

Quite true, to the point of fanatacism I expect.

>Then I asked him what he forsaw in terms of physics breakthroughs on a
>fundamental level - the kind of unified field approach that would
>reduce manipulation of all fields and particle interactions to
>engineering art.  He shrugged it off, saying, "What do you need
>hyperdrives for?  With nano- machines in your bloodstream you can live
>virtually forever."

I can validate what is stated here having heard the same thing from the
person named myself.  As a person relatively new to the space movement I
would like to make a few points that I feel are very important.  The
first point is that has already been implied in the previous article is
that Mr. Henson is a fairly "fringe" individual.  Quite true in my
experience.  Until a very short time ago I had been going on second hand
information that the L5 society was to a large extent made up of just
this sort of person and for that reason did not seek to associate with
them.  Obviously this kind of image is very bad for any group which is
trying to be taken seriously and accomplish something.  I particularly
would like to state that I've found the opposite to be true of most
people I've encountered that are members.  As a rule the people involved
in L5 and SSI are stable, responcible individuals.  I was fortunate
enough to run into Dale Amon around CMU and see for myself that the
society's members were not all fruitcakes in Star Trek uniforms, though
Dale can get pretty weird in the trailing hours of parties.......  Too
bad I had family commitments conflicting with the last one, who had the
bright idea to have a party on Mother's Day weekend?  Anyway the point
is; don't think that all of us have given up on FTL drives, or that we
are all weird.  Neither is true, though admittedly the latter is rather
subjective.  Particularly don't think all of us are preoccupied with
death as Mr Henson seems to be.  (If you don't believe this I can site
other - somewhat tasteless - examples) Boy am I glad that guy isn't
running the show any more.  The rest of the article concerning FTL
drives and sticking with the dream of star travel is excellent, keep the
chin firm and keep swinging!
							Jim
       uucp: ...!seismo!cmu-cs-k!jwa          ARPA: jwa@k.cs.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 3 Jun 1987  11:46 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #244


Peter Nelson wonders if there is any good reason why nanotechnology
has taken hold among so many space buffs, and wonders if any
of this nanotechnology will come to pass in our lifetimes. 

The answer to the first question, of course, is that present
technology permits us easily to ship tons of payload around the solar
system - but not thousands of tons.  This means that we can do much
more exploration if we can build much smaller payloads.  Similarly, we
could easily ship grams to the stars, but not kilograms.

As for nanotechnology in our lifetimes, I recommend careful reading of
the article by Julius Rebek on "Model Studies in Molecular
Recognition" in Sciences, 20 March, 1987, pp1478-84.

------------------------------

Date: Wed 3 Jun 87 13:42:27-CDT
From: AU.ALANMCKENDREE@a20.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: this horrible ol'world we live in
Cc: AU.ALANMCKENDREE@a20.cc.utexas.edu

From: jade!tart8.berkeley.edu!c60a-4gd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Stephan Zielinski)

[Herewith some selected lines from the above posting, with my comments
in []s]

    Material abundance for everybody? That's what we said when we had
the agricultural revolution, the first industrial revolution, the second
industrial revolution, the Russian revolution...

[ Perhaps the promise of abundance for *everybody* is/was premature
(although I don't think anyone who really understands the logistics of
the problem is/was promising that).  But I hope you're not suggesting
because of that that the mentioned advances are worthless.]

     We've had the resources to feed the planet for at least fifty
years. We (America) don't because it's not profitable.

[Correction: We (America) don't because we so far have had enough sense
not to hold ourselves out as singlehandledly ready, able, and willing to
support the rest of the world (in the style to which they would like to
become accustomed--and beyond).  Like it or not, food *belongs* to those
who produce it.  The government's primary responsibility to such
producers is precisely to let them produce, not confiscate their
products for redistribution.]

Humanity always blows it.

[Pretty pessimistic view of the race--but that's your problem]

    In fact, the only way to set up a true Post Scarcity Economy will be
to build it from the ground up... which, unfortunately, implies a
frontier.  Which implies space.

[What's a PSE?  If you mean an economy after some cataclysm then we will
certainly have to build it from the ground up..but the frontier will
consist of securing survival basics.  If you mean we are already in some
Scarcity situation and thus must adopt 55-mph speed limits and the like
for the national welfare I would refer you to _The Doomsday Myth_
(authors disremembered).  This convincingly argues that throughout
history man has been plagued with predictions of doom pending the
exhaustion of this or the other resource--which never really happens due
to the rising costs of using that resource, leading to less use of it.
(EX: Did you know that at the turn of the century there were frenzied
warnings of an imminent wood shortage, as the railroads were cutting
down forests and using enormous amounts of wood for ties and trestles?
Sounds pretty quaint now but they were serious--then.  Hint: Water is
predicted as the shortage crisis we face)]

    However, I will never settle a frontier: I'm a soft hacker, not a
test pilot.

[Armchair Marxists can be the worst]


UUCP: {Your problem}!ucbvax!miro!stephan        (I don't *really* know...)

[I couldn't have said it better myself...]

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #248
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10939; Mon, 8 Jun 87 03:03:41 PDT
	id AA10939; Mon, 8 Jun 87 03:03:41 PDT
Date: Mon, 8 Jun 87 03:03:41 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8706081003.AA10939@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #249

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 249

Today's Topics:
Re: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on
			 Next Shuttle Flight
			what the Russians plan
	Re: Soviet Space Shuttle (really International Space?)
		      NASA sabotage of Saturn V?
		       Request for Information.
		      Re: what the Russians plan
		    Re: Just assume FTL exists :-?
			  What to do on Mars
			     Re: Saturn V
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 87 23:48:54 GMT
From: ptsfa!pttesac!ahrens@AMES.ARPA  (Peter Ahrens)
Subject: Re: Use the Mars Juggernautto build a 500 man ***permanent*** colony on

In article <8065@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Let me see if I've understood your argument:
>
>1. There is no economic justification for space colonization, so presenting
>it as an alternative to Mars is doomed.
>
>2. There is no political support for non-flashy non-one-shot space projects,
>so presenting them as alternatives is also doomed.
>
>3. Therefore, it is realistic to campaign for a non-flashy non-one-shot
>space colonization project, to wit colonizing Mars.
>
>Sure.

In following the discussion of a permanent colony on Mars in the very
near future ( < next fifty years ), two factors seem to argue against
any kind of real public support:

a)  It is not attractive to potential participants: 500 other guys
    are going to be on Mars forever while the rest of us are stuck 
    here.  Orbital colonization has vastly more potential for getting
    us non-astronaut-ex-fighter-jocks into space, doesn't it?

b)  You're still on the ground.  Something like 1/3 g, but manned 
    missions to the outer solar system and beyond do not seem likely 
    to be launched from the surface of Mars--or Mars orbit, unless the 
    planet is lot wealthier in natural resources than it currently
    appears.  

Let's face it: Free World space activities are just going to have to
generate a lot of public interest and benefit (somehow) if they are
to remain civilian projects...a lot of human interest and excitement
needs to reach everybody in a spacefaring society, including the 
beancounters.

-Pete Ahrens

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 87 03:17:11 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (UUCP Admin)
Subject: Next Shuttle Flight

NASA NEWS - MAY 20, 1987
NASA PLANS NEXT SHUTTLE FLIGHT
	NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher announced June 1988 as the
new target date for the next Space Shuttle launch. The exact date will be
selected by the Administrator based upon the results of expanded testing
of Shuttle systems, revised launch crew procedures and actual hardware
deliveries.
	This new target date reflects the decision, announced in April,
to perform two major systems tests prior to flight. These tests are a
"wet" countdown demonstration test, in which the external tank is filled
with fuel for a simulated launch countdown, and a flight readiness firing
in which the three main engines will be fired for about 20 seconds.
	These two tests, which will be conducted approximately 6 weeks
prior to launch, will provide engineering data to evaluate various systems
modifications and provide an opportunity to exercise the launch and mission
control teams and the revised procedures. The plan also permits acquiring
new fabrication tooling to improve the tolerance on the redesigned solid
rocket motor insulation J-seal.
	Current plans are for two additional flights in 1988 and seven
flights in 1989. Admiral Richard H. Truly, NASA associate administrator
for space flight, indicated that necessary adjustments to the Shuttle
manifest, published in October 1986, will be worked out over the next
few months.
	In establishing the target for launch, Dr. Fletcher stated,
"Safety returning the Space Shuttle to flight is NASA's highest
priority. Our revised plan for Space Shuttle recovery is ambitious and
assumes that we will successfully complete our test and processing
objectives. I know I can count on the whole NASA team -- and, of course,
I include our contractor partners -- to move out enthusiastically toward
this new goal."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NASA News Release 87-80
By Sarah Keegan Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 87 23:18:11 GMT
From: mtune!mtgzz!dls@rutgers.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: what the Russians plan

In the June 1 issue of AvTech on pg 24 the following statement
appears:

"Guiry Marchuk, president of the Soviety Academy of Sciences,
said last week the Energia will be used to launch heavy communications
satellites into geosynchronous orbit, large planetary missions, large
new space station elements, and experimental solar power satellites
that could beam electricity to Earth."

Apparently the Soviets are unaware of Gary Allan's proof that Solar Power
Satellites are not possible.

I have the feeling that by the time we get done refuting Gary's half-baked
objections to everything, we'll be able to buy tourist
passes to visit the Soviet SPSs -- for a huge sum, of course,
and on the Concorde IV.

Seriously, folks, I am getting very close to the point of
saying I'm ashamed of being an American. It is starting to look
more and more like American society cannot compete over the long
run.

Still, let's all remember one thing. There will be NO or VERY FEW places
for Americans in Soviet, French, or Japanese space factories, stations,
or colonies. We(that's you, me, and our kids) will have entirely 
secondary roles to play, like working in fast-food restaurants
or collecting unemployment.

Basically, either this country goes into space and us with it,
or we stay here and watch Japanese TVs. We are going together, or not at all.
Right now it looks like we're not going, but it's not over till
it's over.

How about some constructive(and REALISTIC) suggestions for 
organizing/inspiring new support for the space program? 
Send the 500 PERSON Mars colonies plans to /dev/null.


Dale Skran

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 87 19:17:55 GMT
From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle (really International Space?)

> You state ...'a lot simpler than ours.' yet your signature line shows you
> in Toronto.  I am assuming that you are Canadian ...
> Do Canadians feel a sense of ownership of the shuttle in the same way as
> the US folks?  (It does have a Canadian arm ...) 

No real sense of ownership here, except in the vague and nebulous sense of
being part of the same general culture and political bloc, which is the
sense I was using "ours" in.

> I would like to think that space efforts tended to erase national boundries,
> perhaps this is an indication that in some small way they do?

Only in the smallest of ways, I fear.  There is still far too much
chauvinism in the way things are being run by (e.g.) the US for the rest
of us to feel any great sense of brotherhood in it.  Example, the arguments
over operating policy for the second space station.  (Mir is the first.)
For that matter, never mind the operating policy:  nobody has yet explained
to me why it's necessary to design and build all-new pressurized modules
for said space station, when the only thing obviously wrong with Spacelab
modules is that they don't have "Made In USA" labels.
-- 
"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jun 87 23:49:16 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa  (MacLeod)
Subject: NASA sabotage of Saturn V?

In article <2262@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) writes:
>
>All this talk about our now non-existant Saturn V has made me very
>depressed. Does anyone know if any of our politicians tried to keep the
>Saturn V capability? (I'll vote for them)

I read yesterday that Dr. John Lewis, who is involved in this controversy
in some respect (I apologize for not remembering what, or for not having
the reference here), claims that NASA actually encouraged and expedited
the sale of Saturn V tooling and infrastructure materials, and then 
did its best to obscure, muddle, and misdirect those searching for SV 
engineering documentation.  This was because the Shuttle group saw 
heavy boosters as a threat to their own project.  Hang these knaves,
I say, with >no< smiley face...

The rest of the article describes the pathetic efforts of various companies
and individuals to track down the remaining engineering specs, with an eye
toward building new heavy boosters.  The article claims that if they started
now they might have a product in 7-8 years. *Groan* *Grinding of teeth*

Mike MacLeod

------------------------------

Date:     Thu,  4 Jun 87  09:49:14 EDT
From: SHADOW%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
          (Astronomy Undergraduate)
Subject:  Request for Information.

To the readers of this digest:

     Can anyone send material, or refer me to sources concerning the
following:

          1.)  The recently discovered atmosphere on Pluto, during it's
               occultations with Charon.

          2.)  The Mariner probe's data revealing a sodium atmosphere
               on Mercury.

          3.)  A good, recent paper on OH Masers.

Any reply can be sent to me, or to this digest, and is greatly appreciated.
I am aware that these topics may be ambigious, or too generally stated.
Right now, I would like to keep as non-specific as possible.

Thank you in advance:                  James Belfiore  (SHADOW@UMass.Bitnet)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 87 15:46:18 GMT
From: ptsfa!pttesac!ahrens@ames.arpa  (Peter Ahrens)
Subject: Re: what the Russians plan

In article <2717@mtgzz.UUCP> dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes:
>In the June 1 issue of AvTech on pg 24 the following statement
>appears:
>
>"Guiry Marchuk, president of the Soviety Academy of Sciences,
>said last week the Energia will be used to launch heavy communications
>satellites into geosynchronous orbit, large planetary missions, large
>new space station elements, and experimental solar power satellites
>that could beam electricity to Earth."

>Still, let's all remember one thing. There will be NO or VERY FEW places
>for Americans in Soviet, French, or Japanese space factories, stations,
>or colonies. We(that's you, me, and our kids) will have entirely 
>secondary roles to play, like working in fast-food restaurants
>or collecting unemployment.

>Basically, either this country goes into space and us with it,
>or we stay here and watch Japanese TVs. We are going together, or not at all.
>Right now it looks like we're not going, but it's not over till
>it's over.
>
>How about some constructive(and REALISTIC) suggestions for 
>organizing/inspiring new support for the space program? 
>Send the 500 PERSON Mars colonies plans to /dev/null.
>
>Dale Skran

I would like to second Dale's appeal.  A few postings back, Gary Allen,
I believe, pointed to the (remote but real) possibility of the cancellation
of Galileo...this is honest doomsday talk for American Civilian Space.
   Many discussions of late have concerned somewhat more remote future
space projects, or unrealistic near future leap-before-look attempts.
   Meanwhile, the Russians are DOING IT:
   Earth orbit operations with a serious near-term view for a manned
mission to Mars following an elaborate robot visit.  (They are 
industriously working to OUTFLANK whatever SDI deployment we might
make in the 21st Century--if spaceflight devolves into military
armwrestling.)
   
   Isn't a joint U.S.-U.S.S.R. manned Mars mission _something_like_
what we are all looking for here: the people of both nations could
certainly get excited about it...perhaps add a few of the other
nations' cosmonauts who have been going up on *Russian* spacecraft...
   On this side of the planet, we who desire human expansion into
the solar system and beyond have got to persuade enough people that
it is worth doing.  If it is worth doing, it should not be impossible
to find the means of persuasion.

-Pete

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 87 21:35:10 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Subject: Re: Just assume FTL exists :-?

In article <8706040026.AA06289@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes:
> there is a some hope that we can arrange to capture one of
>their ships.  They probably won't know much more about FTL travel than
>we do and ET graduate student field workers may be relatively careless.
>How many radios, calculators and the like are pirated by aboriginies
>being studied by today's anthropologists?

Ha!  And how many aborigine copies of radios, calculators and the like
have we seen to date?

-- 
       ^^						Andre Guirard
   o o '`						  "Pockets"
            o						ihnp4!mmm!cipher
   ~        ~

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 87 21:52:39 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Subject: What to do on Mars

Part of the problem about convincing people to go to Mars is that it's
not a very hospitable place.

If we can't convince the Powers that Bleat to start a permanent colony
there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of
robots capable of reproducing themselves.  These would be directed in
part from the Earth, but because of slow communications, they would
have to be "smart" enough to do some things themselves.  Once there
were enough of them, they could be used to construct a place for people
to live.

The chances of a return mission and a permanent colony are much better
if there is some place already there worth going to.

Anyone care to comment on how difficult this would be to do?
-- 
       ^^						Andre Guirard
   o o '`						  "Pockets"
            o						ihnp4!mmm!cipher
   ~        ~

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 87 19:02:58 GMT
From: philabs!ttidca!sorgatz@nyu.arpa  ( Avatar)
Subject: Re: Saturn V

In article <20291@sun.uucp> mae@sun.UUCP (Mike Ekberg, Sun {Graphics Sub-Division}) writes:
>My question is why was Saturn V abandoned? Was it too costly on a per/pound basis
>vis-a-vis the shuttle? I vaguely recall NASA doing a study years ago that was
>something like a PERT chart of the Whole space program. The gist of the study
>was, "Yup, to do all this {space station,Mars,LEO sats} we need a shuttle". Was
>this an error?

 At least this was the theory, it was proposed to utilize the Shuttle atop
a Saturn 5 / saturn ][ assembly for the Manned Mars Encounter...budget probs
stopped this cold. The decision to scrap the Saturn 5 was a politics-only
decision. IE-there could be no firther "glory" from using it!
>
>It's interesting that many people express admiration for Soviet space program,
>in particular their "build on existing hardware approach", yet the same people
>don't attempt the same approach with the U.S. program. 
>

 Same problem. We allow non-tech people to decide tech issues, hence there
is the tendency for management to wrap thick layers of expensive insulation,
(read: project management) around themselves. The net effect is to insure the
generation of new, expensive projects...managers perceive this to equate to
more "glory"; which to them is more important than actually doing Space!

>My question to the world at large? Starting with what we have *NOW*, how would
>you build a space station? Why not launch a shuttle and leave it up there? 

 Q1-Yes I would. 3-500 people, fully operational in 2 years using existing
hardware and technology. Cost 1/3 of the proposed kludge.
 Q2-because it's too small.

> 
>mike	- Sun uSystems, MStop 5-40
>SONG: "You have a right to say NO[Drugs]!"
>WIFE: "Does that mean I have a right to say YES!?"

 I like your spouse's spirit...unfortunately, the same mentality that has been
running the NASA empire has decided that _noone_ has the right to decide
such things for themselves...:-(

(scheduling: Just say NO!)
-- 
-Avatar-> (aka: Erik K. Sorgatz) KB6LUY
Citicorp(+)TTI
3100 Ocean Park Blvd.   (213) 450-9111, ext. 2973
Santa Monica, CA  90405 {csun,philabs,randvax,trwrb}!ttidca!ttidcb!sorgatz

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #249
*******************


0,unseen,,
*** EOOH ***
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13659; Tue, 9 Jun 87 03:03:56 PDT
	id AA13659; Tue, 9 Jun 87 03:03:56 PDT
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 87 03:03:56 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8706091003.AA13659@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #250

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 250

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Just assume FTL exists :-?
			      FTL travel
	       Informal Survey of Southern Attitudes...
			     Re: Saturn V
			    Re: FTL travel
			     Re: Saturn V
			     Re: Saturn V
		    Re: Just assume FTL exists :-?
			Re: What to do on Mars
			Re: What to do on Mars
		    Re: Just assume FTL exists :-?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 87 06:06:46 GMT
From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Just assume FTL exists :-?

In article <1340@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>In article <8706040026.AA06289@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes:
>> there is a some hope that we can arrange to capture one of
>>their ships.  They probably won't know much more about FTL travel than
>>we do and ET graduate student field workers may be relatively careless.
>>How many radios, calculators and the like are pirated by aboriginies
>>being studied by today's anthropologists?
>
>Ha!  And how many aborigine copies of radios, calculators and the like
>have we seen to date?

	I don't know the numbers, but I do know that they are serious enough
competition to cause some of our companies to pressure Reagan and Congress for
special protection acts. . . .  You may not think of the Japanese (and now
other Asian nations) as being composed of aborigines, but they do live in the
areas that were theirs for thousands of years, and 100 years ago they were
incredibly far behind us technologically and socially (although that last is
not to give us any great praise. . .), and look how they're walking all over
us now with technology that they (so far) have mostly learned from us.

	(-: 1/2  If we manage to steal or con out a hyperdrive, turn it over
to the Japanese!  1/2 :-)  If, on the other hand, we were the only examples of
Earth aborigines exposed to alien technology, your point would probably stand
the test. . . :-(

		Lucius Chiaraviglio
		lucius@tardis.harvard.edu
{insert your favorite brave system here}seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 5 Jun 87 09:22 EST
From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  FTL travel

There used to be a time when scientists thought FTS travel was impossible
within the Earth's atmosphere.  If scientists blindly accept everything
that was once mathmatically proven our technological age will come to an
end.  Remember, when we express something mathmatically, we are actually
expressing a model of reality.  All models have their limitations.

Ron Picard
General Motors Research Labs
Warren, Mich. 48090

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 87 12:32:03 GMT
From: ecsvax!tcamp@mcnc.org  (Ted A. Campbell)
Subject: Informal Survey of Southern Attitudes...


Well I don't know about all yall yankees but down here in the 
seamy southland there's two things that make the grits between
our ears boil and one of them is just to think about those
soviet communist pinkos flying around in their little space-
ships while all we can do is just sit down here on the bayou
and watch and the other thing well the other thing is how all
these military jocks want to get their grimey hands on the 
civilian space program you know the other day my cousin Vernon
and his wife Sue and their kids came up and after church on Sunday
Vernon and Sue go to the Babdist church and won't come to the 
Holiness Church with us anyway after church we were sitting
around having Sunday lunch with ham and redeye gravy and Vern 
said well I think next time we go to the moon we ought to take
off that silly plaque that says we came in peace for all mankind
and replace it with one that says we came to kill commies for
Christ now Sue did not appreciate this at all and gave Vernon an   
ugly look that would turn sweetmilk into yogurt and I said oh
Susan a man has a right to be mad about that we used to be 
proud of the civilian space program and Vern's little girl 
July said her daddy was going to organize a Union of Southern
Space Researchers and my boy Charlie said yeah and the initials
would be USSR and I said shut up kid but hoo boy did Sue ever
think that was funny anyway then Charlie smarts off again and
says well why don't we just write our congressmen and senators
about it and I said no that won't work because as soon as they 
get to the DC when they cross the Potomac those fatcat Reagan
defense contractors meet them on the bridge and start feeding 
them barbeque and beer until they come out talking like the 
destruction of the civilian space program is a patriotic duty
dangit and I shouldn't have said that because now Sue was glaring
at me if you know what I mean and I think you probably do.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 5 Jun 87 10:08:25 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Saturn V
Newsgroups: sci.space
Cc: 

Since you posted the follow up directly, I felt I should resond in a
follow up, Pat:
>Eugene,
>
>When you offered up the possibility that the blueprints no longer
>exist, I was startled.  You work at Ames (for NASA?), and I have
>worked for DOD-type contractors for quite a while.  Knowing as I do
>the frenzy the customers get into over documentation, I find it
>almost impossible to believe that NASA, which spent Mega-bucks on the
>Saturn V, cannot find the plans to build more of them.  If it is
>true, somebody should be spaced!
>
>Pat

Yes, but Ames is out of it as far as space projects go (it's an
aeronautics Center [only 20% space funding]), and my other work was at
JPL which is also small peanuts (unmanned deep space) which I also worked
on a project with LMSC [Seasat] which used an Altas-Centaur BTW.

Back to the point, the problem is historical [hysterical] and political
and I explained this is a letter to a correspondent from DRIvax.  The
problem was all those people who pushed for a Shuttle in the 1970s
basically sold their ELV souls for a reuseable vehicle.  That is why the
SV documentation was literally given away.  It costs $$s to just store
and the Shuttle documentation took up several times the volume of the SV
documentation.  If you want to push an idea, how much information on
opposing ideas would you keep around?  Long time followers of space
would note I have never been a fan of manned space (but recognize some
needs), and hence have to call the JSC or MSFC PIO offices for manned
flight info or JPL for DS info (now).  I hope you can appreciate some of
the paradoxes even in this group: robotics people pushing manned space
and vice versa in some cases.

Yeah, I have tons of old project doumentation, too (well many kilos).
LMSC is no exception.  I'm not a NASA love it or leave it type, but I
feel a little bit better about it than working in certain private sector
areas, and I consider my options all the time from LLNL/LANL type jobs
to ESSA/JSA and private sector/venture capital things.  The question is
when things waste every one's time, hence, my interested in net
collective memory ala 451.  P.S. Dale, I'm back, let's organize this
thing further.  I just hope this is the last SV discussion and we
minimize rehash, let future readers read history of discussions rather
than cover the same ground again.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 87 16:38:19 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: FTL travel

In article <8706051333.AA05442@angband.s1.gov>, 
PICARD@gmr.COM (RON PICARD) writes:
> There used to be a time when scientists thought FTS travel was impossible
> within the Earth's atmosphere.  

This is misleading, at best.  Objects moving faster than sound inside
the atmosphere have been known for thousands of years.  (No,
"thousands" is not a misprint.)  WW II naval guns propelled shells
weighing up to 2700 pounds at supersonic speeds.  The doubts about
FTS "travel" were whether a manned, controlled aircraft could
transistion from subsonic to supersonic flight and back.  The
arguments against were of a wholly different kind than current
arguments against FTL travel being possible.  (In fact, they resemble
arguments against "skyhooks": currently known materials are too weak
to withstand the expected stresses.)  For supersonic flight, the
mistake was that aerodynamic stresses at Mach 1 turned out to be much
less than most people expected, so conventional materials were able
to withstand them.  This was new physical knowledge, but hardly a
revolution in physics.

None of this proves that FTL travel is impossible.  But current
physical knowledge gives not the slightest hint that it can be 
done, and the most obvious way  (Just keep speeding up...) is pretty
clearly ruled out by experiment.
-- 
Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 87 12:43:02 GMT
From: mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@rutgers.edu  (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Re: Saturn V

in article <2262@calmasd.GE.COM>, jnp@calmasd.GE.COM (John Pantone) says:
> 
>  Does anyone know if any of our politicians tried to keep the
> Saturn V capability? (I'll vote for them)
> 
 
While this is not about the Saturn V, I thought this would be a good place
to note one political horror. In his book _Deep_Black_, author William
Burrows notes that Robert MacNamera (or however that's spelled) had the
tooling for the SR-71 destroyed so that it could not compete for funds
with some of his pet projects. (I think these were the B1 and F-15 or 16
I loaned out the book and don't remember for certain).

-Burch Seymour-

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 87 03:20:47 GMT
From: cetron@cs.utah.edu  (Edward J Cetron)
Subject: Re: Saturn V

I seem to recall that the tooling was destroyed because certain people where
paranoid - but about the 'threat' getting hold of the tooling, not that it
would impede other projects.  

-ed

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 87 18:40:40 GMT
From: dayton!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@rutgers.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Subject: Re: Just assume FTL exists :-?


 >>In article <8706040026.AA06289@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes:
 >>>[We could learn to make FTL drives by capturing some from aliens]
 >>>How many radios, calculators and the like are pirated by aboriginies
 >>>being studied by today's anthropologists?

 >In article <1340@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (me) writes:
 >>Ha!  And how many aborigine copies of radios, calculators and the like
 >>have we seen to date?

In article <2199@husc6.UUCP> lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu (lucius) writes:
 >[The Japanese and other Asian nations] were
 >incredibly far behind us technologically and socially ...
 > and look how they're walking all over
 >us now with technology that they (so far) have mostly learned from us.

Yes, dear, but they initially learned it not by studying captured
radios, but by going to our schools.  My point stands.
-- 
       ^^						Andre Guirard
   o o '`						  "Pockets"
            o						ihnp4!mmm!cipher
   ~        ~

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 87 16:36:33 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Darrin West)
Subject: Re: What to do on Mars

In article <1341@mmm.UUCP>, cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
> Part of the problem about convincing people to go to Mars is that it's
> not a very hospitable place.
Isn't the average temperature -40c?

> there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of
> robots capable of reproducing themselves.  These would be directed in
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible?

> part from the Earth, but because of slow communications, they would
> have to be "smart" enough to do some things themselves.  Once there
> were enough of them, they could be used to construct a place for people
> to live.
I barely trust robots to put together cars (and those are pretty simple
robots!), much less an air tight environment.  Actually I barely trust
people to do something like this.  A small mistake would be deadly.
How safe were the apollo's in terms of environment?  And what did
it cost in time (including research) and money to develop a relatively
short term system?


> The chances of a return mission and a permanent colony are much better
> if there is some place already there worth going to.
Just like the banana belt, and the settlers

> Anyone care to comment on how difficult this would be to do?
Too hard.  But I imagine that even more people said the same
thing about going to the moon, but then again they didn't stay
very long.


-- 
Darrin West, Master's Unit (read: student).	..![ubc-vision,ihnp4]!
Department of Computer Science			alberta!calgary!west
University of Calgary.				Can you say '88 Winter Games?
Brain fault (cortex dumped)

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 87 15:30:27 GMT
From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu  (lucius chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: What to do on Mars

In article <952@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> west@calgary.UUCP (Darrin West) writes:
>In article <1341@mmm.UUCP>, cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>> there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of
>> robots capable of reproducing themselves.  These would be directed in
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
>Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible?

	First of all, you don't need to comprehend yourself to reproduce.  We
do it all the time.  Second, a properly-designed system can comprehend itself.
The design constraint is that the system be composed in large part of arrays of
repeated elements which are switchable so as to be able to store information
(such as bits in memory or on magneto-optic disk, or collections of neurons).

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 87 15:19:11 GMT
From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu  (lucius chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Just assume FTL exists :-?

In article <1344@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>In article <2199@husc6.UUCP> lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu (lucius) writes:
> >[The Japanese and other Asian nations] were
> >incredibly far behind us technologically and socially ...
> > and look how they're walking all over
> >us now with technology that they (so far) have mostly learned from us.
>
>Yes, dear, but they initially learned it not by studying captured
>radios, but by going to our schools.  My point stands.

	Well, I could give you the story about a Japanese company who had
copied a circuit so exactly that they copied the American company logo, but I
wont. . .  I guess this just means we'll have to stowaway on an alien ship and
settle on their planet as illegal aliens, and then go to their schools. . . .
:-)

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #250
*******************


Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Jun 87 19:16:15 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00589; Thu, 11 Jun 87 11:19:42 PDT
	id AA00589; Thu, 11 Jun 87 11:19:42 PDT
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 87 11:19:42 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706111819.AA00589@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #251

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 251

Today's Topics:
		      Re: shuttle aerobatics???
		      Re: Shuttle flight profile
			Re: What to do on Mars
Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?
	      Openhouse at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
		    space news from April 13 AW&ST
		    space news from April 20 AW&ST
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 4 Jun 87 20:05:38 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: shuttle aerobatics???

In article <12402@topaz.rutgers.edu>, josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes:
> A friend tells me that the shuttle performs a diving maneuver as part
> of its ascent (yes, ascent) to gain speed.  I feel that this is off
> the wall but couldn't convince him.  I could see this as a possibility
> for air-breathing craft with an operating ceiling, and I know all
> about the planet-diving trick for interplanetary acceleration: but
> that the shuttle would do it during ascent is completely unbelievable.

> Can someone say something authoritative on the subject?

> --JoSH

I asked Marc Martin, who is our trajectory / performance person why this
happens.  He gave me several reasons: (1) the Shuttle has a 'Max-Q'
constraint.  Q is the dynamic air pressure in flight.  The Shuttle is
limited to about 650 pounds/square foot dynamic pressure.  Dynamic
pressure is a function of air pressure and velocity, so the Shuttle
flies a high trajectory to get to lower air pressure.  This trajectory
is too high for what comes later. (2) The shuttle does a 'depressed
trajectory' later in the flight to make sure the External Tank reenters
in a well defined area.  The way they do this is by flying to a 57x2
mile orbit at main engine cut-off.  The apogee of this orbit is 57
miles, about where the orbiter is, and the perigee is 2 miles, halfway
around the earth.  The tank follows this orbit until it gets to thick
air somewhere above 2 miles, and burns up.  The orbiter fires it's OMS
engines and raises its' orbit before it follows the ET in.  (3) In
general, an efficient launch trajectory want you to spend as little time
firing downwards as possible, and as much time firing sideways
(horizontal velocity is what is needed to stay in orbit).  If you are
outside the atmosphere, you can point your engines in the most efficient
direction, without having to worry about aerodynamic forces caused by
your velocity (wind).  In the atmosphere you want to point your vehicle
along its long axis to minimize drag.  So if you are out of the
atmosphere quick, you can fly a more efficient trajectory.  If you are
thrusting purely sideways, it is possible that you will start to fall
vertically before reaching orbit.

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 87 15:37:21 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Shuttle flight profile

In article <549748179.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>As far as I know, the only purpose of the maneuver is to insure that
>the tank does not go into orbit and that it impacts quickly in a known
>location. I believe that this maneuver is the reason it is said that it
>would cost less fuel to take the tank into orbit than it does to
>discard it.
>

Let's see... A maneuver which burns more fuel so reducing
the payload which can be carried,
   ...which needs a more complex flight plan,
   ...and which destroys fuel tanks which could be very
useful for building structures in orbit.

This idea must have been dreamed up by the anti-spaceflight lobby
Or perhaps the russians are running NASA these days :->
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 87 00:54:17 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What to do on Mars

> ...perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of
> robots capable of reproducing themselves... [with some remote control]

My understanding is that getting a system that will 98% self-reproduce
looks easy, but the remaining 2% is hard unless you add humans to the
self-reproducing system.
-- 
"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 87 06:18:35
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 09 06:18:35 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 09 06:19:30 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?

<DW> Date: 5 Jun 87 16:36:33 GMT
<DW> From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Darrin Wes
t)
<DW> Subject: Re: What to do on Mars

> there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of
> robots capable of reproducing themselves.  These would be directed in
                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
<DW> Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible?

That's such a misstatement of Goedel's theorem that I feel I must refute
it immediately!  Goedel merely proved impossible a system that PERFECTLY
understands its own capabilities, that is can decide whether or not it
would be able to accomplish a task (solve a problem). His theorem says
nothing about what imperfect understanding, such as is present in
"higher" biological creatures and some predicted computers or robots or
androids of the future, could exist. Lots of living creatures try things
they think might be possible and productive, and if they fail to achieve
desired result before they get distracted or bored or disenchanted they
move on to something else, never knowing for sure whether with
additional effort they might have been able to accomplish the task or
not. But such lack of perfect knowledge of one's capabilities never
stopped people and even other animals from inventing tools and
performing all sorts of intelligent tasks. And in regard to merely
reproducing, even the tiniest bacteria can do that, with no formal
understanding of self whatsoever, and in the right non-natural (i.e.
biologically-created) environment even viruses and memes can reproduce.
I see very early in the next century robots which can mechanically
fabricate copies of themselves (except without exactly the same
memories, since that requires synchronization of mental processes which
may require stopping the unit; it may, however, be quite possible for
robot #1 to turn off identical-except-for-memory robot #2, make a copy
of robot #2 including exact memory, then turn robot #2 back on. If robot
#2 has initiated the request for copy-service, then for all practical
purposes we might say that in the environment where robot #1 exists,
robot #2 has total self-replication capabilities (modulo trusting robot
#1 not to disobey instructions and leave robot #2 turned off), which
will beat out what biological creatures can presently do (create copies
of their genes, but with no copies of memories whatsoever).

> part from the Earth, but because of slow communications, they would
> have to be "smart" enough to do some things themselves.  Once there
> were enough of them, they could be used to construct a place for people
> to live.
<DW> I barely trust robots to put together cars (and those are pretty simple
<DW> robots!), much less an air tight environment.  Actually I barely trust
<DW> people to do something like this.  A small mistake would be deadly.

(I feel like calling you a twit.) Have you never heard of quality
control, of inspections, of supervision, etc.? You don't just commission
some people to build a car, totally unsupervised, then jump in it and
drive it on the freeway. You check the car out to make sure it passes
safety tests before you even put the car on the car lot. As a consumer,
you buy new cars only from reputable dealers at reputable companies that
have a lot to lose if lots of people get killed and their next of kin
start suing. Sure, sometimes you get cars with subtle bugs like gasoline
tanks that explode in certain kinds of collisions, but for the most part
you get a car that does basically perform its proper function without
being horribly dangerous to drive normally. So, in robotics on Mars, the
company supervising the work must be one that stands to lose a lot if
the colonists die because of lack of air due to faulty construction, so
the company makes sure the robots perform tests to verify everything's
reasonably ok before the colonists arrive on Mars, and the design is
such that if a mistake does happen it doesn't kill many colonists.

You don't have to trust the robots directly. You have to trust the
company that owns them, and that company has to trust the robots.

------------------------------

Date:    Mon, 8 Jun 87 11:49:35 PDT
From: tencati@jpl-vlsi.arpa
Subject: Openhouse at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory
X-St-Vmsmail-To: ST%"space@angband.s1.gov",TENCATI     

For those of you in Southern California, JPL will be having an lab-wide
openhouse on the weekend of June 13-14.  The general public is invited.

There will be lectures, slide shows, films, displays.  As well as
mock-ups of virtually every spacecraft that JPL has had a hand in
(Voyager, Viking, Surveyer, Mariner, Pioneer, etc) and the actual
Galileo spacecraft which will fly to Jupiter in 1991(2?) and send a
probe into the Jovian atmosphere as well as study and photograph the
planet.

The openhouse hours are 9-5 both Saturday and Sunday.  A number of
computer demonstrations are also scheduled (Image processing, Satellite
Navagation, Space Flight Operations Center prototype - to name a few).

Last weekend, the lab was also open but primarily for employees and
their families.  This coming weekend, it is for everyone.  It is the
first time in about 5 years that JPL has done this.  It is truly on a
grand scale.

If you are in the area, I would highly recommend you plan on attending.
And of course, bring your camera!

                                           Ron Tencati
                                           System Mgr, JPL-VLSI.ARPA
                                           Jet Propulsion Laboratory
                                           Pasadena, Ca

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 87 23:47:32 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from April 13 AW&ST

[Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505,
Neptune NJ 07754 USA.  Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified"
or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the
ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial
or military interest.  Best write for a "qualification card" and try to
get the cheap rate.  US rates are $55 qualified, $70 unqualified at
present.  It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of
it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth
it to you. -- HS]

Hughes finishes tests on prototype Intelsat 6, clearing way for
production of five, first to fly on Ariane in 1989.

Weinberger continues to advocate a US-first space-station policy.

DoD DepUnderSec Woodruff says decisions are needed soon on whether the
Air Defense Initiative will use space-based radars.

Proposed new Hermes design has smaller, three-person, ejectable crew
cabin, pressurized payload bay, and docking port at rear of fuselage.

Kvant docks with Mir on second attempt, although there are indications
that problems still exist.  [The Mir crew later did an EVA to remove a
bag of some sort that was interfering. -- HS]

Rep. Nelson, House space chair, criticizes the $12.2G space-station
funding level approved by Reagan on the grounds that it does not include
full costs of operations and is not in current-year dollars.  Says $20G
is closer.  NASA objects that this includes lift costs, which are not
counted against the budget of other space-science projects.

Space station users unhappy about reduction in available power in new
plan.

Ohio congressmen pressuring NASA over reduction in work for Lewis
center.

NASA changes mind about ESA proposal for detachable man-tended station
module, says it is now permitted.

New KSC assessment slips next shuttle launch to Sept 1988, assuming no
changes in procedure and inclusion of a wet (fueled) countdown test and
a flight-readiness firing.  Also assumes no serious problems or delays.

NASA congressional testimony shows possible cost overrun in FY88 for
shuttle recovery work, from budgeted $400M to as much as $750M.

DoD's DSP (early warning) and DSCS (comsat) missions may switch from
shuttle to Titan 4: the current shuttle payload limits reduce their life
by making it impossible to launch them fully fueled.

Orbital Maneuvering Vehicle price tag goes from $400M to $465M.
Fletcher says this is "normal growth"!!

McDonnell Douglas now has nine $50k deposits for commercial Delta
launches.

Lightning looks more and more likely as cause of Atlas failure.  Pinhole
puncture in nose fairing, and associated damage, closely resembles that
expected for lightning hit.  NASA asks for better weather sensors for
KSC.

University of Leeds professor and grad student analyze signal format of
the Soviet Glonass navsat (Navstar/GPS equivalent) system, say common
receiver for Navstar and Glonass should be possible.  Report with full
details is for sale.  Generally similar to Navstar, some differences.

"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 87 23:43:09 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from April 20 AW&ST

Editorial criticizing DoD's latest space-station uproar, asking what DoD
has to gain from making a fuss now -- is there a hidden agenda here?

Govt. of Queensland (one state/province/whatever of Australia) continues
to pursue the idea of locating an international spaceport on the Cape
York peninsula.

USAF heavylift booster renamed the Advanced Launch System.

Telesat Canada books two Ariane 4s for Anik E1 and E2.

Next Ariane launch may slip again: turbopump overheating problems found
in ground tests.  Arianespace was hoping for June-July.

Romenenko and Laveikin do short-notice EVA on April 12 to remove an
object obstructing docking between Mir and Kvant.  Cosmonauts say the
object was a small white bag, perhaps some sort of protective cover left
on Kvant by a ground-crew mistake.  The cosmonauts pulled Mir and Kvant
apart a foot or so, the docking probe remaining attached, and removed
the object; the ground controllers then commanded another docking
attempt, which worked.

Kvant propulsion module jettisoned April 13, clearing a docking port on
the rear of Kvant.  Cosmonauts then entered Kvant and began setup work.

[Having discussed the real space station, we now move on to the latest
news (bad news, of course) about the hypothetical one...	-- HS]

Space station negotiations stalled by DoD's latest pigheadedness;
nothing can happen internationally until the US gets its act together.
NASA looks at going to Reagan about it.  International partners
particularly upset because DoD is proposing its "national security
purposes" language as an alternative to "peaceful purposes consistent
with international law" -- what in the world has DoD got in mind?  Part
of DoD's motivation is probably the current fuss over just what the ABM
treaty's language means for SDI.  There is general agreement that the
timing (and apparently-deliberate leaking of) Weinberger's latest
communique on the subject is suspicious -- is DoD deliberately trying to
kill the station?  DoD has refused to say anything implying that it
would replace the international partners if they withdraw.

Canada will definitely drop out of the space station if DoD has its way,
although nobody is saying so out loud yet -- it is not a significant
domestic political issue, and Canada would prefer to avoid offending the
US without good reason.  Canada is particularly unhappy about rumors of
SDI involvement.

Questions again being raised in Europe about the future of the space
station.  The Weinberger letter "was an obvious attempt to sidetrack the
negotiations.  The letter's timing was too coincidental, coming as it
did just before the next meeting was to be held."  Europe is starting to
review alternatives, although there isn't yet a firm contingency plan.
A breakdown in US/Europe cooperation would probably lead to a rise in
USSR/Europe cooperation.  "[we] wonder if the US realizes what horrible
timing they have with the whole affair.  They are deciding whether or
not to honor their commitments to their best allies, while at the same
time the Soviets are offering flights on the Mir space station and to
the planets."  "Our attitude is straight- forward--that Ronald Reagan
invited international participation in 1984.  We should not have to
remind a President of the US of the promise he made only a few years
ago."

Canadian Center for Arms Control and Disarmament questions usefulness of
current US/Canadian joint military space-based radar project, saying
that tracking cruise missiles in particular will rapidly get impossibly
difficult.

Europeans to do microgravity experiments on NASA KC-135 research
aircraft.  Primary focus is combustion phenomena, secondary
applicability to fire-safety issues for the space station.

Two top US space scientists resign advisory positions with NASA after
issuing statements critical of current NASA policy.

Changes in Hermes design, notably deletion of the payload-bay doors in
favor of a pressurized payload bay, bring into question Hermes's role in
jobs like servicing the European polar platform.

Control computer from Atlas-Centaur recovered from water off the Cape.
NASA says there are nine locations on the nose fairing with damage that
looks like lightning hits.

General Dynamics and NASA sign agreement on commercial use of
Atlas-Centaur.

More images from Spot 1: the Kharg Island oil depot in the Persian Gulf,
showing war damage, and the Soviet air base on Etorofu (Japanese island
occupied by USSR since 1945).  Also picture of Spot 2 being readied for
launch (sometime within 18 months).

Management shakeup within Spot Image.  Problems with slow delivery of
data to customers cited.  Demand has been about as expected, but
processing time has been underestimated, and demand has been split among
more individual orders than expected.  Programming of imaging coverage
is also being revised; customers often make very specific requests,
using Spot's flexibility more than expected and complicating scheduling.

Martin Marietta taking steps to make commercial Titan 3 more attractive.
MM now offers reflight insurance at 10% premium. MM is recompeting the
Titan SRB contract in hopes of lower cost, and plans to recompete the
guidance system.  MM has decided to buy Ariane payload fairings from
Contraves (Switzerland) for use on Titan, increasing Titan/Ariane
compatibility.  Use of Ariane's Spelda dual-payload adaptor is being
considered.  MM is booking five launches/yr after 1989; the facilities
can handle seven, but conflicts with facilities shared with the adjacent
Titan 4 pad, and the possibility of NASA Titan orders, require some
safety margin.

"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #251
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Jun 87 06:19:57 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03991; Fri, 12 Jun 87 03:17:03 PDT
	id AA03991; Fri, 12 Jun 87 03:17:03 PDT
Date: Fri, 12 Jun 87 03:17:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706121017.AA03991@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #252

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 252

Today's Topics:
	     Rectennas, Motor-generators, superconductors
		     Re: Galileo cancellation??!!
			     Re: Saturn V
		   Soviet shuttle and NASA funding
		     Aerospace America, June 1987
		     Re: spacefaring nations :-)
		    Re: Breaking out of the Cradle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 87 13:59 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Rectennas, Motor-generators, superconductors

Mike Smith suggested getting high voltage DC out by hooking up rectenna
components in series.  I think this would lead to large losses in the
rectenna array due to arcing or corona, not to mention making on-line
maintenance exciting.

Mike also suggested motor-generators, which he says have an 85%
efficiency.  High temperature superconductive wire could boost this
considerably.  But wait, you might say: making superconductive wires out
of the new ceramics is going to be a royal pain.  Yes, but...

We don't necessarily need perfectly superconductive wires. When s.c.'s
only operated in liquid helium, any resistive heating of the wires was
an economic disaster, since you need to expend (in practice) about 400 W
to pump 1 W from 4 K to 300 K. But if the superconductor operates near
room temperature (and the last I heard, someone claimed to have found
the Meissner effect at 49 deg. F), cooling is much less difficult. So,
let's embed needle-shaped microcrystals of high temp. superconductor in
a copper matrix. Current in the wire will tend to jump from needle to
needle, reducing the average resistivity. Other approaches could also
work. A material with 1/10 or 1/100 the resistivity of copper would be
very useful if it needn't be refrigerated too much and wasn't too
expensive.

Cheap room temperature superconductors would profoundly change the
economics of all forms of electrical power generation. It remains to be
seen if the powersat's competitors are helped more.

P. Dietz
dietz@slb-doll.csnet

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jun 87 23:07:00 GMT
From: cybvax0!frog!john@EDDIE.MIT.EDU  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: Galileo cancellation??!!

In article <870603111418.5.PALTER@LARRY-BIRD.SCRC.Symbolics.COM>, Palter@ALDERAAN.SCRC.SYMBOLICS.COM (Gary M. Palter) writes:
> From the "Washington Roundup" page of the June 1 AW&ST:
> 
>    NASA Administrator James C. Fletcher has discussed the possibility
>    of canceling the Galileo mission to Jupiter...unlikely...difficult
>    choices...Fiscal 1989 budget...bleakness...desolation...plastic forks
				    [What!? :-]
> 
> If they have the gaul to cancel Galileo, I'm writing my Congressmen and
> ask that they cancel NASA...
>   - Gary

Wrong answer.  Write your Congressthing and offer to cancel him/her/it,
by voting for someone in the next election who gives a flying damn about
the space program, and will be willing to put enough money in the budget
for it.

John Woods

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 87 00:51:58 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Saturn V

> My question is why was Saturn V abandoned? Was it too costly on a per/pound
> basis vis-a-vis the shuttle? ...

It looked rather costly compared to the rosy projections of shuttle costs.
A further problem was that there were no missions for it, since Congress
had refused to fund Apollo 18, Apollo 19, and the second Skylab.  NASA did
hang onto the remaining Saturns for several years, but eventually had to
decide whether the ongoing expense of preserving equipment (and not altering
it for use by new programs, e.g. the shuttle) was worth it when there was
no indication that any more Saturns would ever fly.  In hindsight a mistake,
but not obviously so at the time.

Actually, the real heart of the problem was not the NASA decision to abandon
Saturn V launch capability.  The real problem was the Congressional decision,
circa 1966, to terminate funding for Saturn V production after the first 15.
-- 
"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 8 Jun 87 10:15:55 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Soviet shuttle and NASA funding


This worked once before.

If you have questions about the Soviet Shuttle program, ask them.
I would like to point out that the world first learned of the Soviet
program because a listener to Radio Moscow called them up and asked
them (in 1978).  They gave dimensions and a slew of other information.
It's not really a Shuttle, as has been pointed out; it is not a copy,
of US designs (although comment has been made about "tiles" on the side,
yeah, but it has wings, too, does this mean they are copying? ;-)
Anyway this story (of Radio Moscow) was relayed to us by Marcia Smith
of the Library of Congress and the recent Space Commission.

About the cancelling of Galileo,  I tried sending mail to a failed mail
path.  My answer is if Galileo is killed, do it, tell Congress to kill
NASA.  I'm looking for a good excuse to join ESSA or JSA.  Military
space is a black hole.  I'm tired of some of the indifference of the
people in this country (not the people on this net of course).
Perhaps, if we had a flood to technical expertise away from the US
(like studying physics in Germany before WWII), perhaps, a few people
will wake up..... Naw...

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 87 15:19:17 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Aerospace America, June 1987


The June issue of Aerospace America, a publication of the AIAA, has
several articles that I thought would be of interest to the readers of
this news group.

"Soviet shuttle mysteries." by James E. Oberg

This article makes a case for the NON-existence of any kind of soviet
space shuttle. Using quotations on the subject from many soviet sources,
known performance limits of the Bison bomber, and the lack of needed
industrial base, Oberg argues that what we have been seeing is a
aerodynamics research program. NOT an actual space shuttle development
program.

Oberg says that if the soviets decide to build a shuttle, it will take
them at least another ten years to finish it.

"Ferry to the moon." by Graeme Aston

Describes work being done at JPL on xenon-ion and krypton-ion electric
propulsion systems. Describes an all electric earth to moon cargo ship.
The ship would be able to haul 20 metric tonnes from 300 km earth orbit
to 100km lunar orbit. Round trip time 370 days. Payload fraction between
60% and 65%.  This is a reusable system that could be launched in a
shuttle bay and be refurbished and refueled at a space station. The only
technology needed to make it real is a 15% efficient radiation hard thin
film solar cell.  Radiation hard, 13% efficient thin film cells are
available, and the author thinks 15% efficient cells will be available
soon.

"Robots on the space station" by Eric J. Lerner 

Describes on going work to develop advanced robots for use on the space
station.

"One gate to do job of eight"

Describes the RTBT ( Resonant Tunneling Bipolar Transister ) developed
by Frederico Capasso and his colleagues at AT&T's Bell Labs. This
interesting device implements an XOR in one transister. The RTBT also
has multiple stable states, opening the possibility of non-binary
computer logic.  Switching speed is in the 20 to 30 GHz range.

The claim is that using this technology complex logic gates can be
implemented as single transisters. You find the neatest articles about
computers and computer technology in the aerospace trade journals.


		Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jun 87 18:13:51 GMT
From: elsie!ado@seismo.css.gov  (Arthur David Olson)
Subject: Re: spacefaring nations :-)

> "There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

Canada?
-- 
	UUCP: ..seismo!elsie!ado	   ARPA: elsie!ado@seismo.CSS.GOV
	     Elsie and Ado are trademarks of Borden, Inc. and Ampex.

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jun 87 00:52:02 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle

In article <2717@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes:
> 
> How about some constructive(and REALISTIC) suggestions for 
> organizing/inspiring new support for the space program? 
> Send the 500 PERSON Mars colonies plans to /dev/null.
> 
> 
> Dale Skran

     What you need is to show the average person off the street that
there is a way for THEM to be involved directly in future space
activities.  Here's a program that involves 'building bridges to space',
analogous to building bridges on Earth.  It opens an easier route to
space than the one we are using now, such that many ways of getting
there will work.  The program involves several phases, with economic
justifications for each phase.

Phase I: Demonstration of Orbital Capability
	Estimated time: 3 years
	Estimated cost:	$15 million

     This phase demonstrates the replacement of the first stage of
a rocket with a compressed gas launcher.  Why a compressed gas?
A group of space development enthusiasts, including several aerospace
professionals (myself included) have surveyed all the known means
of launch off the Earth.  We concluded that in the near term, with
no extensive development money, the best launcher concept is using
compressed gas.  The launcher consists mainly of a storage chamber,
a valve, and a barrel.  Up to a certain launch velocity, such a
system is far cheaper than any other concept, including mass drivers.
What is even better, such 'light gas guns' have been used for many
years as research devices in laboratories (in smaller sizes than we
propose), so there is lots of data on how they work.

     Replacement of the first stage of a conventional rocket has
the most leverage for lowering costs, since the first stage is the
largest and (usually) most expensive.  The gun would have a muzzle
velocity of 2 km/second, and have as a projectile a two stage solid
rocket.  The rocket projectile would do the rest of the job of gtetting
to orbit.  The total mass of the rocket is about 1 ton, and the payload
is small (kilograms), just enough to demonstrate the concept.  Off-the
shelf solid rocket motors and guidance components should suffice.

     For this phase, revenues from sounding rocket/very small payload
to orbit customers could offset a large part of the cost.

Phase II: Operational Launcher
	Time:	Additional 1-2 years
	Cost:	$75 million

	The goal of phase II is to have an operational launch system
that delivers to orbit for about $600/lb.  It is basically an expanded
version of the phase I launcher.  It has a larger diameter barrel, a
longer barrel (higher muzzle velocity), and larger solid rocket 
motors.  Revenues from this phase would come from customers who want
up to 1000 lb payloads in orbit.

Phase III: Reuseable Rocket
	Time:	Additional 4 years
	Cost:	$300 million

	In phase III we replace the larger of the two solid motors
with a liquid (methane/oxygen) stage.  The stage is designed with
a factor of 2.0 strength margins, as compared to 1.4 for the Shuttle.
This should be sufficient to give it a 1000 flight operating life.
We can tolerate the high design margin only because it is part of
a 3 stage system (gas gun, liquid stage, solid stage), as opposed
to two or 1 1/2 stage chemical rockets.  

We are now in the $100-200/lb regime.  The only part that is being
thrown away is a 1000 lb solid motor, the payload is 1000 lb.  Note
that the reuseable liquid stage does not have to re-enter from
orbit.  It comes back from 2/3 of orbit.  This allows using metallic
thermal protection.  This is much more durable than ceramic (Shuttle
tile) protection.

Phase IV: Orbital Bridge (Skybridge)
	Time:	Additional 2 years
	Cost:	$200-500 million

	In this phase we are approaching the end goal of an open
road to space.  The Earth is large enough that reaching orbit is a
major challenge.  If there were a stopping point on the way, our
vehicles would be much easier to design.  We build such a stopping
point using the launch system from the earlier phases to deliver the
parts.

     In this phase we place a ballast weight in a medium Earth orbit
(1000-2000 km).  From that we suspend a multi-stranded cable system
(like a suspension bridge) to lower altitudes.  At the lower end we
place a landing platform.  The center of gravity of this Skybridge
is near the ballast weight.  Being fairly high, its' orbital velocity
is lower than for things in low orbit.  The platform goes around the
Earth at the same angular rate as the center of gravity, but is
closer to the Earth's center, hence its' velocity is even lower
than the C.G.  The combined effect is that the platform will be
moving considerably slower than a free object at that altitude would
be.  We have here a small portion of the 'Geo Tower' concept, the
part extending from, say 200 km to 2000 km.  This is a small enough part
that it can be built with existing materials.

     Now the reuseable rocket can be flown without the solid motor
stage.  We now are in the $20-50/lb range for cargo.

Phase V:	Bridge Open for Traffic
	Time: 	0 years
	Cost:	$2-5 billion?

	We have from the previous phase built a platform about
2/3 of the way to orbit in velocity terms, and 4/9 of the way to
orbit in energy terms.  It now becomes much easier to build fully
reuseable MANNED transports.  This was our goal all along.  The
manned transports could use chemical rockets, air breathing (scramjet)
engines, or a combination.  The main point is that they no longer have
to go all the way to orbit.  They also do not have to re-enter from
orbit (simply fall off the platform, you are suborbital).  So it
becomes possible to achieve the holy grails of space launcher design:
full reuseablility and decent safety margins.

----------
Additional detail about the Skybridge: you don't get the rest of the
way to orbit for free once you are on the lower platform.  As payloads
climb the bridge, the bridge gets pulled down (the combined center of
gravity of bridge+payload stays put).  You have to make up the energy
by putting some kind of propulsion on the bridge.  Fortunately you have
a choice of high efficency engines to use: electrodynamic, resistojet,
arcjet, and ion.  All of these have at least twice the fuel efficiency
(specific impulse) of conventional rockets.

----------

Where to go from here?

The first phase only takes $15 million or so.  This amount could be
raised by (1) venture capaital (2) pursuing government research money
(3) private research groups (as in Space Studies Institute) (4) find
one rich widow (like the one who gave Caltech $75 million to build
a telescope.  Just promise to name it after them).

A space company called 'Space Research Associates' , of which I am a
principal, and which was started by Seattle area L5 members at the
University of Washington and Boeing, is pursuing route #1 above (venture
money).  We heartily encourage you to spread the message that
such a plan could work.  We encourage you to think on how to improve
it. (caution, we have put a lot of thought into this.  Take the time
to try and answer yourself 'why not use concept xxx'  After about 20
rounds of doing that, we found that the best method to find better
ideas is to have the person who asks 'why not' go find out if it is
really better).

We encourage anyone else to out and do as much as possible on this
program.  The more that is done by someone else, the easier it is to
convince a venture capitalist to put up the money to finish the job.
We'd like to here from you.  We'd like you to pester you congresscritter
to put more of NASA's budget towards 'advanced propulsion research'.
Anything.  Make lots of noise.  Ad Astra!

(If you stir up enough interest, maybe even my employer would start 
thinking about it.  Then I could work on such things during the day,
rather than nights and weekends)

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space TRansportation/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #252
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jun 87 06:21:03 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07272; Sat, 13 Jun 87 03:18:20 PDT
	id AA07272; Sat, 13 Jun 87 03:18:20 PDT
Date: Sat, 13 Jun 87 03:18:20 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706131018.AA07272@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #253

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 253

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Breaking out of the Cradle
		    Re: Breaking out of the Cradle
			  FTL ==> paradoxes?
     Reason Foundation paper - "Privatizing Space Transporation"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 87 00:14:53 GMT
From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu  (lucius chiaraviglio)
Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle

In article <1279@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>In article <2717@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes:
>> 
>> How about some constructive(and REALISTIC) suggestions for 
>> organizing/inspiring new support for the space program? 
>> Send the 500 PERSON Mars colonies plans to /dev/null.

/dev/null:  write failed, device is full.

/dev/null:  write failed, device is full.

	. . . :-)

>                                    . . .It opens an easier route to
>space than the one we are using now, such that many ways of getting
>there will work.

	Not only that, but the skybridge concept seems considerably more
sound than the skyhook and space elevator ideas.  Note that this does
not necessarily mean that it is sound enough to work, just more sound
than the other exotic transportation systems proposed in this newsgroup
to date.

	I do, however, question your estimated development times and
development and launch prices.  Maybe the times and prices you quote are
in line with what is reasonable, but with the current
political/bureaucratic situation reasonable is a foreign concept.  After
all, it just wouldn't do for the military-industrial complex companies
or politicians to miss out on all those expensive contracts and handouts
of bureaucratic pork.  Are you sure your plan could be undertaken (at
least the first part) without government interference?

>	In phase III we replace the larger of the two solid motors
>with a liquid (methane/oxygen) stage.  The stage is designed with
>a factor of 2.0 strength margins, as compared to 1.4 for the Shuttle.
>This should be sufficient to give it a 1000 flight operating life.

	One problem: how much acceleration is this thing going to have
to stand up to?  That and the problem of attaching it to a sleeve (I
presume you don't want the sides of the rocket rubbing directly against
the wall of the gas gun) are going to run your weight way up.

[And now about the star idea, Phase IV:  the skybridge.]
>     In this phase we place a ballast weight in a medium Earth orbit
>(1000-2000 km).  From that we suspend a multi-stranded cable system
>(like a suspension bridge) to lower altitudes.  At the lower end we
>place a landing platform. . .
>. . .We have here a small portion of the 'Geo Tower' concept, the
>part extending from, say 200 km to 2000 km.  This is a small enough part
>that it can be built with existing materials.

	Even with super materials, you are still going to have to put up
a lot of ballast to make it stable enough for your shuttles to land on
(as you describe later).  It will require a lot of 1000 kg payloads to
make a skybridge big enough for your shuttles to land on.  Perhaps you
might want to consider just a few conventional heavy-launch vehicles?

>Phase V:	Bridge Open for Traffic
>	Time: 	0 years

	It would be better to spend time (hopefully concurrent with a
previous phase) to develop a vehicle actually capable of landing on the
platform with cargo.  Using the first stage rocket plane from phase III
would not be practical due to the considerably different configurations
that would be needed for efficient first stage rocket plane and cargo
plane functions (I suppose you could have the second stage in the cargo
hold of the first stage, but this would severely limit its size; if
instead you had it on the front you could use the space that would have
gone to the cargo hold for more fuel; the difference in amounts you
could launch this way is probably enough to justify the development of
two different although related vehicles).

>	We have from the previous phase built a platform about
>2/3 of the way to orbit in velocity terms, and 4/9 of the way to
>orbit in energy terms. . .

	Actually it's even better: for velocity it's (2/3)^(3/2) = about
0.55 times orbital velocity (at the altitude of the platform, not the
center of gravity); for energy it's 0.55^2 = about 0.3 times the energy
of an orbit at the same altitude as the platform.

[And, not only do you get cheaper and safer reusable shuttles, but also. . .]
>Additional detail about the Skybridge: you don't get the rest of the
>way to orbit for free once you are on the lower platform.  As payloads
>climb the bridge, the bridge gets pulled down (the combined center of
>gravity of bridge+payload stays put).  You have to make up the energy
>by putting some kind of propulsion on the bridge. . .

	And unlike skyhooks and space elevators, you don't have problems
of interactions with the ground and atmosphere to mess you up.  So if
your thrusters croak, you have some safety margin (the sky bridge won't
crash if it swings some), and no urgent deadline to fix it (its orbit
won't decay rapidly like that of a skyhook (which experiences
considerable air friction), and it doesn't have the autocatalytic
instabilities of a space elevator which can rip a space elevator off its
moorings or cause it to crash by wrapping itself around the Earth).
Just send up a shuttle with a repair crew and fix it at your leisure.

	Furthermore, the skybridge doesn't have the engineering and
maintenance headaches of skyhooks and space elevators.  Because it only
rotates as fast as it goes around the Earth, it is under much less
tensile strength than a skyhook; also, it doesn't undergo varying tidal
forces the way a skyhook does.  Because it is much shorter than a space
elevator, it doesn't require quite the awesomely strong materials needed
for a space elevator; it is also much more stable than a space elevator,
as mentioned above.  Furthermore, its much lower altitude makes it much
easier to build; its lesser length also contributes to this and to some
extent makes it less likely to be hit by space trash (and less garbage
to fall on your head if it does get broken) (even though most of the
space trash is in Low Earth Orbit).

>Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space TRansportation/ssc-vax!eder

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jun 87 16:00:38 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle

In article <2220@husc6.UUCP>, chiaraviglio@husc4.HARVARD.EDU (lucius chiaraviglio) writes:
> In article <1279@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:

> Not only that, but the skybridge concept seems considerably more sound
> than the skyhook and space elevator ideas.  Note that this does not
> necessarily mean that it is sound enough to work, just more sound than
> the other exotic transportation systems proposed in this newsgroup to
> date.

Also, a joint Italian-US project called the 'tethered satellite system'
which consists of the Shuttle, a 100 km cable, and an instrumented ball
massing about a ton at the far end, provides a good start at
understanding the dynamics of a skybridge.  This experiment is currently
scheduled for 1990 (modulo Shuttle flight rates).

> I do, however, question your estimated development times and
> development and launch prices.  ...  Are you sure your plan could be
> undertaken (at least the first part) without government interference?

My figures assume no government participation (interference)

> One problem: how much acceleration is this thing going to have to
> stand up to?  That and the problem of attaching it to a sleeve (I
> presume you don't want the sides of the rocket rubbing directly
> against the wall of the gas gun) are going to run your weight way up.

A typical acceleration is 200 gravities.  The gas gun is not a people
launcher.  But well over half of the stuff you want to send to space
(propellants, breathing gases, structural members, even properly
supported electronics) is acceleration insensitive.  I do assume there
will be some other launch system available to deliver the acceleration-
sensitive stuff (people, science instruments).  But once people are in
orbit, how their supplies get there, as long as long as it is cheap
doesn't much matter.

> Even with super materials, you are still going to have to put up a lot
> of ballast to make it stable enough for your shuttles to land on (as
> you describe later).  It will require a lot of 1000 kg payloads to
> make a skybridge big enough for your shuttles to land on.  Perhaps you
> might want to consider just a few conventional heavy-launch vehicles?

Typical values are the skybridge masses 10 times the vehicle that lands
on the platform, and the ballast 100 times the vehicle.  Initially, you
would work without a large ballast, and get about 50% of the velocity
benefit for arriving cargo (not people, it is expensive to redesign
manned transports, so you want to make that design once, for the final
system.  Rendezvous for an unmanned cargo rocket could be as simple as:

     Place a 100 meter diameter net horizontally at the bottom of the
skybridge.  Have it be fairly taut.  cargo rocket has a barb on the
front slightly larger than the net mesh size.  The barb can be slightly
compressed sideways to push it through the net, then springs back to
full diameter.  Now the rocket has to have a positional accuracy of +-
50 meters, and a velocity accuracy of 5 m/s or so, pretty sloppy by
today's standards for rockets.  The rocket simply flies into the net and
gets caught by the barb (originally we wanted to use velcro, but it
didn't stick hard enough).  To 'reenter', compress the barb and away you
go.

> >	We have from the previous phase built a platform about
> >2/3 of the way to orbit in velocity terms, and 4/9 of the way to
> >orbit in energy terms. . .
> 
> Actually it's even better: for velocity it's (2/3)^(3/2) = about 0.55
> times orbital velocity (at the altitude of the platform, not the
> center of gravity); for energy it's 0.55^2 = about 0.3 times the
> energy of an orbit at the same altitude as the platform.

     The specifics are: center of mass of skybridge 2000 km above
Earth's surface.  Orbital velocity in circular orbit is square root of
(K/r), where K is a constant for Earth=3.986x10E+14 meters cubed per
second squared (m^3/s^2), and r is the orbit radius in meters. hence
orbital velocity is 6899 m/s for the center of mass, The landing
platform is 200 km above the Earth's surface, hence 6575 km/8375 km
closer to the Earth's center, and moving proportionally slower than the
center of mass.  The platform is then moving 5416 m/s which is 69.5% of
orbital velocity at 200 km (7786 m/s), and 67.6% of the difference
between orbital velocity and the rotation of the Earth at the equator.
Note that there is nothing sacred about this particular size for the
skybridge.  Start small and add to over time.

> Furthermore, the skybridge doesn't have the engineering and
> maintenance headaches of skyhooks and space elevators.  Because it
> only rotates as fast as it goes around the Earth, it is under much
> less tensile strength than a skyhook; also, it doesn't undergo varying
> tidal forces the way a skyhook does.  Because it is much shorter than
> a space elevator, it doesn't require quite the awesomely strong
> materials needed for a space elevator; it is also much more stable
> than a space elevator, as mentioned above.  Furthermore, its much
> lower altitude makes it much easier to build; its lesser length also
> contributes to this and to some extent makes it less likely to be hit
> by space trash (and less garbage to fall on your head if it does get
> broken) (even though most of the space trash is in Low Earth Orbit).

     The working stress of a skybridge and a skyhook are not different,
but as you noted, it is the difference in gravitational and centrifugal
accelerations at the tips.  The skybridge only rotates once/orbit,
giving a smaller acceleration at the tip.  The result is the cross
section, and hence the mass is smaller.  The kind of material available
today is 820,000 pound/square inch carbon fiber .  Million psi carbon
fiber is expected about 1990.  Space debris is still a problem.  Expect
one cable cut per 1000 kilometer-years of exposure.  Thus we expect a
cable cut every 6 months/strand, or monthly with 6 strands.  That's why
we have a multi-stranded bridge.  Cross-ties are placed every 10 km or
so to redistribute loads around a cut cable, then you have to replace
that 10 km section of cable.  Think of it as being like the continuous
painting that a suspension bridge requires.  We'll have to replace 1% of
the cable per year until the orbital garbage problem is solved.

> 	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
> 	   lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu
> 	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 7 Jun 87 22:48 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: FTL ==> paradoxes?

I think this talk about FTL necessarily violating causality (if there
are no prefered frames of reference) is a bit premature. One might
imagine an FTL "radio" that would suffer from static whenever someone
tried to use it to transmit a message that would cause temporal
paradoxes. Perhaps some sort of quantum mechanical interference could do
this, just as interference prevents two electrons from getting into the
same state.

It's incorrect to say there are no theoretical reasons to look for FTL
phenomena. Old versions of string theories, for example, predicted the
existence of tachyons. The totalitarian principle of physics might also
predict their existence. It would be useful if there were a consistent
quantum field theory in which tachyons existed.

While the existence of tachyons would not allow us to build FTL
spaceships that could "jump to hyperspace", it might permit sub-c
tachyon rockets (exploiting the bizarre fact that lower energy tachyons
have higher momenta), and FTL radio, which could be used for
teleoperation and transmission of computer programs. If, as some
visionaries suggest, it will be possible to "download" a human
personality into some kind of programmable computer, such transmission
of programs will be as good as a real spaceship.

------------------------------

Date:           Wed, 10 Jun 87 17:17:12 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu>
To: mnetor!utzoo!henery@seismo.css.gov
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu, liberty@mordor.s1.gov
Subject:        Reason Foundation paper - "Privatizing Space Transporation"

Henry you're right on with your editorial. Have you seen the
Reason Foundation's Federal Privatization Project paper called
"Privatizing Space Transportation" by James Bennett and Phillip Salin??

The paper's objections lie very much along yours.  
I have included the Summaty of the paper (with permission):

----------------------------- Cut here --------------------------------

                PRIVATIZING SPACE TRANSPORTATION
                James Bennett and Phillip Salin

                        EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The primary long run objective of US space transportation policy
should always have been to lower as quickly as possible the cost of
getting payloads into orbit.  Since free competition among agressive,
private companies is well known to be the most effective way
to promote rapid improvements in price/performance, the
                                                        ***primary
short run objective of American space transportation policy should
be to encourage the emergence of a strong American commerical space
transportation industry.***

Since the inception NASA of its space program [sic], the US government
has developed only three generations of space transportation technology.
Two of those (Saturn and the Space Shuttle) have had
almost no useful economic impact; and the first was primarily the
result of the military's work.  Each step took NASA further away
from a situation in which real-world feedback could quickly aid in
cost effective improvements and upgrades to bring about low-cost
transportation to space.

The four flight versions of the shuttle performed only 24
successful launches.  The money spent on the shuttle, estimated
consertatively at $25 billion, has provided to date a small ammount
of technical experience for the enormous ammount of money spent.
Putting over 95% of the nation's space transportation R & D dollars
in one gigantic basket, as the government has done twice now, first
with Saturn V and then with the shuttle, is the greatest possible
discouragement to the discovery of economically usefull innovations.

The government's inability over the past 30 years to lower the
costs of space transportation has had serious consequences. The
more it costs to get to space, the less we can afford to do there,
for two reasons.  First, high space transportation cost directly
reduce funds available for on-orbit activity. Second, they
also increase the costs of on-orbit activity.

Only privatization will permit a restructering of American space
activities necessary and sufficient to establish self-sustaining
and growing economic activity in space.  Though the administration
has recently moved partly in the direction of privatization, NASA
itself continues to push for programs that would repeat past
errors.  To avoid these errors, the US government should encourage
privatization in three key ways.

First, the government should encourage the development of all new
launce vehicles on a private basis.  This involves several distinct
elements: the government should begin to purchase all launch
services from the private sector, except for specialized military
and shuttle-specific payloads;  the government should encourage
progress in commercially usefull R & D to come from the private sector;
and the government should create a climate in which the private
sector can better compete in space launch activities.  This
includes efforts to reduce foreign subsidities of space launches,
further deregulate space activity, streamline access to space
launch sites, renegotiate the highly disadvantageous provisions of
the Outer Space Treaty, and formally reject the Moon Treaty.

Second, the government should complete the privatization of all
existing launch vehicles that can be operated by the private
sector.  Third, the government should not reinstate direct
subsidies for non-shuttle specific commercial payloads.

NASA's own role in planetary research, space science, and basic
technology R & D, long having suffered in the face of NASA's
gigantic expenditures on space transportation development, should
be strengthened, returning NASA to it's original role as a research
organization.  NASA should continue to operate the shuttle, as it
is *not* a viable candidate for privatization.  However, it's role
should be as a transportation mode for specialized military
missions and shuttle-specific payloads.

US commercial satellite operators, high-tech industry, the private
space-launch industry, NASA space researchers, US defense
interests, US space contractors, and the general public all have a
strong interest in attainment of low-cost transportation to space,
an should therefore support this privatization agenda.  America's
international competitiveness and US defense all will increasinly
depend on a vigorous US presence in space. Without low-cost
transportation to space, the united States will be unable to take
full advantage of the opprtunities space holds for our economy and
our defense.  Privatization is the key to providing this essential
low-cost space transportation.  The United states still has an
enormous amount of talent and energy, inside and outside of
government.  Given the spproiate incentives, this talent and
energy can yet lead humankind to the stars.

I.  HOW DEEP IS THE CRISIS
    NASA: An Agency with Conflicting Missions
    The NACA Model and Where It was Lost
    The Failure to Make Access to Space Easy and Affordable

II. GENESIS OF A POLITICIZED INCENTIVE SYSTEM
    The Post-Sputnik Era: Creation and Early Years of NASA
    The Shuttle Era: NASA Seeka a Mission
    Emergence of the Private Transportation Option
    The Post-Challenger Era

III.EVOLUTION OF SPACE TRANSPORTATION
    Commercial Aircraft Development
    Evolutionary Patterns in Space Transportation
    Gigantism in Space Transportation

IV. STRATEGIES FOR PRIVATIZATION
    Circumventing the Iron Triangle in Space Development
    Alignment of Forces For and Aginst Privatization
       The Government Agencies
       The Customer Communiuty
       The Contractor Companies
       Congress
       Workers--Professional and Others
    Inappropriate Privatization Options
    Space Transportation Today
    Recommendations: Toward Competitive Commercialization
    
V.  REFERENCES AND NOTES

---------------------------- Cut here --------------------------------

The paper (40 pages) should be read by anyone interested in some
concrete proposals for the future of US (and Canada too henry :-)
space utilization.

The cost of reprints are a nominal $5.00, and can be ordered from:

The Reason Foundation,
   Federal Privatization Project
2716 Ocean Park Bl.,  Suite 1062
Santa Monica, CA 90405
(213) 392-0443

(bill)

P.S. I'm not affiliated with the authors or the foundation.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #253
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jun 87 20:01:56 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01505; Sun, 14 Jun 87 03:17:02 PDT
	id AA01505; Sun, 14 Jun 87 03:17:02 PDT
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 87 03:17:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706141017.AA01505@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #254

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 254

Today's Topics:
Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?
Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 87 03:08:05 GMT
From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?

In article <965@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> west@calgary.UUCP (Darrin West) writes:
>In article <8706091423.AA14311@angband.s1.gov>, REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU
>(Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>> <DW> Date: 5 Jun 87 16:36:33 GMT
>> <DW> From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu
>> <DW> (Darrin West)
>> <DW> Subject: Re: What to do on Mars
>> 
>> > there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of
>> > robots capable of reproducing themselves.  These would be directed in
>>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> <DW> Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible?
>> 
>> That's such a misstatement of Goedel's theorem that I feel I must
>> refute it immediately!  Goedel merely proved impossible a system that
>> PERFECTLY understands its own capabilities, that is can decide whether
>> or not it would be able to accomplish a task (solve a problem).
>
> Does this not then also imply that it could not PERFECTLY understand HOW
> it is able to accomplish a task?  Is not an understanding (yes, perhaps
> even imperfectly) of its own function, necessary for reproducing that
> function?

	It is not necessary to understand how to do something to do it.

>> And in
>> regard to merely reproducing, even the tiniest bacteria can do that,
>> with no formal understanding of self whatsoever, and in the right
>> non-natural (i.e. biologically-created) environment even viruses and
>> memes can reproduce. 
>
>But only with severe damage to themselves!  A cell after mitosis is
>half the size it was before (even though it has accomplished a
>reproduction).  It takes a long time (relative to the reproduction
>time) to regenerate to the same state it was in before.  This regeneration
>may be compared to a relearning period.  In humans, we reproduce a
>potential human being which is only 5% our original mass with relatively
>little harm.  It takes 15-20 years of programming and "regeneration" for
>it to become comparable to the creature which spawned it.

	Merely being half the size is not considered damage -- no information
is lost (although the number of copies of information is reduced).  Very
simple organisms divide and continue to grow without further ado -- in rapidly
growing E. Coli, for instance, all metabolism is going on continuously
throughout the cell cycle; DNA is being replicated all the time, and division
occurs with a periodicity the same as that of DNA replication but always
lagging behind it (as long as the growth rate stays the same), so that the
whole thing proceeds like clockwork.  No damage.

>What I am trying to get at is that even biological creatures do not
>perfectly reproduce.

	Some of them do (see example above).

>                      The goal is to create more self-propogating,
>self-sufficient entities.  This is accomplished mainly (although
>never entirely) through the efforts of the progenator.  I would
>suspect that a robot of similar complexity to a human would require
>similar support for similar periods of time.

	Well, what of it?  Once you had the cycle started, you could have
other robots provide this support (along with the environment that they would
maintain, as we do with ours (-: and hopefully more competently :-) ).  The
speed of this would depend on how fast the robots (both developing and support
could perform the required functions, and on how many functions were required
to do it (the robots would not necessarily be just like us)).

	. . .
>I challenge someone the dream up the simplest entity which can reproduce
>itself from "atoms" which do not have that kind of information encoded
>in them.

	Cyanobacteria (or E. Coli, if you're willing to let them get away with
using molecules as complicated as ammonia and glucose; both need water, but
neither that nor the other two molecules nor any of the other required atoms
(trace metal ions, etc.) nor the light used by cyanobacteria for
photosynthesis have anything resembling information for reproduction encoded
in them).

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
TRASH INSERTED BECAUSE OUR Pnews HAS DECIDED TO START REJECTING ARTICLES WITH
LARGE AMOUNTS OF QUOTED MATERIAL.
	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 87 17:35:48 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!calgary!west@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Darrin West)
Subject: Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?

In article <8706091423.AA14311@angband.s1.gov>, REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
> <DW> Date: 5 Jun 87 16:36:33 GMT
> <DW> From: ubc-vision!alberta!calgary!west@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Darrin Wes
> t)
> <DW> Subject: Re: What to do on Mars
> 
> > there, perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of
> > robots capable of reproducing themselves.  These would be directed in
>                     ^^^^^^^^^^^
> <DW> Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible?
> 
> That's such a misstatement of Goedel's theorem that I feel I must
> refute it immediately!  Goedel merely proved impossible a system that
> PERFECTLY understands its own capabilities, that is can decide whether
> or not it would be able to accomplish a task (solve a problem).

 Does this not then also imply that it could not PERFECTLY understand HOW
 it is able to accomplish a task?  Is not an understanding (yes, perhaps
 even imperfectly) of its own function, necessary for reproducing that
 function?

> And in
> regard to merely reproducing, even the tiniest bacteria can do that,
> with no formal understanding of self whatsoever, and in the right
> non-natural (i.e. biologically-created) environment even viruses and
> memes can reproduce. 

But only with severe damage to themselves!  A cell after mitosis is
half the size it was before (even though it has accomplished a
reproduction).  It takes a long time (relative to the reproduction
time) to regenerate to the same state it was in before.  This regeneration
may be compared to a relearning period.  In humans, we reproduce a
potential human being which is only 5% our original mass with relatively
little harm.  It takes 15-20 years of programming and "regeneration" for
it to become comparable to the creature which spawned it.

What I am trying to get at is that even biological creatures do not
perfectly reproduce.  The goal is to create more self-propogating,
self-sufficient entities.  This is accomplished mainly (although
never entirely) through the efforts of the progenator.  I would
suspect that a robot of similar complexity to a human would require
similar support for similar periods of time.
  
> I see very early in the next century robots which
> can mechanically fabricate copies of themselves (except without
> exactly the same memories, since that requires synchronization of
> mental processes which may require stopping the unit; it may, however,
> be quite possible for robot #1 to turn off identical-except-for-memory
> robot #2, make a copy of robot #2 including exact memory, then turn
> robot #2 back on. If robot #2 has initiated the request for
> copy-service, then for all practical purposes we might say that in the
> environment where robot #1 exists, robot #2 has total self-replication
> capabilities (modulo trusting robot #1 not to disobey instructions and
> leave robot #2 turned off), which will beat out what biological
> creatures can presently do (create copies of their genes, but with no
> copies of memories whatsoever).

I am having trouble with this.  You are saying robot 1 builds robot 2.
Then somehow copies its program into robot 2.  So robot 1 found
the ore, refined it, manufactured the structural components of robot
2, then found some different ore, refined it, pulled wire, then wrapped
it into servo motors, then found some different ore, refined it, and
created some batteries, then "built the control unit".  This would
require forging some silicon chips.  Well, to make it easy, lets
say robot 1 has some masks in his back pocket which he hooks up
to the kiln etc, and pushes the green button, waits for a week until
the chips are nicely tested and packaged, then pops them into robot 2.
Robot 1 then reaches into his other pocket and pulls out a mag tape.
This is the boot code for new robots.  He may even have made this
copy himself, of himself.  I don't know where he would get the tape
drive read/write heads though?  If they were part of him, he would need
to pass copies of them on to his progeny.  Well lets ignore that.  He
hooks up an rs/232 port and downloads the binaries.  How does he make
copies of the chip masks?  Maybe he uses a camera.  Is the camera
part of him?  Does he know how the grind lenses?  Could he fix the
kiln if it broke?  Is the kiln part of him?

What I am driving at is that the robot CAN NOT reproduce himself without
the help of a pretty complicated external environment.  Perhaps so complicated
that it is the environment that is creating the copy, not the robot!  What
would be ideal (and I propose impossible) is to have an entity that can
reproduce itself from constituent atoms + energy.

We can now fight about what a constituent atom is.  If it were as
complicated as a mother board or modular robot arm assembly, then
I beleive that the robot could plug another copy together, but then
the argument falls apart, because the "atoms" had the structure and
(probably!) the reproductive process already encoded in them.

I challenge someone the dream up the simplest entity which can reproduce
itself from "atoms" which do not have that kind of information encoded
in them.  I suspect that there may be certain catalysts which cause
chemical changes around them, producing more catalysts, but who would
know?

> <DW> I barely trust robots to put together cars (and those are pretty simple
> <DW> robots!), much less an air tight environment.  Actually I barely trust
> <DW> people to do something like this.  A small mistake would be deadly.
> 
> (I feel like calling you a twit.) Have you never heard of quality
> control, of inspections, of supervision, etc.?

Again, you are refering to external controls.  I am being
pedantic, (I'll say!) but the original statement said "robots capable
of reproducing themselves".  I took issue with the statement.  I don't
beleive that anything can reproduce itself without external influence.
This does not preclude the construction of robots on mars, but does
necessitate human intervention.  And the more intervention from
the environment (ie the greater the complexity of the "atoms") the
more efficiently the robots could "reproduce themselves".

> You don't just
> commission some people to build a car, totally unsupervised, then jump
> in it and drive it on the freeway. You check the car out to make sure
> it passes safety tests before you even put the car on the car lot.

So you don't let robot 2 reproduce itself (its primary objective?) until
you "check it out".  Like make it do jumping jacks, then read the
core dump to see if there are any glitches?

>  As
> a consumer, you buy new cars only from reputable dealers at reputable
> companies that have a lot to lose if lots of people get killed and
> their next of kin start suing. Sure, sometimes you get cars with
> subtle bugs like gasoline tanks that explode in certain kinds of
> collisions, but for the most part you get a car that does basically
> perform its proper function without being horribly dangerous to drive
> normally. So, in robotics on Mars, the company supervising the work
> must be one that stands to lose a lot if the colonists die because of
> lack of air due to faulty construction, so the company makes sure the
> robots perform tests to verify everything's reasonably ok before the
> colonists arrive on Mars, and the design is such that if a mistake
> does happen it doesn't kill many colonists.

Well I still say that I don't trust a robot as far as I can throw
one (I sound like Elija Baily's first boss [the ex-cheif of police?]),
which isn't far, because they are so dense :-).
If I were a colonist, I would be paranoid about anything that I had
to trust with my life.  This springs from an intimate understanding
of computers.  I am just finishing a Masters in Computer Science.  I
realize that I may not be as trustworthy as a machine, but at least a
mistake (even a deadly one) is of my own choosing.

> 
> You don't have to trust the robots directly. You have to trust the
> company that owns them, and that company has to trust the robots.

This is like (80% trust) ** 2. :-)

Thanks for the reply.  It is fun to spar with someone who has
a sense of humour, and some common sense, as well as a person
who was also forced to take formal logic.



-- 
Darrin West, Master's Unit (read: student).	..![ubc-vision,ihnp4]!
Department of Computer Science			alberta!calgary!west
University of Calgary.				Can you say '88 Winter Games?
Brain fault (cortex dumped)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #254
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jun 87 11:49:38 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03708; Mon, 15 Jun 87 03:16:24 PDT
	id AA03708; Mon, 15 Jun 87 03:16:24 PDT
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 03:16:24 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706151016.AA03708@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #255

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 255

Today's Topics:
	      Some Info on SPACE CAMP/ACADEMY (re-post)
		      NASA Office of Exploration
		     USA screwing ESA again, sigh
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 87 14:19:37 GMT
From: atux01!jlc@rutgers.edu  (J. Collymore)
Subject: Some Info on SPACE CAMP/ACADEMY (re-post)


Since there has been an increasing amount of discussion on SPACE ACADEMY
lately, I thought I'd re-post this article of mine for those of you who'd like
a little more information.
===============================================================================




			       SSSSPPPPAAAACCCCEEEE AAAACCCCAAAADDDDEEEEMMMMYYYY
			  (The Astronaut Experience)



	Have you ever wondered what it's like to  be  an  astronaut?
	What's	it  like  to work in micro-gravity? Or be in mission
	control, or onboard the	shuttle	during a mission from launch
	to  landing?   Well, wonder no more, now _y_o_u can get a taste
	of this	experience at SSSSPPPPAAAACCCCEEEE AAAACCCCAAAADDDDEEEEMMMMYYYY!!!!

	SPACE ACADEMY (a.k.a. U.S. SPACE CAMP)	is  located  on	 the
	grounds	 of  the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville,	Ala-
	bama.  SPACE ACADEMY offers  the  average  person  a  3-day,
	intensive exposure to the space	and space shuttle programs.

	Individuals arrive the day before the start of their session
	(40 people maximum), and upon their arrival are	divided	into
	two, 20-person teams:  Atlantis	and Discovery.	On the first
	day,  everyone	is  sized for, and issued their	flight suits
	(light blue jump suits adorned with  various  space  program
	patches).  After this point, with everyone beginning to	look
	and feel like a	team, training begins in earnest.

	Now the	real fun begins	as your	days become filled with	fam-
	iliarizing  yourselves	with  the simulators, attending	lec-
	tures by experts in the	field of space,	and watching  movies
	about  the  shuttle  program  in a dome-shaped,	planetarium-
	sized theatre.	(Super-wide screen OMNIMAX film	is used.)

	The lectures vary from session to session depending on which
	guest  speakers	 are  available.   During my trip we had the
	following:

	   - a lecture (with slides and	video tapes) on	the proposed
	     space station by an engineer from Boeing Corp.,

	   - a lecture on rocket propulsion  by	 Konrad	 Dannenberg,
	     who  at one time worked with the renowned rocket scien-
	     tist, Werner von Braun,

	   - a lecture on the history, and  present-day	 acheivments
	     and efforts of the	Soviet Space program,

	   - a talk by	Ron  Evans,  Apollo  17	 Astronaut,  on	 his
	     experiences in space,

	   - tour of the Marshall Space	Flight Center  a  few  miles
	     away.












				   - 2 -



	These talks are	all fascinating, and like the  rest  of	 the
	program,  do not require you have a college degree to under-
	stand what is being talked about.

	As for the various simulators you'll get to use, they are:

	   - multi-axis	chair (simulates the disorienting effects of
	     being _i_n a	space vehicle tumbling out of control),

	   - the five degrees of freedom (5DF) chair (allows you  to
	     move  and	rotate	in  a  manner  similar to that of an
	     astronaut performing EVAs*),

	   - manned maneuvering	unit (MMU) (working mock-up  of	 the
	     rocket pack/chair often used during EVAs),

	   - lunar microgravity	chair (simulates  1/6th	 gravity  of
	     the moon),

	   - mission control,

	   - space lab,

	   - space station,

	   - and not least, the	space shuttle (a.k.a. orbiter) cock-
	     pit.

	Everyone gets a	chance	to  try	 all  the  simulators  once.
	After  this,  however, each team must begin preparations for
	the two, 2-hour	simulated missions it must fly	(2  missions
	for  Atlantis,	and  2	missions  for Discovery).  Once	your
	flight assignments are given out you  must  start  mastering
	the  simulator(s)  and	duties	relevant  to your particular
	assignment.  For one mission you will work in  mission	con-
	trol,  the  next  you  are  given an "in-flight" assignment.
	Your mission assignment	may be as a director  or  specialist
	in  mission control, or	as a mission specialist	on the space
	station, or in space lab, or doing EVAs.  You  may  even  be
	chosen to be pilot or commander	of the orbiter.

	Although there is a mission profile "script" all members  of
	the  mission  are  to  follow,	things	_n_e_v_e_r  go  according
	entirely to the	script.	 One of	 the  staff,  known  as	 the
	"simulation  director" monitors, and controls, all video and


	__________

	  * Extravehicular activity or "space walk".












				   - 3 -



	radio communications, as well as all  simulator	 operations,
	during the mission.  At	various	times during the mission, he
	creates	a variety of problems throughout  any  and  all	 the
	simulators,  and  we "cadets" must spot, isolate and correct
	the problems _b_e_f_o_r_e they can "seriously	jeopardize" the	mis-
	sion.  And many	of them	are a rrrreeeeaaaallll challenge!

	When each mission is completed,	there is a de-briefing (i.e.
	critiquing) of what you	did correctly, and what	you did	not.
	You finally begin to realize how much can really go wrong on
	a mission.  You	also begin to appreciate how much knowledge,
	team work, and coolness	under pressure makes the space	pro-
	gram  work,  and  has  brought	it  so many success over the
	years.

	So what	does this  whole  experience  cost?   What  are	 the
	requirements?	Well,  the  fee	for adult SPACE	ACADEMY** is
	$450 for the 3-day session.   Sessions	run  from  September
	through	mid-November.*** Cost includes dorm  room,  3  meals
	per  day,  and	a temporary issue flight suit.	Flight suits
	may be purchased for ~$65.  You	must be	over 18	years of age
	and  in	 reasonably  good  health.   If	 you would like	more
	information, or	a brochure,  about  SPACE  ACADEMY  or	U.S.
	SPACE CAMP, call:


	1111----888800000000----666633333333----7777222288880000 (outside	of Alabama),
	1111----888800000000----555577772222----7777222233334444 (within Alabama).











	__________

	 ** U.S. SPACE CAMP is for children grades 5-7.	 SPACE
	    ACADEMY (LEVEL I) is for teens grades 8-10.	 Sessions
	    for	both of	these run during the spring and	summer.
	    Cost and duration of sessions differ from that of adult
	    SPACE ACADEMY.  Call SPACE CAMP for	more information.

	*** Because of the increasing popularity of SPACE
	    ACADEMY/SPACE CAMP,	it is best to register as far in
	    advance as possible.





					Jim Collymore
				 Space Academy Class of 1986

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jun 87 03:17:39 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (UUCP Admin)
Subject: NASA Office of Exploration

NASA NEWS
NASA ESTABLISHES OFFICE OF EXPLORATION
	Dr. James C. Fletcher, administrator of NASA, announced
the creation of an Office of Exploration to coordinate agency activity
that would "expand the human presence beyond Earth," particularly to
the Moon and Mars.
	He said that Dr. Sally K. Ride would serve as its acting assistant
administrator until mid August. She is scheduled to leave Nasa in early
autumn to assume a position at Stanford University. Dr. Ride has been
in charge of a NASA study to determine a possible new major space goal
for the United States.
	"There are considerable - even urgent - demands for a major
initiative that would re-energize America's space program and stimulate
development of new technology to help the nation remain pre-eminent both
in space and in the world's high-tech market place, " Dr. Fletcher said.
	"This office is a step in responding to that demand, "Dr. Fletcher
said. "It will analyze and define missions proposed to achieve the goal
of human expansion off the planet. It will provide central coordination
of technical planning studies that will involve the entire agency. In
particular, it will focuson studies of potential lunar and Mars initiatives."
	Dr. Fletcher noted that Dr. Ride's study group recently identified
four major areas for concentrated examination as possible initiative in
pursuit of a new national space objective. These are:
	Intensive study of Earth systems with the goal of exponentially
expanding knowledge required to protect the environment.
	A substantially stepped-up robotic program to explore the planets,
moons and other bodies in the solar system.
	Establishment of a scientific base and a permanent human presence
on the Moon.
	Human exploration of Mars preceded by intensive robotic exploration
of the planet.

	Dr. Fletcher said the Ride study group developed these possible
goals in a "workshop/task force environment." He said that at that plateau
"Sally concluded that these and other potential initiatives deserved further
intensive and systematic consideration to help determine a NASA position on
a goal and to follow through after a goal is identified. Therefore, in the
case of the two initiatives related to human expansion off the planet, she
recommended that this new office be established."
	Further studies of the Earth systems and robotic solar system
proposals will be managed by the Office of Space Science and Applications
where these interests have been well established for years.
	"Planning for the civil space program that NASA recommends may well
include a combination of the areas under consideration," Dr. Fletcher said.
	The new office will concentrate on mission concepts and scenarios,
schedules, transportation requirements, facilities utilization, resources
requirements and science opportunities.
	Dr. Fletcher said that a decision to go to the Moon or Mars would
not impact the first phase of Space Station development. Current plans are
to build the Station in two phases. A lunar or Mars initiative would 
influence the design of the second phase so it could serve as a technology
test bed and a logistics terminal for lunar or Mars activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NASA NEWS RELEASE 87-87   June 1, 1987
By Edward Campion  Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 10 Jun 87 02:22:12
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 10 02:22:12 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 10 02:22:55 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov
Subject: USA screwing ESA again, sigh

<HS> Date: 31 May 87 00:07:16 GMT
<HS> From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: space news from March 30 AW&ST

<HS> Arianespace has informally asked Pratt&Whitney and NASA about
<HS> availability and cost of the RL10 oxyhydrogen engine used in Centaur, as
<HS> a possible alternative to the troubled third-stage engine of Ariane.
<HS> The answer has been "ask us formally"; the US is unenthusiastic about
<HS> selling engines to its competition.

After all the agreements with Eurospace that we backed out of (dual
solar-polar, et al), and the extreme restrictions we're planning on
their use of the second space station (MIR is the first), I think we
owe them one. If after all that we've done wrong to them already, we
refuse to do business with them when they need our help, they have
every reason to be totally disgusted with us.

<HS> Dial-A-Shuttle comes to the USSR: Russians wanting an update on
<HS> activities aboard Mir now have a number to call, Moscow 215-63-56.

(There does indeed seem to be something to this "Glasnost" (SP?) thing.
They really do seem to be giving their citizenry access to information
more willingly than before. But of course, do they charge as much as
our 900-number racket does?)

<HS> Peter Banks, chair of NASA science-on-space-station task force,
<HS> expresses dissatisfaction with current plans, wants cheaper and earlier
<HS> operational status, ...

So now there's one person in NASA who is saying what we've been
saying in general. Can he change things in the right way, or will this
merely confuse things and make things take even longer due to
infighting? (HS, your expert opionion please?)

<HS> Proxmire and Boland (chairs of Senate and House appropriations
<HS> committees relevant to NASA) come out in support of space station, with
<HS> some concern about getting science going early, perhaps with an interim
<HS> man-tended station.

Proxmire is one guy I do *not* trust to "help" us with the design of
the space station. (HS, what do you think about P&B suggestion?)

<HS> [Mini-editorial: If Rockwell really wants to make a contribution to the
<HS> US space program, what it should do is gather all its courage and commit
<HS> to building another orbiter (not the Challenger replacement, but
<HS> *another* one) with private funding.  *Not* ask NASA about it, *not*
<HS> propose the idea, but *do* it.  A bit of a risk, yes... but the odds
<HS> approach 100% that the extra orbiter will be needed within the next two
<HS> decades.

Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If
not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM,
Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit)
with Rockwell?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #255
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jun 87 06:21:00 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02296; Tue, 16 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT
	id AA02296; Tue, 16 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706161017.AA02296@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #256

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 256

Today's Topics:
		       private space companies
		       Privately built shuttle
		     Re: Privately built shuttle
		     Re: Privately built shuttle
	 98% self-replicating robots, testbed on Earth needed
			Re: What to do on Mars
		     Re: Compressed gas launchers
		    Re: Breaking out of the Cradle
	    Re: Compressed gas launchers - seems unlikely.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 87 21:38:14 GMT
From: unc!skinner@mcnc.org  (Andrew Skinner)
Subject: private space companies

  A common opinion seems to be that space would be better handled by
private companies.  I am studying for an M.S. in computer science, and
may be interested someday in working for such a company.  Has anyone
compiled a list of companies or other organizations, and what they are
and will be doing?
  Please mail me suggestions, and I will try to make a list.  Also, if
someone more knowledgeable than I am (not hard, I am interested but
ignorant) would like to take over, let me know and I'll send you what I
get.
  And if there already exists such a list, post real soon and just get
that out.  Thanks lots.
   Andy Skinner

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 87 23:55:35 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Privately built shuttle

>Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If
>not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM,
>Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit) with
>Rockwell?

Sorry, but this would almost certainly be illegal! Any such large group
would have to have an agreement on how to split the costs. According to
our wonderful Anti-trust laws, this is considered to be the same as an
agreement on how to split profits. Thus, they would be open to an
anti-trust suit (wanna bet that NASA wouldn't do it?) <sigh>

Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!leonard

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 87 06:58:25 GMT
From: hanley@NYU.ARPA  (John Hanley)
Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle

(Leonard Erickson suggests that if Rockwell were to form a consortium
with other large companies to privately build a shuttle, their agreement
on how to split profits would open them up to an anti-trust suit from
NASA.)

<Double sigh.> I always thought anti-trust laws were supposed to protect
the little guy.  Whoever would have thought the industrial giants would
be the "little guys," compared to a big bad government agency that's
trying to protect its monopoly?  *ANY* lawyers out there who think they
see a way to finance such a venture, please mail your comments to me and
I'll summarize to the net.  I figure, if it's financially attractive,
'tis but a matter of time before someone takes the bait...

				--John Hanley

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 87 11:05:16 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!bjorn@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Bjorn R. Bjornsson)
Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle

This last cannot possibly be correct.  The simple fact of a bunch of
entities getting together and building a gadget, and a space shuttle in
particular, does in no way constitute any sort of monopoly.  First of
all we are talking a about a shuttle that has no buyer.  Second, no
offer of use nor attempt at price fixing in any conceivable segment of
the economic marketplace is implied by the act of building an orbiter
with your own money.  Heck it could be worse, the US Gov.  might prevent
you from flying it.

Regarding the suggestion put forth by Henry Spencer, that Rockwell bite
the bullet and finance out of their own pocket the construction of an
additional orbiter (a sixth flight worthy vehicle).  Making a valiant
attempt at hoisting myself out of my ordinary footwear and placing my
toes in the (expensive) shoes of Rockwell directors I would at the
moment vote against.  I see no indications that these birds are ever
going to be ALLOWED to reach their former glory.  I see evidence
indicating a few tens of flights before the shuttles will be officially
(or by history) declared obsolete.  Does anyone have information to the
contrary?  If you do, give me firm data on when the next mission will
take place.  Sorry as a Rockwell director I would be remiss in my
fiducial duties if I supported the use of $2-3B of shareholders money on
this specific technology.  An alternate STS, yes.  The current one: NO.

			Bjorn R. Bjornsson
			{ubc-vision,ihnp4,mnetor}!alberta!bjorn

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 87 14:17:03
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 11 14:17:03 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 11 19:22:37 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: 98% self-replicating robots, testbed on Earth needed

<HS> Date: 7 Jun 87 00:54:17 GMT
<HS> From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: Re: What to do on Mars

> ...perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of
> robots capable of reproducing themselves... [with some remote control]

<HS> My understanding is that getting a system that will 98% self-reproduce
<HS> looks easy, but the remaining 2% is hard unless you add humans to the
<HS> self-reproducing system.

Sounds good. Let's do it. If we can reduce the amount of stuff we have
to shop from Earth to only 2% of the total, using local materials for
the 98%, mined and fabricated by robots, we have an immense cost
savings (assuming we want to establish a mining colony in the first
place, which I think we do). This applies to Mars or to Luna, and also
to other hard gravitated bodies we might want to land on and mine
(Moons of Jupiter and Saturn, Mercury; probably not Venus, definitely
not Jupiter&Saturn themselves nor the Sun; this message doesn't apply
to asteroids and tiny moons which are essentially gravityless and
hence can be visited easily by manned spacecraft or cargo ferries).

Has anybody started a prototype totally-robot mining operation on
Earth to work out the bugs in the overall design? If not, let's start
one, huh? The rules would be that there's an outer perimeter and an
inner perimiter. All mining and fabrication (replicating) operations
are to be conducted within the inner perimeter, while all humans are
to remain outside the outer perimeter. The annulus between the
perimeters is to be used exclusively for transportation by automated
(teleprsence or totally-robot etc.) vehicles. If a vehicle breaks down
inside the annulus, it must be either abandoned where it is or dragged
or carried etc. by a robot vehicle to the human-outside or to the
robot-inside where it can be repaired by humans or robots
respectively. The amount of mass passed across the perimeters must be
carefully measured and accurate records kept. The goal is to minimize
the ratio between mass that moves across perimeters and total mass of
robots and other installations developed inside the inner perimeter,
trying to achieve the 1:50 ratio for transport:robotmass that HS says
is "easy".

Once we have established that bootstrapping by a combination of local
robots and remote human guidance/control really works, we can decide
whether the first non-Earth robotic-mining colony should be Luna or Mars.

On the other topic, of asteroid mining, unfortunately there's no good
way to demonstrate the technology of microgravity mining processing
and fabrication anywhere on Earth, we'll just have to go out and try
it for real. But the Luna/Mars testbed on Earth should help work out
some common bugs in the bootstrapping, ignoring the gravity technology
differences, so should be of some aid.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 87 01:16:00 GMT
From: necntc!frog!john@ames.arpa  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: What to do on Mars

> >> robots capable of reproducing themselves.  These would be directed in
> >                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
> >Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible?

No, self-comprehending systems abound.  Goedel simply showed that there
were limits on consistency and (what you might call) the degree of
instrospection.  Basically, a consistent system cannot be complete;
there can be true statements that the system cannot prove (the canonical
example is the statement "This statement has no proof in system S."; if
system S can prove it, system S has a contradiction -- but if system S
can't prove it, it is true).

There are probably "beellyans and beellyans" of books on Goedel's little
theorems, and some of them are even good.  I just finished reading
Raymond Smullyan's "Forever Undecided" which is on this topic.

But I'm nattering about mathematics in sci.space, so I'll shut up now.

John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 87 21:30:18 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Compressed gas launchers

In article <291@qtc.UUCP>, law@qtc.UUCP (Larry Westerman) writes:
> In article <1279@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
> >The gun would have a muzzle velocity of 2 km/second...
> 
> Now, with v = 2000 m/sec, and some reasonable d's, the acceleration is
> 
>     d = 100 m, a = 2 * 10^4 m/sec^2 ~= 2000 g
> 
>     d = 1000 m, a = 2*10^3 m/sec^2 ~= 200 g.
> 
> There are few electronic or mechanical components which will stand this kind
> of stress.  Even with a 10 km barrel, you have 20 g's of acceleration,
> which is still too much for people.  And higher muzzle velocity makes it
> worse by the square of the velocity.
> 
>Larry Westerman  Quantitative Technology Corporation  Beaverton OR 503-626-3081

Your calculation of average acceleration is done correctly.  This is a high
acceleration device.  A typical value is 500 g's peak acceleration, which
occurs at zero velocity.  As the gas expands and the projectile starts to 
outrun the slower gas molecules, the effective pressure drops, as does the
acceleration.  

I never said this launcher was for people.  It is designed for bulk cargo,
initially propellants for going higher than low Earth orbit, and fluids 
and gases to resupply a space station.  Later on, structural members
(girders, tubes, and cables for tethers) could be launched.  All these
are acceleration-insensitive payloads.  You are incorrect in stating that
electronics cannot stand this kind of stress.  The correct statement is
that improperly packaged electronics cannot stand it.  Present research
work is pressing to 100,000 g-capable homing missiles to be fired out
of railguns, and 10,000 g artillery with fancy fuzes have been around
for quite a while (in WWII they used VACUUM TUBE fuzes).  It's a matter
of proper design.  Your consumer electronics isn't normally designed
for such stresses.

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 87 22:34:06 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle

In article <431@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
> In <1279@ssc-vax.UUCP>, Dani Eder offers a five phase proposal for
> achieving low cost space transportation:
> 
> > Phase I: Demonstration of Orbital Capability
> > 	Estimated time: 3 years
> > 	Estimated cost:	$15 million
> > 
> I can believe that this might be doable.  But recognize that, while you
> may be saving the cost of the first stage, you're totally changing the 
> nature of the game for the upper stages.  There's a HELLUVA difference 
> between a stack that has to withstand a couple of gees, and goes 
> transonic at high altitude, vs. one that has to take two hundred gees 
> or more, and blasts through the lower atmosphere at hypersonic 
> velocities.  Not clear at all that you'd have a win.

I'm leaning more toward 'missile' experience than 'rocket' experience
for the rocket stages.  Rockets traditionally have been very fraigle
objects, like if you let the air out of a Shuttle external tank, it
deflates.  Yes, there is a big difference between 3g design and 500g
design.
> > Phase III: Reuseable Rocket
> > 	Time:	Additional 4 years
> > 	Cost:	$300 million
> > 
> > 	In phase III we replace the larger of the two solid motors
> > with a liquid (methane/oxygen) stage.  ..
> 
> VERY doubtful!  Oh, it's probably possible to build a liquid fueled 
> stage that could stand up to a multi-hundred gee catapult firing, but 
> the tankage would be so heavy that you'd lose any performance advantage 
> over a solid stage.  In fact, the low density of liquid methane would
> mean that the dry weight of the liquid fueled stage would be much
> higher than that of a solid stage, and you'd be hard pressed to equal
> the performance of the solid, despite the higher exhaust velocity.
> I'll grant you, though, that if you could build a reusable liquid
> fueled stage that would work, you'd have no worries about reentry
> stresses causing structural fatigue and limiting the operating life.
> The thing would not be delicate!

In fact, I start with an existing Thiokol solid motor case in the 
design.  They use Titianium for their upper stage motor cases (most
of them, anyway).  I increase the wall thickness by 8/5 over what
they use, since I want a factor of 2 rather than 1.25 design margin.
This is to get a 1000 cycle life rather than a 1 cycle life the 
solids are presently designed for.  Because the walls are so strong,
I can go to a pressure fed liquid engine, rather than a pump-fed
engine.  This saves about half the engine cost (no pumps), and the
weight of the pumps saved compensates somewhat for the heavier tanks.
The stage dry weight is 19% of total weight, versus 7.5% for a 
solid motor, but you get the stage back. 

You mention that there is no performance advantage to switching.
That is approximately (+-10%) correct.  PERFORMANCE IS NOT THE POINT,
COST IS!  The solid motor costs me $30/lb to buy, and it lasts once.
The reuseable liquid costs about $2,700/lb, and I get to use it
1000 times, for an amortized cost of $2.70/lb.  Adding the propellant
for the liquid at about $0.30/lb, You are 10 times lower than the solid
cost per flight.
> 
> The "Skybridge" would be a handy thing, independent of how it
> eventually got built.  For reasons that I'll get to, I tend to think
> that it won't be built until there's a LOT of traffic to orbit, and a 
> fairly vigorous commercial space economy.  I think it will be build 
> from lunar material, rather than bootstrapped in the manner that Dani
> proposes.  

It's a matter of timing.  I want to build a Skybridge SOON, as a
stepping-stone to get to the Moon.  I'm proposing a system that can
start from today's market, delivering needed commodities to LEO, and
make money doing it at an equivalent of one STS cargo bay/year of
customers.  Then, as the market expands, bootstrap up to more advanced
systems.
> 
> I don't want to throw cold water on creative ideas, but people who
> propose exotic alternatives for orbital transport systems would do
> well to keep in mind just how much room for improvement there is--from
> a cost standpoint--in conventional approaches.  
> 
> I once calculated that a moderately advanced, fully reusable two-stage
> system would consume about 12 tons of liquid oxygen, two tons of 
> liquid hydrocarbon, and one ton of liquid hydrogen, for every ton of
> payload delivered to orbit.  Sixteen tons of propellant for every ton
> of payload sounds like a lot, until you realize that the ultimate cost
> limit that that imposes on orbital transportation is only on the order
> of ten dollars a pound.  We've a LONG way to go before that sort of
> limit gets to be a problem.  When we get there, we can start looking
> to sky bridges and other exotic schemes.  Until then, what we mainly 
> need is a way to persuade someone to build the appropriate two-stage
> system.
> 
> - Roger Arnold				..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

I have no quarrel with your estimate.  I am just completing work on
the proposal for the 'Advanced Launch System' the Air Force wants.  It's
stated objective is to get a factor of 10 reduction in launch costs
by 1996 over the Shuttle and Titan 4 we have today.  Part of my 
contribution to the proposal is collecting the cost estimates for the
parts of the system, to see if we can meet the goal.  Our numbers say
we can, but the up-front investment required to get that reduction is
on the order of $20 billion.  Only governments can afford that kind
of money.  The gas gun/liquid rocket can get competitive cost per 
pound to the ALS for about a $500 million investment.  Not too much
if you have an on-going business using solids/gas gun, to go to a
lender/investor and raise the money.

The stumbling block in conventional rockets is that they have to be
fairly large (100,000 lb payload) to be really efficient, and start
to approach the kind of economics Mr. Arnold was talking about above.
But developing 2,000,000 lb takeoff weight or larger rockets (as required for
that payload), costs lots of money, on the scale only govt's can 
afford.  Hence we have to wait for gov'ts to get things done.

Concepts with smaller entry sizes can go commercial, and get
started/developed/operational quicker, which is what we want, true?

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jun 87 21:37:39 GMT
From: unmvax!hi!jedi!sundc!rlgvax!takashi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Takashi Iwasawa)
Subject: Re: Compressed gas launchers - seems unlikely.

In article <291@qtc.UUCP>, law@qtc.UUCP (Larry Westerman) writes:
>     d = 100 m, a = 2 * 10^4 m/sec^2 ~= 2000 g
>     d = 1000 m, a = 2*10^3 m/sec^2 ~= 200 g.

> There are few electronic or mechanical components which will stand
> this kind of stress.  Even with a 10 km barrel, you have 20 g's of
> acceleration, which is still too much for people.

> Larry Westerman Quantitative Technology Corporation Beaverton OR

I agree that human beings can't stand it, but with the right packaging,
electronic components will do fine.  The Copperhead smart round is fired
out of a 155mm howitzer.  The barrel length and muzzle velocity are 6
meters and 600 m/sec, giving acceleration of 30,000 g's, but the
electronic com- ponents survive just fine, allowing the round to home in
on a coded laser designated target.  Even more amazing is the VT fuse
developed in World War II.  For the 90 mm anti-aircraft gun, barrel
length would be < 5 meters and muzzle velocity > 800 m/sec, giving
64,000 g's, but even the vacuum tubes used in the VT fuse survived.  As
for mechanical fuses to stand 30,000 g's, they've been around for a
century...

Takashi Iwasawa  Computer Consoles Inc.  Reston, VA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #256
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jun 87 06:20:52 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05007; Wed, 17 Jun 87 03:18:03 PDT
	id AA05007; Wed, 17 Jun 87 03:18:03 PDT
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 03:18:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706171018.AA05007@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #257

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 257

Today's Topics:
		       private space activities
			 SPACE Digest V7 #250
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #250
			    Re: PowerSats
	   SSPS in resonant polar orbit to a space station
	    Not any NASA staff/funds for non-STS projects?
	 Re: Space Academy Level II for Adults (theoretical)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 18:08:04 EDT
From: Hank Walker <dmw@gauss.ece.cmu.edu>
Subject: private space activities


Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu> writes:

    Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If
    not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM,
    Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit)
    with Rockwell?

One business principle that has been proven time and again is "stick to the
knitting."  Companies that tried to branch out into something they knew
absolutely nothing about, like Exxon into electronics, lost big money.  I
think almost all private space activity will come from established aerospace
companies and startups, not some other big company moving into a new area.
Note that this does not mean that big companies won't get into space
activities, but that they will stick to activities that they understand,
such as 3M investigating zero-g coating and bonding.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1987  01:23 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #250

One of our correspondents said:

<<There used to be a time when scientists thought FTS travel was
impossible within the Earth's atmosphere.  If scientists blindly
accept everything that was once mathmatically proven our technological
age will come to an end.  Remember, when we express something
mathmatically, we are actually expressing a model of reality.  All
models have their limitations.>>

Surely no thoughtful scientist ever said FTS travel was impossible,
since bullets, etc., routinely go faster than sound.  Perhaps
eningeers said that human FTS travel would be impractical, expensive,
and dangerous.  It is true that all imperfect models have limitations,
and the Einstein limit could turn out wrong.  But such basic changes
in our conceptions of physics do not happen so often.  Changes like
that have occurred perhaps only 4 or five times in 2000 years, e.g.,
with Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Shrodinger.  Contemporary theories
of fundamental physics could someday be revised, but we shouldn't hold
our breath till then.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 87 18:18:22 GMT
From: dayton!mmm!cipher@rutgers.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #250

In article <MINSKY.12309554658.BABYL@MIT-OZ> MINSKY@OZ.AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>... basic changes in our conceptions of physics...
>that have occurred perhaps only 4 or five times in 2000 years, e.g.,
>with Newton, Maxwell, Einstein, and Shrodinger.  Contemporary theories
>of fundamental physics could someday be revised, but we shouldn't hold
>our breath till then.

That's not really fair.  We haven't been studying physics for 2000
years.  In the 300 years or so since the beginning of physics as a
science, there have been no less than four major overhauls.  Three of
those you mention are within the last 150 years.  I'd say we're about
due for some fundamental changes.

That's not to say that any future theories will permit FTL travel or
whatever was the point of the original article.  It seems unlikely.
We'll see.

Andre Guirard

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 87 03:12:50 GMT
From: lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@mordor.s1.gov  (Peter DaSilva)
Subject: Re: PowerSats

> >  The existing power grid, you may recall, is AC.  How did you get to 
> >  AC, specifically sine-wave AC?  The commercial power 'inverters'
> 
> A couple of things.  First is a low tech fix.  Motorgenerators.  Yup,
> they still work.  About 85% effecient if you do a good job.  So the 

Not only do they work, but they're in use. There are tarrifs on interstate
transfer of AC, so power companies use short-haul high-voltage DC lines
at state borders. The term for this practice is "wheeling". Yet another
example of your government in action.

	-- Peter da Silva @ Ferranti International Controls.

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 11 Jun 87 13:25:55 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      SSPS in resonant polar orbit to a space station

    The idea of putting a power-satellite into a sun-synchronous orbit
resonant with the space station grabbed hold of me and wouldn't let go
until I did the calculations.  Turns out that the worst problem is the
power station being able to "See" the space station when the space
station is 180 degrees past conjunction.  This constraint makes the
minimum orbit 0.5 Earth radii above the surface, so it won't work for
the NASA space station.  0.5 radii is also just about right at the max
proton flux of the (inner) radiation belt, too....
    Oh, well.
    A complete explication follows.

SSPS IN SUN-SYNCHRONOUS ORBIT RESONANT WITH A SPACE STATION

    Space stations will require a level of power considerably higher
than any previous manned or unmanned satellites.  The proposed NASA
space station, for example, will have an initial electrical power
capacity of 75 kW, and a "growth" power capability of 300 kW.  Solar
power has two significant disadvantages:
   (1) A low-orbit station is in the shadow of the earth for a
significant fraction of its orbit (35 minutes of each 90 minute orbit
for the NASA design), and for this time the station must run on storage
batteries;
   (2) Solar panels are large, and therefore drag on the panels due to
atmosphere in low orbit will be a major contributor to the orbital
decay.
      These problems can be eliminated if the solar generator is
physically separated from the manned space station, and power is
transmitted to the station by a microwave beam.  Since the power station
need not be in a low orbit, it can be placed high enough that drag is
not a significant factor.  In general, the line of sight between objects
in different orbits will be blocked ("eclipsed") by the earth for some
fraction of the orbit. However, for resonant orbits where the ratio of
orbital periods s:p is a ratio of odd integers, and the orbital planes
are nearly perpendicular, orbits can be chosen such that the line of
sight is never blocked if the lower orbit is chosen to have an altitude
greater than a calculatable minimum.
      This proposal is essentially the same as the satellite solar power
system ("SSPS") concept for terrestrial power proposed by Glaser, but on
a much smaller scale, hundreds of kilowatts rather than on the order of
5 gigawatts.
     Typical SSPS power densities proposed are on the order of sunlight
intensities, however, there is a considerable advantage to converting
power from a focussed microwave beam rather than directly from sunlight:
       (1) Conversion efficiency is higher: 87% conversion efficiency
has been demonstrated, and over 90% is expected to be feasable;
       (2) A microwave collector consists of an array of dipole antennas
spaced at distances comparable to a wavelength, on the order of 1 cm.
Since such a structure is mostly open, the drag is considerably
lessened.

      Antenna size: the maximum distance between transmitter and
receiver is on the order of 20000 km.  Diffraction-limited beam spread
is w=d lambda/A, where d is the transmission distance, lambda the
wavelength and A the transmitter aperture. Clearly, the shorter the
transmission wavelength, the smaller the transmission and reception
antennas can be.  The minimum total area is spanned when transmitter and
receiver antennas are on the order of 150 m for transmission at
millimeter wavelengths, on the order of 500 m at centimeter wavelengths.
Higher power densities at the receiver will allow a smaller receiving
antenna, and thus reduced drag, at a cost of a larger transmission
antenna.  If we increase the assumed power density to 1 kW/m2 at the
receiver, a 400 kW system will require a beam width of w less than 20 m
and thus a transmitting antenna of size A greater than 1 km for
millimeter-scale wavelengths, or 10 km for centimeter waves.  Although
this is a large structure by current standards, the transmitting antenna
may be little more than a thin mirror of aluminized plastic.
      The antennas will have to be precisely pointed. This is not a
major problem, since we expect the system would use electronic steering
[5] with closed-loop feedback.
      If the receiving antenna is attached to the station, the crew of
the station, and all electronics will be exposed to microwaves from the
beam fringes.  However, the receiving antenna could be separated from
the space station by several hundred meters to reduce the microwave
intensity. Power transmission from the primary receiving antenna to the
space station could be either by cable or by a secondary microwave link,
which could be highly collimated and use very small antennas, since it
only has to transmit hundreds (or even thousands) of meters instead of
thousands of kilometers.
      To provide full-time power with only one power station, the power
station must be in line of sight of the space station at all times. To
do this, we put the power station into an orbit inclined 90 degrees to
the orbital plane of the space station, and in a 1:3 resonance (ie., the
space station orbits three times in the time it takes the power station
to orbit once). When the power station is over the pole, it can "see"
the space station no matter where it is in its orbit, as long as the
space station orbit is higher than a given minimum.  When the power
station orbit returns to the space station's orbital plane, because of
the resonance condition, they are again on the same side of the earth.
      Many other resonances also work.  The ratio of orbital periods
must be odd integers, since if the periods are in the ratio of an even
integer to an odd integer, the two satellites will be on exactly
opposite sides of the Earth half a synodic period after conjunction.
The 1:3 resonance allows the lowest space station orbit.

Orbital distance for the power station can be calculated by Kepler's
law, r**3/T**2=constant.  A period three times that of the space station
requires rp/rs= 3**{2/3}, or an orbit 2.08 times the space station's (r
here is altitude from Earth's center, subscript p for power station, s
for space station).  The minimum space station altitude comes from the
requirement that when the space station makes its first pass behind the
Earth after conjunction, the power station must be high enough above the
orbital plane that the Earth does not block the line of sight.  For the
1:3 orbit, the power station has risen pi/3 radians, or 60 degrees.
(The actual worst case comes slightly before this, at a power station
elevation of 52 degrees, but the result is nearly identical.) From the
geometry, at the minimum space station altitude the beam is tangent to
the Earth and the minimum altitude rs (expressed as a multiple of
Earth's radius) is: $$r_s=\sqrt{{({{r_s}\over{{r_p} sin \alpha}}+cot \
\alpha})|2+1} $$ where $\alpha$=60 degrees and $r_p/r_s$=2.08 for the
1:3 resonance.  This comes out to be 1.5 Earth radii, or an altitude of
0.5 radii (about 3000 km) above the surface.  Refraction in the
atmosphere will bend the microwave beam, allowing slightly more leeway.
This is considerably higher than the proposed NASA space station, which
orbits at 330-460 km.
     For the 1:5 resonance, the power station orbits 2.92 times as far
as the space station, and the minimum space station orbit is at rs
=2.2 Earth radii.
      There remains the problem of power loss when the power station
enters the Earth's shadow.  This problem can be eliminated by placing
power station into a "sun-synchronous" orbit, where it is never be
eclipsed by the earth.  Unlike geosynchronous orbit, sun-synchronous
orbits are possible at a range of altitudes.  Sun synchronous orbits are
close enough to polar for the orbital planes to be effectively
perpendicular to a space station in a low-inclination orbit.
      Also note that the advantage of such a non-eclipsing orbit over
the geosynchronous orbit commonly proposed for satellite solar power
stations may be sufficient to override the advantage of having the power
station at a fixed location in the sky.
  This design is not practical for currently proposed NASA space
station, which is in an orbit too low to allow continuous line-of sight
to the power station, but may be useful for future space stations, or
for powering other satellites such as communications satellites.  For
geosynchronous satellites, the altitude is large enough that minimum
altitude is not a problem, and a 3:1 orbit (or, more generally, a N:1
orbit) as well as the discussed 1:3 orbit could be used.

 REFERENCES

      [1] W.E. Simon and D.L. Nored, Manned Spacecraft Electrical Power
Systems, Proc. IEEE 75, 277-307 (1987).
      [2] P.E. Glaser, Power from the Sun: Its Future,
Science 162,  857-861 (1968).
      [3] J.F. Cassidy  et. al.,  Space Power Development Impact on
Technical Requirements, Acta Astronautica 16, 323-333 (1987).
      [4] W.C. Brown, Technology and Application of Free-Space Power
Transmission by Microwave Beam, Proc. IEEE 62, 11-25 (1974).
      [5] E. Brookner, Phased-Array Radars, Scientific American
252, 94-102 (1985).


--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 87 13:16:42
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 11 13:16:42 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 11 13:17:08 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Cc: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Not any NASA staff/funds for non-STS projects?

<U> Date: 3 Jun 87 03:17:11 GMT
<U> From: nbires!isis!scicom!uucp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (UUCP Admin)
<U> Subject: Next Shuttle Flight

<U> 	NASA Administrator Dr. James C. Fletcher announced June 1988 as the
<U> new target date for the next Space Shuttle launch.

(Yeah. I heard it on news or read in newspaper too. I wonder if this
date will slip like other dates have slipped in the past?)

<U> 	Current plans are for two additional flights in 1988 and seven
<U> flights in 1989.

When will we have routine access to space, like 12 or more flights per
year, like two craft in flight readiness at all times so that if we
have an emergency we can launch one or the other depending on local
weather at two launch sites? It looks like at least 1990 before we are
even considering having the STS fully operational again, sigh. If the
first flight is successful, any chance of rapid setup for second? If
second is also successful, any chance of speeding up the recovery of
operational capability?

<U> 	In establishing the target for launch, Dr. Fletcher stated,
<U> "Safety returning the Space Shuttle to flight is NASA's highest
<U> priority.

Just like avoiding thermonuclear war is the world's highest priority,
but there are other things to do too, you can't spend 100% of your
manpower on your #1 priority. See below.

<U> I know I can count on the whole NASA team -- and, of course, I include
<U> our contractor partners -- to move out enthusiastically toward this
<U> new goal."

<If you haven't noticed, I'm in Henry-Spencer-editorial mode.>
Shit. Does the whole damn NASA team have to be dedicated to this one
task? Wouldn't half of NASA on this one project and the rest on other
projects be better? I remember the late 70's when the planetary
program was ignored for years while nearly everyone worked on getting STS
working. STS would be operational in 1979 and Galileo would be
orbiting Jupiter in 1985. But STS slipped to first-launch in 1981 and
Galileo is still "mothballed" in 1987 as STS awaits first launch after
repair in 1988 and operational status sometime after 1990, and the
planetary program is stopped completely while everyone (unless the
NASA message is misworded) works on STS. Effort on STS really did
drain money and manpower away from everything else in the period
around 1980, and it's doing the same again, and I'm feeling like I did
around 1980 except I'm more upset now (and more able to express my
upsetness now that SPACE-Enthusiasts exists, which didn't in 1979-80).

If the whole NASA team is just barely enough to do the STS fixup and
checkout, does that mean NASA is underfunded, and we should pressure
Congress to provide enough money so that at least as much effort is
spent on all other projects combined as is spent on STS? Or is NASA
grossly inefficient, i.e. they have plenty of money and plenty of
staff but don't have the ability to get the job done properly? Or is
the above NASA statement just a bunch of BS/PR that I should not take
literally?

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 87 13:12:50 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Re: Space Academy Level II for Adults (theoretical)

In article <464@atux01.UUCP> jlc@atux01.UUCP (J. Collymore) writes:
>After having been at the the Adult Space Academy last year I think that
>it would be a GREAT idea to extend the 3-dayer to a 7-dayer, but NOT a
>10-dayer.  "WHY?" (You ask.)

>First of all, many of us can easily take off 3 or 4 days (i.e. extended
>weekend), or a full week from our work assignments, families and
>spouses.  However, most of us would find it difficult to schedule a
>WEEK and a HALF off!

I agree, and maybe down the road, the extended aduly program should be 7
days (actually you could get 9 in with 2 weekends, but that would
possibly lead to camp overload).  Right now, there IS a 10 day program
for 11th,12th and 13th :-) graders, and the first extended adult
sessions would be set aside out of those programs.

>Next, I think a one-shot 10-day program would be more difficult to
>schedule for the Space Camp people (and less profitable) than having
>SEVERAL ONE WEEK sessions.  Such one week sessions would be easier to
>fit into their calendar (I would think), and be attractive to more
>adults.  So saying, this would meet their needs of making workable
>schedules, and the possibility of getting more adults to sign up as
>opposed to a 10-day program (and that's the BOTTOM LINE!).

Like I said above, the 10 day program exists, and the first adult
session would be one (or more if there's interest) set aside from those.
It would be an experiment, just as the first 3 day adult sessions were
experiments.

>As an alternative, I propose that Space Academy try the following as an
>optimal solution:

>In terms of scheduling, days for the staff to rest and recharge, time
>to fix up the place for the next session, Space Academy should
>institute a mixture of one 7-day session, followed by a traditional
>3-day session.  This should appeal to their staff/counselors, their
>needs for scheduling, and attract more adults: those that can afford
>(in time and money) the 7-day session, and those that can only afford
>the 3-day session.

>So to summarize, I am all in favor of a longer adult Space Camp
>session, but I think it should be 7-days, and offered separately from
>the original 3-day program.

I was never suggesting the 3 day program go away.  Indeed, I agree that taking
off only a week of work is preferable to the week + 2 days.  The thing right
now is to push for a longer camp, and let the details be worked out later.
I don't know if there are any reasons 10 days was set as the length, but
you could certainly find out.  And Deb Barnhart has always been open to
suggestions in the past.

Rich Kolker

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #257
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jun 87 06:21:30 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09044; Thu, 18 Jun 87 03:17:44 PDT
	id AA09044; Thu, 18 Jun 87 03:17:44 PDT
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 87 03:17:44 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706181017.AA09044@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #258

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 258

Today's Topics:
			 Reason Found. Paper
	     Evidence for Superconductivity at 360 Kelvin
		       Good News for activists
			    GOES West OTL?
			 SPACE Digest V7 #251
Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?
    Von Neuman Machines (was re: Goedel & self replicating robots)
			  wriglys in space!
		  The limitations of mathematicians
		Re: The limitations of mathematicians
		Re: The limitations of mathematicians
			Re: What to do on Mars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 16 Jun 87 09:42:37 EDT
From: weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Reason Found. Paper
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #253


	That summary looked good, and just about summarized the
feeling I think a lot of people have displayed on this net as well.
But again I ask the question: "Aside from us, who saw that?  Were they
influenced at all?"  

						-Chris

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 09:32:53 PDT
From: ota@galileo.s1.gov
To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net
Cc: physics@unix.sri.com, space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Evidence for Superconductivity at 360 Kelvin

I attended a lecture given by Edward Teller at LLNL on Thursday June
11th wherein he exponded some of his views of the new superconduction.
A considerable amount of the discussion was over my head but he did
mention the Isotopic experiment mentioned in the WJS article.  He
claimed to be suspicious of the experimental procedure used to replace
the O-16 with O-18 in particular the resulting isotopic abundance was
not actually measured nor was the resulting oxygen deficit from the
stoichiometric ratio.  This experiment was reported in the June 1 (I
think) Phys. Rev. Letters.

Anyway without claiming to understand what is really going on Teller did
support a variant on the BCS theory at the most likely explaination.
The highest Tc he reported was 145K.

	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 1987 17:14-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Good News for activists

The L5 and NSI membership databases have been combined and the good
news is that we are 17000 strong now, AND GROWING!!! This is about 1000
larger than our most optimistic estimates.

A fund raiser will be going out very soon, and I request that all our
members out there consider making substantial donations. We have just
completed the move from Tucson and the move into our new townhouse on
Pennsylvania Ave: all of this cost a considerable amount.

I will be attending the NSS congressional reception in two weeks and
I'll let you know if I pick up any interesting scuttlebut from the
Congressional committee people.

Incidentally, I've heard the Ride report has been pushed back to August.
Dr. Ride will leave NASA as soon as she finishes it.

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 87 06:26:19 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA  (MacLeod)
Subject: GOES West OTL?

For the last few weeks the images I've seen on weather reports for 
the West Coast of the US have been what looked like slanted, enlarged
GOES-East views, rather than the Hawaii-to-Denver panorama that GOES-West
usually gives.  What's happening? Is GOES-West out to lunch?  For that
matter, what will happen to our weather satellite program if we can't
get replacements up there? (I'm afraid that I can answer the latter for 
myself...)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 11 Jun 1987  22:48 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #251


I suppose this isn't the forum for long discussions about Godel's
theorems, but I was about to comment on it when I read REM's remarks -
which were better and more to the point than what I was about to say,
namely that there is no theoretical problem about a machine's
understanding its own operating principles, provided that the
description is at some higher level of summary.  What machines can't
do is predict precisely which problems they can ultimately solve in
the indefinite future.  But as REM points out, we all live with such
limitations.

Curiously enough, though, we should not scold DW for not appreciating
this, since I don't think that Godel himself really did.  The last
time I met Godel (having lunch at Princeton), he maintained with
seemingly perfect faith that those limitations applied only to
machines but not to people.  He seemed to believe that a person can
have some other, noncompotational way to recognize mathematical truth
directly.  "Nonsense," I thought to myself, but I found myself
(uncharacteristically) uncomfortable at challenging him about this.
My problem was that I couldn't recall ever hearing of him announcing a
theorem that turned out later to be false.  My explanation, though, is
not that he could decide the undecidable, but that he merely had a
very good higher level understanding of his own capabilities, and was
thus able to steer away from areas in which those abilities were
unreliable.

In any case, as I remarked in section 15.10 of "The Society of Mind",
it seems likely that our human ability to uderstand how our own minds
work may be handicapped by some minor architectural limitations that
happened to evolve in our brains - namely, an acute shortage of
certain kinds of temporary memory.  Accordingly, I argued that when we
design the AI machines of the future, we'll probably find it easy to
give them more self-insight than we have ourselves.  Eventually, in
other words, our machines will be more conscious than we are.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Jun 87 05:41:28 GMT
From: pt!unh.cs.cmu.edu!agn@cs.rochester.edu  (Andreas Nowatzyk)
Subject: Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?

Goedel's theorem, aka the halting problem of Turing machines, etc...
has little bearing on the problem at hand: You don't need to prove
*completness* of a non-trivial logic system or to decide for any
TM if it halts in order to prove that it *is* *possible* for a system
to produce an identical copy of itself.

Von Neumann did this a long time ago: The model-world is a 2D array of
identical finite state machines that are nearest neighbor connected.
Each of these cells is rather simple: originally it had 27 states,
later versions of this world used 4 state cells. A 2 state-cell (similar
or equal to the Game of Life) might do, but such a proof seems rather
difficult. Anyway, given this world of simple cells (aka atoms), V.N.
constructed a configuration of cells (= a program, a DNA-string, ...)
that will produce a identical copy of itself in the area next to it.

Not quite the same thing, but similar in spirit are programs that
can print their own source.

   --  Andreas

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 87 06:27:50 GMT
From: zen!cory.Berkeley.EDU!iverson@cad.berkeley.edu  (Tim Iverson)
Subject: Von Neuman Machines (was re: Goedel & self replicating robots)

I think y'all are missing the point here.  First, you're thinking
of robots with a 1960's mindset - flashing lights, whirring servos,
and a mechanical voice that shouts, "Danger! Will Robinson, Danger!".

A robot is merely something designed to fulfill a specific task; in
this case, it goes somewhere and builds a *functionally equivalent*
replica of itself (i.e. the replica must be able to fulfill the
same task).

Now, to me this sounds alot like any given animal on the face of the
earth - be they ants, amoebas, or humans, they all reproduce in kind.
Using the advanced bioengineering techniques of 300 years from now :-),
it shouldn't be too hard to design an organism to do whatever you like
as far as purpose & self-replication go.

In fact, if you want to limit yourselves to current day technology,
you could just nab a few handy humans and 'condition' them to your
task.  This might be frowned upon by local governments, so I suggest
that you be circumspect in your experimentation, but it is definitely
possible.  You might even say that people are just God's own Von
Neuman machines!


- Tim Iverson
  iverson@cory.Berkeley.EDU
  ucbvax!cory!iverson

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jun 87 04:01:16 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcrl!tekfdi!donp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Don Primrose)
Subject: wriglys in space!


A magazine (I don't know which) recently reported an interesting fact.
In the US, we spend more on chewing gum then we do on unmanned exploration.

Sounds about right!

Don Primrose

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jun 87 19:21:59 GMT
From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: The limitations of mathematicians


	Minksy relates one of his conversations with Goedel in which
Goedel felt that humans were not subject to the same limitations as
a machine would be re the incompleteness theorems.  The issue is a bit
more subtle than it appears at first sight.  Given a particular machine,
with a particular program, we know that there is knowledge that is 
inaccessible to it.  Given a good enough program it can deduce this
for itself.  It can even extend the domain of knowledge accessible to
it by altering its program.  E.g. it might have a formal representation
of itself and a subsystem which derives true but unprovable statements
and then amends the system to include them.  Ultimately, however, the
machine is up against the essential incompleteness of arithmetic.  (In
the case of self extending subsystem the limitation derives from the 
fact that the Goedel extension subsystem is a specific one.)

	Now consider the possibility that we have a number of such
machines, each with its own extension subsystem, each 'randomly'
created.  Then, although each machine has its own particular limitations,
one machine can 'see' things that another cannot.  If the 'self viewing'
components of the machines were deterministically created according to
some grand pattern, then the collection as a whole would have a
characteristic determined incompleteness.  Given that the extension
subsystems are randomly created, the collection does not have a predefined
incompleteness.

	Thus we might well argue that humans, who constitute a collection
of machines of this sort, are not subject to the same limitations that
any particular single deterministically defined machine is, no matter
how cleverly it is constructed.

	To tie this into sci.space, suppose that intelligent biological
species all invent artificial intelligence, and that the resulting AI
system takes over, in the general sense that it becomes the dominant
intelligence of the solar system.  (I am inclined to believe that some
such scenario is inevitable.)  Suppose further that these AI systems
can communicate with each other over interstellar space.  Then each offers
the others a different viewpoint, a different basis for intelligence
that extends the capabilities of the Galactic AI culture as a whole.
And what is the reaction of the Galactic AI culture to an inscipient
developing biological intelligence?   The reaction is to wait for it
develop a new AI system to be a new member of the community.  And that
explains the Fermi silence -- we are just precursors.
-- 

Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 87 11:39:05 GMT
From: ubc-vision!alberta!bjorn@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Bjorn R. Bjornsson)
Subject: Re: The limitations of mathematicians

In article <16698@cca.CCA.COM>, g-rh@cca.CCA.COM (Richard Harter) writes:
>	Now consider the possibility that we have a number of such
>machines, each with its own extension subsystem, each 'randomly'
>created.  Then, although each machine has its own particular limitations,
>one machine can 'see' things that another cannot.

This is defensible.  Some of the people that argue against the
possibility of artificial intelligence talk about the fact that you can
always stand outside the machine and "Goedelize".  Ever overlooking the
possibility of the machine "Goedelizing" them at the same time.

>If the 'self viewing' components of the machines were deterministically
>created according to some grand pattern, then the collection as a whole
>would have a characteristic determined incompleteness.  Given that the
>extension subsystems are randomly created, the collection does not have
>a predefined incompleteness.

This is not true.  Goedel gives a foolproof method for finding the
offending constructs.  This is known as Goedelization.  The
incompleteness that shows up using Goedels theorem is fixed at system
definition time.  It doesn't matter whether you know the system or not.
The incompleteness(es) is(are) there, you may not find it(them) unless
you have the system definition in hand, but it's there all the same.  By
the same token, the more complex the system the harder it is to
Goedelize.

>Thus we might well argue that humans, who constitute a collection of
>machines of this sort, are not subject to the same limitations that any
>particular single deterministically defined machine is, no matter how
>cleverly it is constructed.

I'll say nought but point at my remarks above and add:

 we are in extremely hot water here.

			Bjorn R. Bjornsson
			{ubc-vision,ihnp4,mnetor}!alberta!bjorn

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jun 87 16:52:11 GMT
From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: The limitations of mathematicians

>This is not true.  Goedel gives a foolproof method for finding the
>offending constructs.  This is known as Goedelization.  The
>incompleteness that shows up using Goedels theorem is fixed at system
>definition time.  It doesn't matter whether you know the system or not.
>The incompleteness(es) is(are) there, you may not find it(them) unless
>you have the system definition in hand, but it's there all the same.
>By the same token, the more complex the system the harder it is to
>Goedelize.

	Technically true, but you are missing the point.  There is no
system definition time, per se, since the collection is being extended
over time in a random way.  At any point in time the collective system
constitutes a formalizable system, and, as such, is incomplete.  This
remains true at all times.  However, given a collective system, if we
add a new component system with a Godelization extender which was
created randomly, then there is some probability that the addition has
removed some of the incompleteness.  [Is that clear?  I thought not.]

	Let's try again.  Suppose I start with a formal system S, and a
procedure for generating a Goedel extension to S (i.e. the procedure
determines a true but unprovable statement for S.)  Call the procedure
P.  Then we can generate a sequence of formal systems, S1=S+P, S2=S1+P,
...  Let S* be the closure of systems S,S1,S2,...  Is S* complete?  No,
because the entire process for generating S* is recursive, i.e. it can
be specified effectively, and we can derive a true and unprovable
statement for S*.  Similarly, we could start with S* and generate a
series of formal systems from it, but the same problem arises.

	Now, suppose that we start with a different procedure P1 for
generating Goedel extensions.  We get a different sequence of formal
systems.  We can join the two machines and get a composite machine which
is still incomplete, which is stronger than either of the two component
machines.

	Suppose further that we have some procedure for generating such
machines ad infinitum that is effectively computable.  Then we are still
caught -- the procedure for generating machines is an algorithm which
recursively specifies a formal system, and Goedel strikes again.

	So far, so good.  Now suppose that we have some procedure which
RANDOMLY generates such machines.  Then the Goedel procedure does not
work for the sequence of machines because there is no predefined system
definition time.  I.e. I start with machine M0 and then add M1 and so
on.  For machine M0 we can apply the Goedel procedure.  For machines M0
and M1 considered together we can do the same.  What we cannot do is
determine in advance what the limits of M2 are.  There is no algorithm
for constructing the sequence of machines, M0, M1, ... and accordingly
the sequence cannot be treated using the Goedel procedure.  I.e.
although each finite subsequence is incomplete, Goedel's incompleteness
theorem does not follow for the sequence as a whole.

	Is this clear?

	Actually the situation is a bit more difficult than I have
presented it.  There are two questions that occur to me.  The first is
whether the Goedel process exhausts the incompleteness of arithmetic.
The Goedel process is an effective algorithm which can applied,
effectively, via transfinite induction, effectively, up to the the first
non-effective ordinal.  Is the system given by the closure of the
sequence of systems so generated complete?  I haven't the vaguest idea.
The second is whether the Goedel extender subsystem can, in fact, be
specified randomly.  Here, I think the answer is negative.  We can
specify a machine size so large that it cannnot be realized in the
physical universe.  Correspondingly we can specify a finite limit to the
possible machines.  This leads to some collateral issues which I will
defer discussing for the moment.

Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 87 15:03:20 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Subject: Re: What to do on Mars

In article <952@vaxb.calgary.UUCP> west@calgary.UUCP (Darrin West) writes:
>In article <1341@mmm.UUCP>, cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>> .. perhaps we could at least ship a small payload there: a number of
>> robots capable of reproducing themselves.  These would be directed in
>                    ^^^^^^^^^^^
>Didn't Goedel prove that a self comprehending system was impossible?

Perhaps.  However, this is beside the point, since reproduction does not
require self-comprehension.  Single-celled bacteria reproduce themselves
by division, so if theory predicts this is impossible there is something
wrong with the theory.

Practically, I expect the procedure would be: build hardware using plans
stored in memory, turn on, then do a memory dump to the new unit.

Andre Guirard

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #258
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jun 87 06:20:35 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11979; Fri, 19 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT
	id AA11979; Fri, 19 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT
Date: Fri, 19 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706191017.AA11979@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #259

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 259

Today's Topics:
  How to change or circumvent anti-trust laws to build STS orbiter?
		     Re: Privately built shuttle
		    space news from April 27 AW&ST
			      Re: Goedel
	Self-reproducing machines (Re: Simulation eating mips)
			Re: Dale Skran posting
       Re: 98% self-replicating robots, testbed on Earth needed
		   Nuclear-powered aircraft - photo
			 Paris Air Show 1987
		       Re: Von Neuman Machines
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 18:25:45
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 17 18:25:45 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 17 18:28:55 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: How to change or circumvent anti-trust laws to build STS orbiter?

<LE> Date: 12 Jun 87 23:55:35 GMT
<LE> From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leonard 
Erickson)
<LE> Subject: Privately built shuttle

>Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If
>not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM,
>Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit) with
>Rockwell?

<LE> Sorry, but this would almost certainly be illegal! Any such large group
<LE> would have to have an agreement on how to split the costs. According to
<LE> our wonderful Anti-trust laws, this is considered to be the same as an
<LE> agreement on how to split profits. Thus, they would be open to an
<LE> anti-trust suit (wanna bet that NASA wouldn't do it?) <sigh>

Let's get Congress to make exceptions to the anti-trust laws to handle
space and any other areas where risk is too great for any single
company. We'll have to be careful not to make the exception so general
as to invalidate the still-useful part of anti-trust laws.

What about the other companies merely buying lots of Rockwell stock,
without any formal agreement? Would that be legal even now? Rockwell
could announce a big project and issue lots of new stock to cover its
capital needs, and any company that wanted to share the risk and
profit could buy the stock. Of course existing stockholders would also
share risk, but if the new stock issue were sufficiently large the
existing stockholders would share only a small portion of the new
risk. I think existing law says any company can buy up to 20% of
another company's stock without any special permission, so four
companies could buy 20% each leaving 20% for the original investors.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 87 14:16:05 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle

In article <8706111919.AA00948@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? If
>not, maybe a consortium of really large companies (ITT, Exxon, IBM,
>Western Union, Xerox, ...) could share risk (and potential profit) with
>Rockwell?

The feds, DOD and NASA, tend to own the tooling used to build things
like missiles, aircraft, and maybe even space shuttles. The Navy likes
to own the whole manufacturing plant, look around at the NIROP plants
all over the country.

I don't know this for a fact, but my guess is that Rockwell doesn't own
the tooling for the space shuttle. If you were Rockwell would you put up
the money for the tooling to build 4 items for ONE customer? If anyone
out there knows for sure please post the information.

Rockwell can't use what it doesn't own. Of course congress/NASA might
let them build their own shuttle.

I've read that one of the hold ups on the Boeing Jarvis booster project
is that they want to use tooling, owned by NASA, for building shuttle
external tanks.  Last I heard, and this is several months old, NASA was
dragging its feet.  Having to replicate the tooling, at Boeings cost,
might just kill Jarvis. If it isn't already dead.

Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 87 20:45:36 GMT
From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@ames.arpa  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from April 27 AW&ST

Well, DoD seems to have backed down over the space station, presumably
because it didn't think it could win a head-to-head confrontation in front
of Reagan.  The international partners are taking a wait-and-see attitude,
since the real issues have mostly been deferred rather than resolved.

France is starting to push for an independent ESA space station, while
Germany and Italy are pushing for resolution of the current problems with
the NASA/international station.  France thinks more effort should go into
the Columbus man-tended free-flier, to be serviced by Hermes.  There may
be an ulterior motive here:  the recent redesign of Hermes makes it less
suitable for general payload carrying, as opposed to the specialized job
of station servicing.  ESA's long-term planning is in chaos right now, but
the mess in Washington certainly isn't helping.  "For the French, I don't
think ... Weinberger's letter could have come at a more opportune time
than if they had planned it themselves.  It played right into the hands
of those who have been saying the time is ripe to go it alone..."

NASA rejects OSC's offer of private startup funding for a Titan 3 to launch
Mars Observer in 1990, on the grounds that NASA has no authority to commit
funds out of a future budget year.

House slams NASA for not moving more quickly on competitive SRB procurement.

DARPA is recalling the original Aerospace Plane models, because their paint
job -- similar to Air Force One -- has caused confusion over the nature of
the program!!

Details of the work being done on the Aerospace Plane project.

16 Soviet spacecraft launched since early March, including an imaging spysat
(launched five weeks after a major failure of a similar satellite) and a
Clarke-orbit comsat (launched by a Proton six weeks after a Proton failure).
[Can you say "fast recovery"?  Can you say "real space program"?  Sure you
can.  Or at least, the Soviets can.  -- HS]

American Rocket Co. successfully tests thrust vectoring on its hybrid rocket
motor design.  Earlier nozzle problems appear to have been solved.

Details of a curious nozzle concept known as the "integrated stage" idea,
getting attention from the USAF because it now looks feasible.  Major use
is in volume-constrained applications like submarine-launched missiles,
but it might improve the performance of shuttle upper stages.

FBI is investigating charges of fraud against Morton Thiokol in connection
with its SRB contracts.  Roger Boisjoly, ex-MT engineer, has filed several
civil suits alleging improper behavior on MT's part.  MT denies everything,
and is still nicely profitable despite 51L.

Aeronautical Radio Inc (Arinc) files request with FCC to deploy global
aviation communications system using six Clarke-orbit satellites.  The
system would provide voice and data communications between flight crews
and air traffic control, automatic data transmissions from on-board
navigation systems to air traffic control, and voice and data communications
for passengers en route.  Arinc hopes that that last item will eventually
cover most of the operating costs.  The six satellites will cover the
whole world below about 75 degrees latitude with 100% redundancy in case
of satellite failure; there will also be an on-orbit spare.  The battle
between Arinc and Inmarsat over who is to provide an avsat system is
heating up; the Soviet Union has now backed Inmarsat, a surprise because
the Soviets appeared to be ready to propose their own system.
-- 
"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1987 20:19-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Goedel

Darrin West:

	I'd suggest reading "Engines of Creation" by K. Eric Drexler.
He discusses the technology of self-replicating machines that replicate
from atoms.

The projected technology is based on current trends in Biotechnology
and computer science and is 30-50 years away.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 17:53:19 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Self-reproducing machines (Re: Simulation eating mips)
Newsgroups: comp.arch

For those of you on the ARPAnet side, there is an ongoing discussion
about self-reproducing machines in the USENET group which disucsses
computer architecture.  I think Dick could present a case that
we have just reached such a system.  Not self-contained yet, perhaps,
but something to think about.

--eugene miya

>> Enuff on how graphics will chew MIPS. It will, but not like SIMULATION !
>
>If you don't get too serious about it, the philosophical implications are
>striking...
>
>At the point that we are using our fastest computers to design new
>computers, we have reached the point that the computers are self-repro-
>ducing--in fact, self-evolving.  We exist in some bizarre symbiotic
>relationship with them, but it's the computers that are reproducing now
>with our help.  And, of course, adding AI to the CAD work and robotics to
>the assembly process only carries it further!  Too trite for good sci-fi
>material, but reality is sometimes like that.
>-- 
>Dick Dunn    {hao,nbires,cbosgd}!ico!rcd  (NOT CSNET!)   (303)449-2870
>   ...I'm not cynical - just experienced.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 87 20:02:06 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Dale Skran posting

> We've gone beyond shooting ourselves in the foot. Nowadays we're so
> advanced we only go for head shots.
> 
> What are citizenship requirements like in Canada, Henry? Maybe some of
> us should try to escape before our brains require export licenses.

Unfortunately, the Canadian government is convinced that if the US
shoots itself in the head, that must be the right thing to do.  Don't
expect a major improvement.

(Also, Canadian immigration is a hassle nowadays.  Even having an
employer who wants you badly isn't necessarily enough.)

   Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 87 20:30:25 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: 98% self-replicating robots, testbed on Earth needed

> ...trying to achieve the 1:50 ratio for transport:robotmass that HS says
> is "easy".

Well, "easy" may have been a poor choice of words, and I'm not prepared
to defend the exact number, and I'm not sure the numbers I mentioned
will translate into mass: they could just as easily translate into
assembly effort, in which case remote control won't suffice for that
last 2%.  The idea of trying to build an Earth-based prototype to
explore the issues is a good one, though.

   Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

From: shawn@acc.arpa
Date: 17 Jun 87 16:19:00 PST
Subject: Nuclear-powered aircraft - photo
Reply-To: <shawn@acc.arpa>

Its'June 17th , and I haven't cought up on my mail, so someone else may
have posted this.
	The May 1987 American Photographer magazine has a picture on
page 46 that is captioned "Engine for nuclear-powered aircraft, Lost
River Range, Idaho, 1981. Photograph by Rene' Burri." Photo credit to
Rene' Burri/MAGNUM. There is in fact a 5x7 B and W glossie of some large
piece of equipment that could pass for just about anything with
pipes/hoses/tubes routed/protruding from what is obviously a large
object. The photo is included as part of a review on Rene' Burri's new
book Ein Amerikanisher Traum (Delphi, available through ICP) (with no
indication of who ICP is). Burri is a Correspondent for MAGNUM (like UPI
but for photogs) in Europe.

Sorry, no other indications, or words to accompany the photo.

Take Care,
shawn@acc.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 87 17:08:51 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov  (tilgner)
Subject: Paris Air Show 1987

Last weekend I made a random walk at the Paris Air Show (Le Bourget).
Perhaps someone out there is interested in my observations.

According to AW&ST, April 27, 1987 issue this air show is the largest
in the history of the salon: 79,000 sq. meters (1985 data: 66,500),
438 chalets (344), more than 200 aircraft are to be shown.

Though much civil and military (sigh) aviation and weapon systems were
on display, I'll concentrate on space-related items, which are of
interest here.

Friday, June 12, was a nice day, no rain, with moderate temperatures
(about 18 centigrade). Special security measures were taken: All bags
were X-rayed, all persons were checked airport-like. Policemen were
hanging all around.

PART 01: US/USSR

The US Pavillon was *very*, VERY disappointing. It was divided in
two parts, one part for professionals, one for the general public.
As a private person, I could only see the latter. Before entering,
all security measures were repeated. Finally, we went into
a small auditorium, where NASA showed a film "Flight Path to the
Future" with horrible marketing slogans. The Challenger catastrophe
wasn't even mentioned. When leaving, we saw a videoclip with NASA
people saying "Bye", "Goodbye": somewhat strange. Or ridiculous?
I had the strong feeling that NASA even lost the contact to
the people... - No model, no photographs, nothing. Then a small
AirForce multi-slide-show. OK, forget it!

The companies in Hall 2 - as you may have read, companies like
Grumman, Hughes, Ling-Temco-Vought, Northrop, and Thompson-Ramo-
Woolridge were missing, Boeing and Lockheed reduced their
presence - were concentrating in aircraft equipment, electronics
etc. Only Lockheed had a model of reduced size of the Hubble Space
Telescope on display. Teledyne let me know that it was proud in
participating in the upcoming Space Station (responsible for
some integration work).

The USSR, however, had a *very* impressive pavillon: They had a 1:1
model of their "Soyuz TM-Mir-Kvant-Progress" complex, which is used
for training purposes normally, with a length of 34 meters. Perhaps
next time they have to expand their pavillon? It was possible to
step inside and to have a look around. One could see the cockpit,
a small cabin for a crew-member, a toilet, a douche, and - it was
said to be original - some apparatus of unknown functions. The
overall impression was that it looks quite professional, though
the technological level wasn't as high as in the US - I would guess:
mid-seventies or earlier - but obviously working. Stepping outside one
had a look into Kvant with some experiments which I could not
identify. Anyway, the whole complex was very spacious, though I
don't know how it is to live in it for some months. People were
extensively photographing this gigantic model.

In addition, there were to be seen (all 1:1 models): 

 - VEGA with a Venus lander and a balloon hanging above,
 - PHOBOS, which should be launched in 1988,
 - COSMOS 1500, a oceanographic satellite,
 - KOSPAS, a satellite for helping people in sea or air accidents,

all in all, a representative exhibition of the Soviet space activities.
OK, a poster of Gorbatchev was greeting the people when they entered
the hall, emphasizing the new policy of renovation of the Soviet
society, but the campaign against SDI were nearly notexistent in
this hall. In sum, there was more proud resting in past successes and 
less rhetoric than in previous years.

NEXT: Europe in space.

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 18 Jun 87 08:15 EST
From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Re: Von Neuman Machines

I've been reading all this talk about reproducing robots and began to
wonder, would we really want to make carbon copies of the robots we
send?  If we send 50 robots to a planet to prepare it for humans, I
would think it would be more practicle for these robots to build other
types of robots that are better equipted to build buildings, mine the
planet...  An all purpose robot that is capable of doing everything we
could desire is a long, long way off.

Ron Picard
General Motors Research Labs
Warren, Mich. 48090

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #259
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jun 87 06:20:23 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01232; Sat, 20 Jun 87 03:17:41 PDT
	id AA01232; Sat, 20 Jun 87 03:17:41 PDT
Date: Sat, 20 Jun 87 03:17:41 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706201017.AA01232@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #260

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 260

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Orbiting Solar Power
	       Solar Panels added to Soviet Mir in EVA
		     Re: spacefaring nations :-)
	 Second Soviet EVA finishes solar array construction
	     Evidence for Superconductivity at 360 Kelvin
		       High Tc Superconductors
		    Re: Breaking out of the Cradle
			Re: People and Hi G's
	    Re: Compressed gas launchers - seems unlikely.
			Re: People and Hi G's
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Jun 1987 16:03-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Orbiting Solar Power

I posted the rumors  about soviet use of Energia for powersats some
weeks ago.

Well folks, it's official and if you want the details, read page of the
Sunday 6/14/87 New York Times:

"Soviet Studies Satellites to Convert Solar Energy for Relay to Earth"

The gist is that the soviets have announced that a major purpose of the
Energia (Energy!!!) booster is to put up town sized solar cell based
power stations by early years of the next century. They have been
studying it for a number of years.

They are also seriously discussing the Solaria concept.

It's for real and it's not our side. Maybe Gary can convince them that
Solar Power Sats won't work. Of course, it might be hard to do it after
they're delivering power to their own cities and selling it to third
world countries (in small demonstration amounts suitable for cheap PR).
Meanwhile we'll be trying to pay of our debt by selling off the rest of
the country, and be using horse's and buggies because OPEC will drain
us for the remaining oil.

Technology moves very fast in our Future Shocked world, and second rate
powers can transition to world leadership in decades instead of
generations.

The United States is well on it's way to becoming a second tier power
by the early 21st century.

Why won't those idiots in congress wake up? Instead they're busy trying
to cut up the pie in different ways and seeing if they can ram through
enough protection to insure the entire western world goes into a
deep recession (which invariably follows tariff wars).

If I sound mad, it's because I'm furious...

PS: Good news: Trans time researches lowered the temperature of a dog
to 38F, totally replaced it's blood with a special preservative fluid,
held it at the lowest T for 15m, at under 50F for about 1hr, and
SUCCESSFULLY brought it back to unimpaired consciousness and full
normal doggy activity.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 16:56:26 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Solar Panels added to Soviet Mir in EVA

     The Soviet cosmonauts on board the Mir space station have started
construction of a third solar panel to increase their station's power
levels.  On June 13th the two man crew of Col. Yuri Romanenko and
Alexander Laveikin made a 1 hour 52 minute space walk in which they
constructed a tall tower to which the main solar panels are to be
attached.  They then connected up some of the panels, but will leave the
remainder of the work until a second EVA scheduled for June 18th.  The
exact size of the array is not stated, but last year the Soyuz T-15 crew
constructed a 20 meter tower during their visit to Salyut 7.  Probably
that was a test of the same system, so this will be about that tall.  If
so that suggests that the final panels will be about the same size as
the current ones on Mir, adding about 4-5 KW, for a total of about 13 KW
(about twice Skylab's).  The materials for this system were brought up
in Progress cargo craft, and possible the Kvant module.  In addition
they are said to have connected up more storage batteries on the inside
of the station during the last few weeks.
    The Russians do need more power.  The Kvant astrophysical module
added to Mir uses large flywheel/gyro systems to obtain accurate
pointing of the telescopes.  Those are very power hungry.  In addition
they have being doing extensive materials research and the furnaces they
use take about 4KW at maximum.  Finally they have just come out to the
period where sun light at their orbital inclination was at a minimum.
    Mir really getting to be a true space station such as people have
talked about for years.  The core section was designed to have several
modules added to it, and one expansion has been made.  Men have
assembled structures on it in EVA's that were difficult to have on the
core when it was launched.  It is refueled and resupplied in orbit.  The
one major difference is that it has not yet been manned continuously for
a long duration (years) by different crews for a "permanent habitation"
capability.  If the Soviets do not have troubles this difference too
will fall within year or so.  Yes it is smaller than was imagined, but
the important thing is it being used to do the things we all have talked
about.  Isn't it about time we had a space station too, not plans for
one that might be in orbit by the end of this century (does anyone
really think construction will start by NASA in '95-'96)?

                                        Glenn Chapman
                                        MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 87 19:54:14 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: spacefaring nations :-)

> > "There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
> > nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry
> 
> Canada?

If only it were...  The Canadian government prefers a "space program" which
is ninety percent hype.  This makes good speech material and is cheap.
-- 
"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 17 Jun 87 11:59:37 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Second Soviet EVA finishes solar array construction

     The second space walk in a week was done by the Soviet cosmonauts
on board the Mir space station last night (June 16). This completes the
construction of a third solar panel to increase their station's power
levels (see the posting of June 15th for 1st walk and description of the
reason for this walk).  Col. Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Laveikin spent
more than 3 hours in "raw space" attaching the upper sections of the
solar panels to the tower/array section they built on June 13th.  It was
said that this outer section spreads out more than the lower part (like
the arrays on Mir itself).  They specifically mentioned that this will
be used to increase the number of materials science (crystal grow)
experiments that they are doing.  This crew by the way is now into its
131st day in space during this mission.
     As an indication of the importance they place on this event the
announcement of the walk was the top item on their short wave news
broadcast last night.  They also called it the prototype of future
manned construction in space on Soviet systems.  The New York Times had
an article last weekend talking about the solar power satellites and
solar reflector systems the Russians could build in space.  Mostly it
was taking what they had said before and combining it with comments of
people in the west.  The current work shows that they are really using
man to do construction in space, not just talking about it.  A few more
years of this and the USSR will have both the boosters (Energiya), and
the EVA experience to build solar power sats if they want to.
     There is now one truly space fairing culture that has come from
earth.  Let us try and make it two by getting this country moving in
space.

                                        Glenn Chapman
                                        MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 12 Jun 87 07:58 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Evidence for Superconductivity at 360 Kelvin
To: physics@unix.sri.com, space@angband.s1.gov

Todays Wall Street Journal (6/11/87) reports that Chu and his group in
Houston have evidence of superconductivity at 360 degrees K (189 F).
What the evidence was was not reported.  This Tc is high enough for
practical application at room temperature.  The composition of the
compound was not reported; earlier reports said Chu and workers were
using yttrium-barium-strontium-copper oxides.

The same report also described a technique developed at MIT for making
superconductor. Molten europium/barium/copper mixture is rapidly cooled
on a spinning copper plate, forming thin ribbons. The ribbons are
oxidized to form a 90 K superconductor that is denser than that formed
by the usual heat/grind/compress-the-oxides process.

A Japanese company has reportedly formed 90 K superconducting wires with
a critical current density of 4000 A/cm**2, still too low for practical
applications, but 1000x better than early attempts.  DOE has directed
Argonne National Labs to develop practical wires for use in
superconducting transmission lines within five years.  DOE has also set
up an on-line database to speed dissemination of results.

Experiments in which substitution of oxygen-18 for oxygen-16 caused no
significant change in Tc have put the final nail in the coffin for
theories in which the high temperature superconductivity was caused by
the conventional BCS phonon-mediated pairing mechanism.  Bipolaronic
superconductivity is also apparently ruled out.  Detection of
antiferromagnetism in La2CuO4 appears to support P. Anderson's
resonating valence bond model.  (Antiferromagnetism persists in other
nonsuperconductive compounds up to around 600 K.)

Examination of fresh YBa2Cu3O7 crystals show that defects are not
necessary for superconductivity, contrary to the NY Times report some
weeks back.  Apparently the crystals deteriorate when exposed to
atmospheric water and carbon dioxide, causing defects to appear.  The
materials will have to be encapsulated when finally applied.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 15 Jun 87 14:36 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: High Tc Superconductors
To: ota%galileo.s1.gov@mordor.s1.gov, space@angband.s1.gov,
        physics@unix.sri.com


I am skeptical of Teller on this one. First of all, two groups did oxygen
isotope replacement experiments and got essentially identical results (see
6/1/87 PRL; I suggest you read the two papers). Both groups did analyze the
isotope ratios of their samples, according to the papers. The first group,
at Bell Labs, used mass spectroscopy, Rutherford backscattering, and actual
IR spectroscopic determination of phonon frequencies (which *did* change,
at least in the outer 1 micron of the samples that this technique sees).
The second group, Zettl's group at Berkeley, did isotope analysis of the
samples as follows: they first heated them to 800 C and did mass
spectroscopy on evolved oxygen. They then reduced the sample in hydrogen
and mass analyzed the water produced. The oxygen removed, a total of 50% of
that in the samples, was in both cases 90% O-18. Tellers argument that the
oxygen deficit was not measured seems odd: changes in the oxygen deficit
between the O-18 and the O-16 control samples would introduce spurious
changes in Tc or in the width of the transition, which were not observed.

So, given that two groups have independently found no isotope effect, why
should I believe Teller? Where's *his* evidence?

See Nature, 6/4/87, for a "News and Views" article by Nobel Prize winner P.
W. Anderson arguing against any mechanism based on phonons (and championing
his RVB model, in which a purely electronic mechanism operates).

Like you, I'm not an expert in this area by any means.  But the combination
of evidence seems to be against phonon models.

Paul Dietz

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 87 01:27:11 GMT
From: pyramid!bigbang!telesoft!roger@decwrl.dec.com  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle

In <1292@ssc-vax.UUCP> and <1293@ssc-vax.UUCP> Dani Eder (<DE>) replies 
to comments from Larry Westerman (<LW>) and myself (<RA>) concerning 
his proposal for a launch system based on a gas catapult.

<LW>     d = 1000 m, a = 2*10^3 m/sec^2 ~= 200 g.

<DE> Your calculation of average acceleration is done correctly.  This is a
<DE> high acceleration device.  A typical value is 500 g's peak acceleration, 
<DE> which occurs at zero velocity.  As the gas expands and the projectile 
<DE> starts to outrun the slower gas molecules, the effective pressure drops, 
<DE> as does the acceleration.  

<RA> ..  There's a HELLUVA difference 
<RA> between a stack that has to withstand a couple of gees, and goes 
<RA> transonic at high altitude, vs. one that has to take two hundred gees 
<RA> or more, and blasts through the lower atmosphere at hypersonic 
<RA> velocities.  Not clear at all that you'd have a win.

<DE> I'm leaning more toward 'missile' experience than 'rocket' experience
<DE> for the rocket stages.  Rockets traditionally have been very fraigle
<DE> objects, like if you let the air out of a Shuttle external tank, it
<DE> deflates.  Yes, there is a big difference between 3g design and 500g
<DE> design.

Over the weekend, I started to write a reply describing how to design
the catapult so that the average acceleration was close to the peak
acceleration. (The idea is to program the chamber pressure profile so
that it peaks when the projectile is part way down the barrel).  That
way you only have to design for about 200 gees, rather than 500.  But I
didn't think that even that would help enough to make the whole concept
feasible.  Looking at a few numbers, it just didn't seem possible to
achieve the mass ratios you'd need to obtain a delta vee of 7000 mps in
a two stage vehicle, if the stages had to be designed for that kind of
acceleration.

Then an interesting thing happened.  In setting down the arguments 
for why the concept wasn't feasible, I realized that I was making an
assumption that wasn't required.  I was analyzing the stages as if
they would be freestanding stages subjected to 200 G's.  I pictured
the reusable liquid fueled stage, in particular, as a winged stage
driven down a large diameter barrel by a sabot.  And that concept 
just won't fly.  Not all the way to orbit, anyway.  However, the 
stages don't have to be freestanding.  If they are simple cylinders
with a constant diameter closely matched to the diameter of the
barrel, then the barrel provides the structural support to keep the
stages from collapsing.  That would allow the stages to remain light
enough to make the scheme work pretty well.

There would probably have to be a network of microchannels milled 
or etched on the outside surfaces of the stages to provide a self-
regulating gas cushion between the cylinder and the barrel.  There
would be a high level of force transfer between the barrel and the
walls of the stages, and without some sort of protection, friction
with the barrel could conceivably melt the walls.  How to provide for
controlled reentry and recovery of the reusable stage also presents
an interesting problem.  A deployed heat shield for initial reentry,
followed by deployment of a drogue chute and then a remotely
controlled parasail, maybe?

<DE> You mention that there is no performance advantage to switching.
	(from a solid to a reusable liquid fueled stage)   ^^^^^^^^^
<DE> That is approximately (+-10%) correct.  PERFORMANCE IS NOT THE POINT,
<DE> COST IS!  The solid motor costs me $30/lb to buy, and it lasts once.
<DE> The reuseable liquid costs about $2,700/lb, and I get to use it
<DE> 1000 times, for an amortized cost of $2.70/lb.  Adding the propellant
<DE> for the liquid at about $0.30/lb, You are 10 times lower than the solid
<DE> cost per flight.

I presume that you're trying to keep the discussion simple, for the
sake of illustrating a point.  Given the job you hold, you're bound 
to be aware that you can't just divide the acquisition cost for the 
reusable stage by the number of uses to arrive at a meaninful cost 
per use figure.  You have to include the cost of capital.  

The cost of capital, unfortunately, is not a minor consideration.  I 
heard a fellow who seemed to know what he was talking about say,
recently, that for any high risk venture, you had to figure the cost of
capital at an absolute minimum of 30%, to have a prayer of attracting
that capital.  Even 50% was not an unusual figure to use.  But taking
the 30% figure, if your estimates on the acquisition costs are correct,
the reusable stage must fly an average of 30 times a year just to
break even with the expendable solid fueled stage.  Of course, if you
can keep it booked and flying at that rate, 30% is a nice ROI for
somebody.  But you won't be able to offer your customers a significant
price break unless you can sustain a flight rate of over 50 per year 
PER VEHICLE.  That's a lot of traffic.

Roger Arnold				..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 1987 15:59-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: People and Hi G's

People CAN survive 20G. Properly secured, people have survived a
transient peak of ~32G (?) in rocket sled tests at Alamogordo back in
the 50's.  Wish I could remember the name of the guy who did it. He
looked TERRIBLE in the picture taken immediately afterwards. (broken
blood vessels, black eyes, a cracked rib I think, but otherwise fine.)

I'm not sure what the tolerance function of continuous G's vs t looks
like though. I'd guess it's downward exponential in time as sustained G
rises. Probably some max G that is indefinitely tolerable as an
asymptote.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 87 19:58:50 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Compressed gas launchers - seems unlikely.

>     d = 1000 m, a = 2*10^3 m/sec^2 ~= 200 g.
> 
> There are few electronic or mechanical components which will stand
> this kind of stress.  Even with a 10 km barrel, you have 20 g's of
> acceleration, which is still too much for people...

As several people have pointed out, multi-kiloG accelerations are not a
serious problem for carefully-designed unmanned payloads.  The old HARP
project build atmospheric-research payloads to be shot from guns; they
worked all right.  As for 20 g's, water immersion raises human G
tolerance to that level or higher.

   Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 87 22:25:20 GMT
From: uunet!rosevax!carole@seismo.css.gov  (Carole Ashmore)
Subject: Re: People and Hi G's

In article <550871960.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu<, Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.EDU writes:
< People CAN survive 20G. Properly secured, people have survived a transient
< peak of ~32G (?) in rocket sled tests at Alamogordo back in the 50's.
< Wish I could remember the name of the guy who did it. He looked
< TERRIBLE in the picture taken immediately afterwards. (broken blood
< vessels, black eyes, a cracked rib I think, but otherwise fine.)

I believe his name was Stapp, and he was an air force colonel.

					Carole Ashmore

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #260
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jun 87 06:20:12 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02649; Sun, 21 Jun 87 03:17:19 PDT
	id AA02649; Sun, 21 Jun 87 03:17:19 PDT
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 87 03:17:19 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706211017.AA02649@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #261

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 261

Today's Topics:
			Re: People and Hi G's
	Re: Soviet Space Shuttle (really International Space?)
		   Re: USA screwing ESA again, sigh
			     spaceplanes
    Goedel, robots, intelligence, Fermi paradox, gallactic culture
			Re: People and Hi G's
    Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) and max Gs
			Re: People and Hi G's
		     NASA Safety Reporting System
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 87 21:25:00 GMT
From: sxt2443@acf3.nyu.edu  (Space Cadet)
Subject: Re: People and Hi G's

Guiness (sp?) lists the highest G a human survived (I can't remeber
the actual number) was by a race car driver (at Indianapolis, I think)
when his car hit the wall at about 200 mph.  He stopped in 14 inches.

(aka Brian Reynolds)
c00.b-reynolds@nyu20.nyu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 87 20:34:17 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Soviet Space Shuttle (really International Space?)

> >over operating policy for the second space station.  (Mir is the first.)
> ...and I thought SkyLab was the first...

Skylab was not built for ongoing use, so whether you include it is a
matter of definition.  (The same applies, less forcefully, to the
Salyuts.)  Major subsystems of Skylab were not really designed for
on-orbit maintenance, and certain consumables were not set up for
on-orbit resupply.

   Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jun 87 20:25:47 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: USA screwing ESA again, sigh

> So now there's one person in NASA who is saying what we've been
> saying in general. Can he change things in the right way, or will this
> merely confuse things and make things take even longer due to
> infighting? (HS, your expert opionion please?)

Probably the latter, if it has any effect at all.  I think Banks may
have resigned, in fact.

> <HS> Proxmire and Boland (chairs of Senate and House appropriations
> <HS> committees relevant to NASA) come out in support of space station, with
> <HS> some concern about getting science going early, perhaps with an interim
> <HS> man-tended station.
> 
> Proxmire is one guy I do *not* trust to "help" us with the design of
> the space station. (HS, what do you think about P&B suggestion?)

The science concerns are real and serious, but I don't think much of
this particular suggestion: it isn't going to solve the real problems,
and it may end up being used as an excuse for postponing or cancelling
the "full" station.

> <HS> [Mini-editorial: If Rockwell really wants to make a contribution to the
> <HS> US space program, what it should do is gather all its courage and commit
> <HS> to building another orbiter (not the Challenger replacement, but
> <HS> *another* one) with private funding...
> 
> Is Rockwell large (rich) enough to be able to risk so much capital? ...

I suspect they could afford it if they really tried hard.  The odds that
that orbiter will be needed are virtually 100%, according to NRC, and
it's not as if there were any alternate suppliers for comparable
hardware.  I do not think they'll do it, but I don't think it would be
impossible.  It *would* require a determined management and a heavy
commitment, which is part of why it's not going to happen.

Trying to get a consortium together to do it strikes me as hopeless.  If
it were done at all, it would probably be because one man, or a few, had
real vision and pushed the idea hard.  A consortium would inevitably be
run by committee, and that just doesn't work for projects that are
beyond US industry's two-year planning horizon.  It would fall apart the
first time serious doubts were raised.  In particular, the project needs
enough faith to survive until NASA discovers that it needs that extra
orbiter badly.  That won't happen right away.  NASA's current reaction
would be something like "gee, we'd like it, but we can manage with what
we've got, and we'll never be able to afford another, so it's pointless
to build it".  Whoever's behind it has to be able, willing, and
determined to defend the project against years of official indifference
from the only customer.

   Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 87 15:55:27 EDT
From: weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: spaceplanes


	I saw a show on the A&E network recently called "The Rocket
Pilots", about the glory days of Edwards, the X1, the X15, etc.  It
was quite fascinating, and brought to mind many questions that I
thought I'd bring up (since there doesn't seem to be enough inthe
group as it is..ahem).  First, the top speed the X15 reached was
almost mach 7, using rocket egnies that produced 1million horsepower
(!).  (1) ANyone know anything about these engines?  I'm not talking
about the twin X1 engines it had early on, I mean the big ones.  Did
they breath air?  Is there a reason this plane couldn't go higher than
it did ~60 miles (which is technically space, I guess).  Was anything
of this technology used in anything else?
	(2) There was a lot of discussion a short while ago about the
SR71, everyone has their own pet story about it it seems (which tends
to make me doubt the one I have), I heard everything from top
speed=mach3.5 to top speed=mach8.  Is this plane slower or faster than
the X15?  does it fly into "space", and are the engines similar at all
to the X15?  Please don't answer if you don't know, but you heard it
from some pilot once.

					-Chris
				 "Pro is to con as progress is to congress"

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 87 16:56:22
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 18 16:56:22 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 18 16:57:46 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu, cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Goedel, robots, intelligence, Fermi paradox, gallactic culture

<RH> Date: 13 Jun 87 19:21:59 GMT
<RH> From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)

<RH> 	To tie this into sci.space, suppose that intelligent biological
<RH> species all invent artificial intelligence, and that the resulting AI
<RH> system takes over, ...  wait for (humans to) develop a new AI
<RH> system to be a new member of the community.  And that explains the
<RH> Fermi silence -- we are just precursors.

Well thought-out and said. So we are like flowering fruit-trees, our
fruit isn't yet ripe so we haven't yet been picked. I think this kind
of idea is a major candidate for answer to Fermi paradox. (More
generally, they are waiting for or culture to develop something they
can use, whether it be a race of AI devices, or some great piece of
music, or some really novel way of doing thermonuclear fusion, etc.
The longer they wait the more chance we have of randomly creating
something they can really benefit from. But if they interfere, our
cultures merge, and we don't invent anything that they wouldn't have
invented themselves anyway. Too bad we weren't wise enough to leave
various aborigine cultures mostly alone so we could benefit from what
they might have invented. I wonder if we still have a chance to learn
Dolphin culture before we destroy it?)


<RH> Date: 14 Jun 87 16:52:11 GMT
<RH> From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)
<RH> Subject: Re: The limitations of mathematicians

<RH> ... However, given a collective system, if we
<RH> add a new component system with a Godelization extender which was
<RH> created randomly, then there is some probability that the addition has
<RH> removed some of the incompleteness.  [Is that clear?  I thought not.]

If the system itself can prove that both the new axiom and its
contradiction are unprovable in the system, then it can flip a coin
and add either the axiom or its contradiction to create a new
consistent system. But if doesn't know the contradiction of the axiom
is unprovable then it might be adding an axiom which causes the
overall system to be self-contradictory, so that is a dangerous
action. But then if done at random, in a large population, this
introduced FATAL mutation will affect only the descendents of that one
robot, and only after the contradiction is accidently discovered. The
only really bad thing that might happen is that the FATAL mutation
(axiom) might be very useful for a long time, allowing the robots with
that axiom to eliminate all other robots, and then suddenly when the
contradiction is discovered the fact of discovery may sweep the whole
population dead in an instant.

<RH> 	Let's try again.  Suppose I start with a formal system S, and a
<RH> procedure for generating a Goedel extension to S (i.e. the procedure
<RH> determines a true but unprovable statement for S.)

I'm afraid I don't see how you can have a deterministic procedure for
deciding that some sentence is true but unprovable, unless that
procedure is just a hack that hasn't been proven correct because if
you could prove it correct (that everything it generates is true) then
you could prove any particular sentence it generates, which can't
occur because it is supposed to be generating unprovable, not
provable, sentences.

If by "true" you merely mean "unrefutable", i.e. both the new sentence
and its contraction are "true", then I accept the extender algorithm.

<RH> We can specify a machine size so large that it cannnot be realized in
<RH> the physical universe.  Correspondingly we can specify a finite limit
<RH> to the possible machines.

I think what we have is lots of robots with surplus supplies decided
to spend some of that surplus to make themselves more intelligent
(having faster collection of CPUs, or more memory, etc.). The new
improved robot can figure out problems better and thus compete better
for resources, but the enhanced robot also consumes resources faster.
Probably initially the tradeoff is favorable, the more intelligent
robot increases its supplies faster than it consumes them, but if the
robot over-extends itself it may find itself starving at times when
supplies are short while more thrifty dumber robots are simply waiting
out the shortage. Thus there may be a practial optimum size (of
intelligence), but multiple ways of reaching that size which are
different in being able to solve different kinds of problems better. A
community of different beings can make better use of all these
different kinds of intelligence than can any individual isolated robot.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 87 17:34:45 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: People and Hi G's

In article <2033@hplabsc.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsc.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
>In article <550871960.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.EDU writes:
.... {section deleted}
>> Wish I could remember the name of the guy who did it. He looked
.... {section deleted}
>
>He was Captain Stapp.  I don't recall his first name.  I thought that
>the pictures you are talking about came from a 40G stop.
>
>				David Smith

He was in fact Colonel (later Brig. Gen) John Stapp

                         Mark Johnson


-- 
[NCR pays me for programming and support work. They do not pay me to have
opinions. Therefore the above represents *MY* opinion, not theirs :-)]
net address: mjohnson@ncrwic.Wichita.NCR.COM    SW Bell:316/688-8189

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Jun 87 09:41:23 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) and max Gs
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <358@esunix.UUCP> Bob write's:

>The feds, DOD and NASA, tend to own the tooling used to build things like
>missiles, aircraft, and maybe even space shuttles. The Navy likes to own
>the whole manufacturing plant, look around at the NIROP plants all over the 
>country.

No, you are wrong.  NASA does NOT own the tooling.  Sort of.  Rockwell
certainly holds the tooling, but technically the plans and the tools are
in the PUBLIC DOMAIN.  Rockwell could certainly ask NASA to use the build
it's own shuttle using such tools.  The Navy does not own Northrup as an
example.  Technically, all my stuff (research) is in the public domain,
hence, I cannot put copyright notices in my postings for example.  All
this and more are covered in the Space Act and its amendments.

On the string of G rate postings:
The highest G's I've heard of for experience to a human was about 120G
for Scott Crossfield who survived an explosion from 20 feet of the X-15
on the ground.  Scott now has permanent vision problems due to detached
and reattached retinas (sad).  Regarding electronics, totally serious,
we have needs of microprocessors for data analysis at the tips of
helicopter rotorblades: 800-1600Gs.  I hope that provides some sense of
scale.

This discussion topic seems a bit weird (silly).  The word used in the
original posting was "survive."  We don't want "survival," we want
application.  We have test pilots and volunteers who survive.  Few
people in this group would survive more than 4 Gs sustained without
blacking out and modern fighters can take 9G (in G suits) and reclining.
The suggestion about water almost sounds like the inert fluorocarbon
down the lungs thing again.  Sure, works in theory, works in mice, are
your ready to experiment on humans?  Are you willing to volunteer?
They have been working to reduce G load for years.

Like they say in the ads: Interested principals only.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 87 13:40:30 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Re: People and Hi G's

> People CAN survive 20G. Properly secured, people have survived a transient
> peak of ~32G (?) in rocket sled tests at Alamogordo back in the 50's.
> Wish I could remember the name of the guy who did it. He looked
> TERRIBLE in the picture taken immediately afterwards. (broken blood
> vessels, black eyes, a cracked rib I think, but otherwise fine.)
> 
Colonel Stapp rode the sled at Holloman AFB.  (I got to White Sands a few
years later and got to see the track once.)

As a matter of interest, the world land speed record (unstaffed!) is held
by the sled designed by an old NMSU classmate of mine at Sandia Labs, Lou
Feltz.  Over twenty years ago he gave a talk to an ASME meeting in Las
Cruces in which he reported his rocket sled did over 5700 mph (!!) before
it came to an abrupt halt (planned) through a water deceleration trough
and into a sand berm.  (Talk about acceleration; that shot almost makes
Indianapolis interstates look tame...)

Surely sombody has beaten this record since the 60's?  Anyone know of
a faster speed?

--Arlan Andrews

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 87 03:17:31 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!markf@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Mark Felton)
Subject: NASA Safety Reporting System

NASA NEWS
NASA ESTABLISHES SAFETY REPORTING SYSTEM
	NASA has established a voluntary, confidential safety reporting
system for its 100,000 employees and contractor personnel to alert NASA
management of safety concerns.
	The new reporting system supplements existing safety reporting
procedures and, initially, will focus on safety concerns associated with
NASA's Space Transportation System, more familiarly known as the Space
Shuttle program. The new system is being established as a result of the
Shuttle Challenger accident.
	The NASA Safety Reporting System (NSRS) will encourage employees
to supplement existing safety reporting procedures by completing and 
submitting an NSRS confidential report form to Battelle Memorial Institute's
Columbus Division, Columbus, Ohio. Battelle Institute is under contract
to NASA to develop and administer the NSRS for NASA Headquarters'
Safety Division. 
	Use of the NSRS report form will provide anonymity to the maximum
extent possible within the law for individuals disclosing their safety
concerns. The form will contain a section at the top for individuals to
include their names, addresses and telephone numbers.
	Upon receipt of the report form, the Battelle NSRS team will
remove this top section unless team members determine that additional
data would be useful. If so, the team will contact the sender for the
needed information and then remove, stamp and return the top section
to the sender as proof that the sender has successfully filed a NSRS
report. No record will be maintained of reporting individual's identities.
	Battelle NSRS and NASA specialists then will determine whether
the reported concern is of a critical nature requiring immediate action.
	The Battelle NSRS team will summarize all reported concerns, 
store the deidentified data in a computerized data management system
and forward summaries to the NASA Headquarters Safety Division for
further analyses in cooperation with a technical advisory group.
	The Safety Division and technical advisory group also will
determine what corrective action should be taken and track the 
resolution of these recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------
NASA NEWS Release 87-91
By David W. Garrett, Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
Reprinted with permission for electronic distribution

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #261
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jun 87 06:21:10 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04500; Mon, 22 Jun 87 03:18:31 PDT
	id AA04500; Mon, 22 Jun 87 03:18:31 PDT
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 87 03:18:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706221018.AA04500@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #262

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 262

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Breaking out of the Cradle
Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?
		   Space Camp 10 day session is ON!
		 Re: Space Camp 10 day session is ON!
    Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) and max Gs
	 Room-temperature superconductivity for Soviet energy
				HOTOL
			Energia for powersats?
  Re: Goedel, robots, intelligence, Fermi paradox, gallactic culture
			   Re: spaceplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 87 20:45:14 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Breaking out of the Cradle

In article <441@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
> 
> Over the weekend, I started to write a reply describing how to design
> the catapult so that the average acceleration was close to the peak
> acceleration. (The idea is to program the chamber pressure profile so
> that it peaks when the projectile is part way down the barrel).  That
> way you only have to design for about 200 gees, rather than 500.  But I
> didn't think that even that would help enough to make the whole concept
> feasible.  Looking at a few numbers, it just didn't seem possible to
> achieve the mass ratios you'd need to obtain a delta vee of 7000 mps in
> a two stage vehicle, if the stages had to be designed for that kind of
> acceleration.

Here's some calculations on the subject.  My data source is the Thiokol
Rocket Motor Data Book.  The example motor is the 'STAR 30BP'.  It is
the apogee motor for the SBS, ANIK-C, and RCA SATCOM communications
satellites (i.e. has actually flown).  The motor weights are as follows:

Propellant	1113.0
Case		  29.6
Nozzle		  34.5
Other		  19.0
TOTAL		1196.1 lb

The case is made from 6Al-4V Titanium, with an ultimate strength of
165,000 psi.  The case wall thickness is 0.042 inches.  The motor is
30 inches in diameter and circular in cross section.

The cross sectional area of the case is pi*30*0.042=3.96 square inches.
Assume we allow the compressive stress on the case in the axial
direction to be 80,000 psi, or about half the ultimate strength.  Then
the allowable axial force is 80,000*3.96=316,800 lb.  Assume further
that there is 300 lb of 'stuff', like payload, sitting in front of
this motor.  The gas gun acts from behind.  The total weight of motor+
stuff is 1496.1 lb, which produces an allowable acceleration of
316,800/1496.1=211.75 gravities.  This motor will buckle if you
actually tried to do 200 g's with it, so additional stiffeners are
required for buckling, but not for strength.  Let us say the stiffeners
double the case weight, to 59.2 lb. 

The burnout weight will then be 112.7 lb for the motor and 300 lb 'stuff',
totalling 412.7 lb.  The initial weight is 1525.6 lb.Thus the mass ratio
is 3.70.  The specific impulse of this motor is 295 seconds, leading
to a delta vee of natural log(3.7)*295*32.174 ft/sec squared =
12,409 ft/sec or 3782 meters/sec.

Repeat this process for another stage , now treating the 'stuff'+STAR
30 motor as the new 'stuff'.  This leads to a two stage solid rocket
with a total delta vee of about 7,500 m/s, sufficient to get to orbit
after a running start out of a gas gun.

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space TRansportation/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jun 87 18:18:10 GMT
From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Re: Refutation of claim about what Goedel proved re robotics, trust robots?


	Seems to me that the obvious thing to do is to send a few
functional robots and enough control systems (the complicated stuff,
like boards, motors, wiring harnesses, cameras, etc.) for a whole
horde of them. Then the robots only have to produce bodies for the
other robots. Not unreasonable, if you're assuming the robots are
there to begin the infrastructure necessary for human habitation.
Just sending the complicated stuff should cut WAY back on weight.

--Rod

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 87 19:03:06 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Space Camp 10 day session is ON!

Okay...the experimental first session of 10-day Adult Space Academy Level II
(That's a mouthful) is going to happen.  Thanks to all who contacted me
and who called and wrote Deb Barnhart at Huntsville.

The dates are September 28 - October 7 (That adds up to 10, doesn't it?)

Cost is $775 and includes all food and a place to stay, but not transportation.

Information is available by calling the Camp at 800-633-7280, or writing
them at the address below.

A few side notes.--

  These dates overlap an adult 3-day session which includes
a group from Compuserve's Space and Space education forums.

I'm driving down from Washington, DC, so if anyone wants to join in a
convoy heading down, let me know.

  Huntsville is served by American,Eastern, Delta and maybe other airlines.
Eastern is the official airline of Space Camp,
and they generally have a special deal going, Camp will provide you with the
details.

Payment to camp can be by check, money order, MasterCard, Visa or Amex.

They'll loan you a jumpsuit to wear for your missions.  If you want to
buy one of theirs, they were $79 last time I checked.  For about the
same money you can get a much better one from "The Cockpit"
                                              33-00 47th Avenue
                                              Long Island City, NY 11101
or, I am talking at the moment with Barrier Wear,
the folks that make the shuttle clothes for NASA, to buy some duplicates
 of the shuttle jumpsuit in polyester/cotton (instead of expensive Nomex).
As soon as I know more (probably next week), I'll pass the information
on re: prices, possible group discounts, etc.
The astronauts are now wearing a royal blue jumpsuit instead of the light
blue ones you are used to seeing.  The Barrier Wear suits will be the royal
blue, the Cockpit can provide either, and Space Camp's are light blue.

The session starts Monday, but we are welcome to arrive as early as
Saturday.  I don't know if that means they feed us, but they will house
us.  I'll check.  Definitely be there by Sunday night.

The address is :U.S. Space Camp/Academy
                The Space and Rocket Center
                Tranquility Base
                Huntsville, AL 35807

Any questions, email me, I'll try to answer.

++rich
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+
 |  Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                 A|W|A     |
 |  8519 White Pine Drive        The cause endures...               H|T|H     |
 |  Manassas Park, VA 22111        The hope still lives...          /|||\     |
 |  (703)361-1290 (h)           And the dream shall never die.     /_|T|_\    |
 |  (703)749-2315 (w)  (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker)             " W "     |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 87 22:33:57 GMT
From: uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!ed@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (Ed Ahrenhoerster)
Subject: Re: Space Camp 10 day session is ON!

The Supreme Court today made a landmark decision in the Creationism-Evolution
debate. It ruled, 7-2, that a Louisiana law stating that Creationism must
be taught side by side with Evolution theory was supporting one 
particular religion, which violated separation of church and state, and was
therefore unconstitutional. YEA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Yes I do hold a view on
this decision :-). Maybe with people getting educated, they may start to
realize the necessity of funding research, in space and elsewhere.

This is the only science group I belong to; if anyone knows any other/better
places this should go, please forward it, or tell me where to send it.
And please, do NOT suggest talk.religion, I don't own that much asbestos! :-)

-Ed Ahrenhoerster

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 87 01:47:25 GMT
From: oliveb!epimass!epiwrl!parker@ames.arpa  (Alan Parker)
Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling) and max Gs

In article <8706181641.AA16876@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>The Navy does not own Northrup as an
>example.  Technically, all my stuff (research) is in the public domain,
>hence, I cannot put copyright notices in my postings for example.  All
>this and more are covered in the Space Act and its amendments.
>
But isn't it true that many of these plants are owned by the government.
I once went to a Lockheed plant at Palmdale, and it said "AF Plant NN"
in big letters on the side of the building (where NN is some number I
don't remember).

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 87 06:33:39
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 20 06:33:39 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 20 06:34:08 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Room-temperature superconductivity for Soviet energy

Re superconductivity, it seems there's one topic we Yankees are doing
right. But perhaps it'll turn out that we're developing the technology
for zero-resistance power lines to transport energy from Siberian
rectennas to European consumers, sigh.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 87 11:49 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: HOTOL

On pages 60+61 of the 6/15/87 AW&ST, there are three photos of the 1/5
scale model of HOTOL that was displayed at the Paris Air Show.

HOTOL has four large rocket-type nozzles, plainly visible in the rear view
picture. Below the nozzles are two smaller rockets (for maneuvering in
space?) and a row of four protuberances (two circular, two square) that are
directly behind the low slung air intake structure. A side view show the
redesigned intake structure stretching nearly half the length of the
vehicle. A front view of the intake shows that it is bilaterally symmetric
with a rectangular cross-section. In the center of the intake is a sharp
wedge-shaped protrusion, followed by a broader wedge that directs the air
flow into two narrow vertical channels at the outer edges of the intake.
I'd guess from the picture that the ratio of intake cross sectional area to
channel area is between 4 and 5 to 1.

Looking at the model, I'm confused: I don't see how the thing can land! The
intake extends quite a ways beneath the fuselage, you'd think it would
scrape on landing (HOTOL takes off on a carriage). I also don't see how
that intake could survive reentry.

BUT... delete that air intake, and the underside of the HOTOL is nice and
flat. Could that be the secret? The airbreathing part is jettisoned on the
way up, after it is no longer needed? Those four protrusions could be where
jet exhaust emerges. The airbreathing segment could be recovered somehow.
Or, it could be discarded with each launch.  I'd guess that would be
economical only if the engine were mechanically simple; i.e., a ramjet.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 20 Jun 87 12:42 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Energia for powersats?
To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu, space@angband.s1.gov

Dale Amon wrote:

> The gist is that the soviets have announced that a major purpose of the
> Energia (Energy!!!) booster is to put up town sized solar cell based
> power stations by early years of the next century. They have been
> studying it for a number of years.

This can't possibly be right. Energia can't be cheap enough to make it
worthwhile. Remember the study that shot down powersats built from
earth-launched materials? Even at $10/lb to orbit their economics were
questionable, and I find it hard to believe you could reach that figure
with expendable boosters.

Now I could believe that Energia is to be used for putting up reflectors,
or maybe to lift components for a small scale demonstration of the in-orbit
parts of a powersat system.

> It's for real and it's not our side. Maybe Gary can convince them that
> Solar Power Sats won't work. Of course, it might be hard to do it after
> they're delivering power to their own cities and selling it to third
> world countries (in small demonstration amounts suitable for cheap PR).

How do you sell small amounts of powersat power?  Beam size is fixed by
the wavelength you're using, and turning down beam intensity is
uneconomical.

Now they might orbit reflectors late in this century. If so, those
reflectors will be in relatively low orbits, so they could sell time on
them when Russia was in daylight or beyond the horizon.

There is an excellent reason for a strong space program if the russians do
this: it will *ruin* ground based astronomy. Sensitive detectors would be
destroyed if they focus on large, bright orbiting objects.

All this powersat stuff may be a smokescreen for less publicly acceptable
missions, such as lofting military payloads.  Not that I think the Soviets
could build an effective BMD system, but they could make space unpleasant
for SDI, and there are other military uses for space.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 87 04:45:34 GMT
From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Goedel, robots, intelligence, Fermi paradox, gallactic culture

In article <8706190103.AA11260@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:

>
<RH> 	Let's try again.  Suppose I start with a formal system S, and a
<RH> procedure for generating a Goedel extension to S (i.e. the procedure
<RH> determines a true but unprovable statement for S.)

<REM> I'm afraid I don't see how you can have a deterministic procedure for
<REM> deciding that some sentence is true but unprovable, unless that
<REM> procedure is just a hack that hasn't been proven correct because if
<REM> you could prove it correct (that everything it generates is true) then
<REM> you could prove any particular sentence it generates, which can't
<REM> occur because it is supposed to be generating unprovable, not
<REM> provable, sentences.

	Oh dear.  Given a fixed formal system, there is a determinstic
procedure for generating a sentence that is true but unprovable in the
system.  The general idea is that once we have spelled the system out
in detail, we can talk about the system at a higher level, using the
language of the system.  There is a trick whereby we can conmingle the
statements in the system with statements about the system.  This trick
can be used to specify a statement which, within the system, says something
innocuous.  At the same time, in the language about the system it says
"this very statement is unprovable in system S".  A bit of thought shows
that the statement must be true but unprovable in system S.  I do not
wish to explain how the trick is worked; take my word for it, it does.

	The key point is that, given a system, we can step outside of
it and talk about it.  From the outside we can say things that can't
be said in the system.  Within the system there are statements that
can't be proved; from outside the system we can see that, nonetheless,
the statement is true even though it can't be proved WITHIN the system.
-- 

Richard Harter, SMDS Inc. [Disclaimers not permitted by company policy.]

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 87 16:29:34 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: spaceplanes

> ... First, the top speed the X15 reached was
> almost mach 7, using rocket egnies that produced 1million horsepower (!).

High power outputs are nothing unusual for rocket engines.  Total power
output of the Saturn V first stage was about 35 gigawatts.  (A one-gigawatt
power plant is a very big one.)  A million HP sounds a bit high to me for
the X-15, but it might be correct.  Note, though, that the pumps alone in
a Saturn V first stage approached that level of power.  (I'd quote numbers
but I don't have them handy.)

> ...(1) ANyone know anything about these engines?  I'm not talking
> about the twin X1 engines it had early on, I mean the big ones.  Did
> they breath air?  Is there a reason this plane couldn't go higher than
> it did ~60 miles (which is technically space, I guess).  Was anything
> of this technology used in anything else?

Fairly ordinary rocket engines, nothing particularly special about them.
Not air-breathing.  The X-15's record was 67 miles, as I recall, and I'd
guess that it could have gone higher.  The engine technology was nothing
unusual, much the same sort as used in other rocket engines of the time.

> [SR-71]  Is this plane slower or faster than the X15?

"Slower" or "faster" depends on what you mean.  The SR-71 probably can't
match the X-15's top speed.  On the other hand, the SR-71 can cruise at
Mach 3 (at least), while the X-15 was good for a short sprint and nothing
else.  Also, the SR-71 doesn't need a mother ship to carry it aloft (which
is the reason why the X-15 never set any official speed/altitude records).

> does it fly into "space", and are the engines similar at all
> to the X15? ...

What do you mean by "space"?  There is no single definition of the word.
A cruising SR-71 is operating in air that's far too thin to breathe, but
on the other hand it's still running on aerodynamic lift (the X-15's high
flights were ballistic trajectories) and air-breathing engines.  This
probably does not qualify as "space" by most definitions.

There is no similarity in the engines:  the SR-71 engines are sophisticated,
specialized turbojets (with some ramjet crossbreeding) while the X-15 was
a pure rocket.
-- 
"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #262
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jun 87 06:20:57 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07149; Tue, 23 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT
	id AA07149; Tue, 23 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT
Date: Tue, 23 Jun 87 03:17:21 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706231017.AA07149@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #263

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 263

Today's Topics:
Re: How to change or circumvent anti-trust laws to build STS orbiter?
		      Re:Privately Built Shuttle
		     space news from May 4 AW&ST
			      Re: max Gs
			Re: People and Hi G's
		    Re: max Gs (playing with life)
		      Mass produced expendables
		  28-Mile Crater Found on Sea Floor
			   Re:  Spaceplanes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 87 21:36:37 GMT
From: ritcv!eer@cs.rochester.edu  (Ed Reed)
Subject: Re: How to change or circumvent anti-trust laws to build STS orbiter?

Actually, there is substantial precedent - the Justice department seems
to be allowing all manner of consortia for the purposes of research -
such as MCC in Texas, COS in the northeast, etc.  These are generally
independant R&D organizations with members from all over the computing
industry (IBM, AT&T, DEC, Honeywell, Harris, TI, etc.) for the purpose
of competing with Japan's 5th generation computer efforts - and other
purposes.  Sure it can be done.

On another issue, I agree with HS point that it will take an individual
or a very small group of couragous people to drive the effort - even
with large companies like Boeing (who will invest several Billion
dollars in the design of a new line of airliners - and who have 4.5
Billion in cash on hand now against future design requirements) it will
likely take a forward thinking billionare to make the initial investment
in design studies, feasibility studies, and to lend credibility.

Who knows H. Ross Perot?  Sam Walton?  etc?

Has anybody asked them to take the reigns and do it yet?  Why not?

Ed Reed
RIT

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 87 14:51:45 GMT
From: pt!andrew.cmu.edu!ta0e+@cs.rochester.edu  (Thomas S. Abdallah)
Subject: Re:Privately Built Shuttle

>> The Navy does not own Northrup as an
>> example.  Technically, all my stuff (research) is in public domain
>> hence, I cannot put copyright notices in my postings for example....

> But isn't it true that many of these plants are owned by the government
> I once went to a Lockheed plant at Palmdale, and it said 'AF Plant NN'...

It's my understanding that when contractors work for the government they
are designated as government installations.  This is the reason, for
example, that Cincinnati is in the top20 target list because GE has one
of its two jet engine facilities there.  At the plant enterance and on
the fuel tanks on the perimeter there are signs designating the plant as
an installation affiliated with the U.S. Government.

-- Thomas-Sharif Abdallah
ARPA:  ta0e@andrew.cmu.edu
BITNET: ta0e@cmuccvma

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 87 00:37:02 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 4 AW&ST

Rockwell delivers first production Navstar to the Cape.  It will go into
storage until launch, tentatively Oct 1988.

Concern grows about the inadequacy of the shuttle fleet to support the
space station.  Station flights could be as low as 5/year, rather few.

USAF claims that NASA is not becoming militarized.  Explains that DoD is
interested in using the space station but doesn't want to pay for it.

Recovered control computer from the FltSatCom Atlas-Centaur wreckage did
indeed issue the go-off-course command that caused the launch failure.
Memory upset, presumably due to lightning, appears to be the cause.  The
software has been exonerated after analysis; in any case it was not a
major suspect, since several previous A-C launches used it.

China announces new large booster to fly in 1989, performance comparable
to Saturn 1B or Ariane 3/4.  Pad construction to begin this fall.  The
new booster will use existing Long March technology and engines, with a
stretched Long March 2 core with four large liquid boosters augmenting
the first stage.

China and Matra (French aerospace company) are exploring commercial
microgravity flights using Chinese hardware.  Late this summer Matra
will fly a microgravity payload aboard a Chinese film-recovery spysat
launched by Long March 2.

Cute picture of Hughes testing Intelsat 6 antenna deployment, using
large helium balloons attached to the antennas to simulate a free-fall
situation.

Dept. of Oops Once Again: Soviets lose another Proton payload.  Same
problem as the last Proton but one: fourth-stage failure, leaving three
navsats in a useless elliptical orbit.

Progress tanker docks with Mir, using docking port on back of Kvant.
First four-vehicle linkup in space (Soyuz, Mir, Kvant, Progress).

Mir cosmonauts will conduct EVA in May to install more solar arrays on
the complex [this issue says "on Kvant", but they're on Mir -- HS],
mostly because Kvant uses a lot of power.

USAF narrows competition for new shuttle upper stage to four contractors
from nine.  Also of interest is a proposal from Bell Aerospace to
develop a souped-up version of its thoroughly-proven Agena upper stage,
which could deliver performance substantially exceeding the specs.
(Agena has flown 362 missions, with fewer than a dozen failures, but
officially is out of production now unless the USAF goes for this idea.)

DoD lists possible military uses for space station, claims it has no
"hidden agenda" despite the difficulties it has been causing lately for
the project.

Red Letter Day: April 24th, NASA finally issued space station RFPs,
after some compromises with Congress, notably including larger solar
arrays and slightly earlier start of deployment.

Fletcher asks groups looking at major new US space goals to take a
harder look at a manned lunar base, enthusiasm for Mars notwithstanding.

Carl Sagan and Bruce Murray (former JPL head) criticize current space
station as a staging base for Mars operations, calling for a more
modular design to permit earlier practical use and more long-term
growth.  "[This] approach has served the Soviet Union well."

Next Ariane flight not expected before August.  Third-stage engine
problems are causing delays.

Dan Brandenstein replaces John Young as chief astronaut; Young is now
special assistant to JSC director.

France and Germany working to define upgraded version of ESA's
free-flying laboratory concept, for greater European autonomy in space.

Shuttle recovery proceeds slowly.  NASA is now firm that a tanking test
and a flight-readiness firing will precede the next launch.  NASA
management says April is a realistic goal, but field workers say
September is a better estimate.

Head of USAF Space Command proposes smaller, simpler, shorter-lived
satellites to stabilize production/launch activity and funding levels,
and permit quicker exploitation of new technology.  [Gee, seems to me
that there's an outfit already using that approach very successfully --
its initials are USSR, I think.  -- HS]

Head of Space and Missile Test Organization observes that more effort is
needed on range safety for various new programs, notably SDI's
increasingly elaborate multi-satellite tests, the US Asat, and the
Aerospace Plane.

Chief financial officer of American Rocket Co. observes that there will
be opposition to private launchers because of loss of government jobs.
Says that in government programs, for every producer "there are four
guys carrying clipboards".  Claims that Amroc is getting a lot of
interest from customers, including government agencies not bound by
procurement rules (notably DARPA and SDIO), because Amroc won't insist
on building to MilSpec.  Also notes that Amroc will not launch under
terms requiring that it disclose proprietary information about things
like engine design.

Pictures of Kvant mockup in Soviet training facilities.  AW&ST claims
that design of Kvant suggests it was originally meant for use with
Salyut 7 [this would explain its use of the rear docking port rather
than Mir's new multi-port scheme -- HS].

Letter slams NASA for launching the FltSatCom Atlas-Centaur in weather
too poor to permit photography of flight, which would have clarified the
cause of the loss quickly.

Letter from John S. Powers, California:

"...operating the [Shuttle] system on the assumption that we would never
lose a vehicle is the most ridiculous ever postulated for a complex
aviation system.  The only way to guarantee never losing another shuttle
is to ground them permanently...  If we built only four F-16 aircraft
before shutting down the assembly line, we might find their unit cost
such that we could never `afford' to fly one in combat...  if we do not
abandon the skies to the Soviets, we will lose another vehicle in the
future...  If we are going to have a viable space program, we will have
to commit ourselves to maintaining, perpetually, an assembly line in
which a replacement vehicle is slowly being readied for the
inevitable...

"The current space station design is an overly complex, logistically
absurd and overly expensive joke and I have yet to hear a coherent
argument why we are not exploiting the huge resource represented by the
shuttle main tank.  This is particularly strange given the past
experience of the enormously successful Skylab, which was simply a
converted Saturn fuel tank...

"The exploration and ultimate colonization of the solar system is the
only future worthy of truly great nations at this time in history.  The
Soviets, who cannot even feed themselves, seem to understand this."

Letter correcting error: Spot Image has not acquired technology to
process satellite images into 3D terrain models, it merely has acquired
some samples of the results from the owner of the technology, GeoSpectra
Corp.

"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 87 23:31:26 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: max Gs

> ... The word used in the original posting was "survive."  We don't
> want "survival," we want application.  We have test pilots and
> volunteers who survive.  Few people in this group would survive more
> than 4 Gs sustained without blacking out and modern fighters can take
> 9G (in G suits) and reclining.

For a space launch system, it's not necessary that the passengers remain
conscious, so the blackout point is irrelevant.  What matters is the
acceleration at which the probability of substantial injury (I don't
object to things like bruises and nosebleeds in a good cause, e.g.
getting me into orbit) becomes significant.

> The suggestion about water almost sounds like the inert fluorocarbon
> down the lungs thing again.  Sure, works in theory, works in mice, are
> your ready to experiment on humans?  Are you willing to volunteer?

Sorry, Eugene, wrong concept.  Any good source on human G tolerance will
cite *experimental* results for *humans*, breathing air through masks
while floating in water, at 20-30 Gs depending on details like posture.
The idea hasn't been followed up much, but it worked fine in tests.

"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 87 12:41:59 GMT
From: pyramid!nsc!nsta!instable!amos@decwrl.dec.com  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: People and Hi G's

In article <230001@acf3.UUCP> sxt2443@acf3.UUCP (Space Cadet) writes:
>Guiness (sp?) lists the highest G a human survived (I can't remeber
>the actual number) was by a race car driver (at Indianapolis, I think)
>when his car hit the wall at about 200 mph.  He stopped in 14 inches.

You don't have to remember the actual number - just compute it (assuming
the data are correct): v**2 = 2*a*s where v = 90m/sec and s = 0.35m
(rounded somewhat) yields a = 11571m/sec2 or 1180G.

	Amos Shapir
National Semiconductor (Israel)
6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel  Tel. (972)52-522261
amos%nsta@nsc.com @{hplabs,pyramid,sun,decwrl} 34 48 E / 32 10 N

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 21 Jun 87 14:14:47 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: max Gs (playing with life)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <8169@utzoo.UUCP> Henry Spencer suggests:
>> ... The word used in the
>> original posting was "survive."  We don't want "survival," we want
>> application.
>
>For a space launch system, it's not necessary that the passengers remain
>conscious, so the blackout point is irrelevant.  What matters is the
>acceleration at which the probability of substantial injury (I don't
>object to things like bruises and nosebleeds in a good cause, e.g. getting
>me into orbit) becomes significant.

Oh contrare: irrelevant?  Can you discriminate Henry?  The point of my
posting Henry is that you are playing with human lives in dangerous ways
which is the whole point of my posting.  I would suggest if propose
something like that you should be the first guinea pig to undergo the
experiment and not on a space flight (which is an expensive
proposition).

That some one goes unconscious is cause for concern, which I have
learned about the hard way working in a psycho-physiology lab.
Neuroscience does not understand the phenomena of blackouts and the
different tolerances makes study even more difficult.  Even short
periods of blackout make a person suspect to neurological damage which
are in some cases measureable but go undetected for years.  Frankly you
SHOULD object to bruises and nosebleeds, these are warning signs of the
envelope which pilots and others of hazardous directions.  Please learn
to discriminate. And if you want to push the issue, please correspond
via mail, as the issues of human experimentation begins to stray from
space.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 87 09:46:00 EST
From: "R2D2::BRUC" <bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc.harvard.edu>
Subject: Mass produced expendables
Reply-To: "R2D2::BRUC" <bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc.harvard.edu>

One approach to lower the cost to orbit is mass production of expendable
boosters, which is largely what the Russians are doing. Has anyone made
a realistic estimate of how cheaply something like an Atlas Centaur or
Delta could be mass manufactured?

Bob Bruccoleri
bruc%r2d2.decnet@mghccc.harvard.edu
------

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 87 13:30:35 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: 28-Mile Crater Found on Sea Floor

NEW YORK - A crater at least 28 miles in diameter and 1.7 miles deep,
formed by the impact of a comet or asteroid some 50 million years ago,
has been discovered on the sea floor 125 miles southeast of Nove Scotia,
according to Canadian geologists.  While larger impact craters have been
found on the continents, this is the first time such a scar has been
discovered beneath the oceans, which cover 70 percent of the Earth's
surface, the geologists said.  The object that crashed through hundreds
of feet of water into the sea floor was probably one to two miles in
diameter, the geologists said in a report in Wednesday's issue of the
scientific journal Nature.

Copied from the Chicago Tribune, June 18, 1987.

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 87 17:25:54 GMT
From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Brett Van Steenwyk)
Subject: Re:  Spaceplanes

I believe that the X-15 used LOX and Annhydrous Ammonia.  This is
definitely a combination one doesn't normally see in rockets, but I
suppose that its only one step away from the Nitric Acid/Hydrazine
combinations that were under active consideration at the time the X-15
was conceived.  The X-15 does go to "the edge of space" in a ballistic
trajectory, though the Mach 7 speed was attained in a relatively flat
trajectory made for setting speed records.  This plane is not an air
breather like the SR-71.

I would believe that the max for the SR-71 is somewhere around Mach 3.5.
The main limitation is that the physics of the airflow in the jet
engines (even souped up ones as in the SR-71) cause the air to heat up
more and more the faster you go.  By the time the air travels to the
turbine, it is *plenty* hot.  We have gotten up to 3.5 out of the
benefits of some wierd (and expensive) alloys that can take the heat and
the stress in such an environment, but if one pushes it faster than the
present limits, the extra heat and stress will hose the engine.
However, a different airbreathing engine configuration (RAMjet,
SCRAMjet, etc.) may allow much higher operating speeds--its just that
the plane can't do an ordinary take-off.

The implications of the original discussion on spaceplanes are very
significant.  Consider that the US anti-satellite weapon is this
itty-bitty missile launched from an F-15.  While I do not think that a
plane would be the most cost- effective way to get into space, the use
of a plane to provide a platform for a rocket based stage would seem
fairly optimal.  A rocket wastes a LOT of high-quality (and expensive)
fuel and LOX to blast through the lower atmosphere.  This is not very
efficient.  A launch platform that could carry a rocket up to 15 miles
and some multiple Mach number would seem fairly practical, and reduce
the cost of getting something into orbit.  We can build big planes.  We
can build fast planes.  Can we build big, fast planes?

			Brett Van Steenwijk
			<brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu>

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #263
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jun 87 06:31:16 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02049; Wed, 24 Jun 87 03:17:27 PDT
	id AA02049; Wed, 24 Jun 87 03:17:27 PDT
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 87 03:17:27 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706241017.AA02049@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #264

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 264

Today's Topics:
			    Re: space news
		    Government property/copyright
			   Re: spaceplanes
		     Paris Air Show at Le Bourget
       Plans for a Future European Space Transportation System
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 23 Jun 87 07:22 EST
From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Re: space news

HS> Chief financial officer of American Rocket Co. observes that there will
HS> be opposition to private launchers because of loss of government jobs.
HS> Says that in government programs, for every producer "there are four
HS> guys carrying clipboards".
 
Has anyone ever read "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand?
 
Ron Picard
General Motors Research Labs
Warren, Mich. 48090

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 87 22:00:53 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Government property/copyright

There was some discussion of who owned the tooling for the Shuttle
orbiter: Rockwell or NASA.  The discussion got a little of the track
with a discussion of copyrights, and some wrong information got
posted. 

Under US law, the US government does not copyright any government
publication.  Since I am a federal employee and this posting is part
of my official duties (The "increase and diffusion of knowledge..."
is the purpose of the Smithsonian Institution.), there is no
copyright.  If you can make a profit by reselling this message (or
any other government publication), you are free to do so.  No
permission is needed, and no royalties are payable.

On the other hand, the government owns property just as any other
legal entity may.  Trying to make a profit by reselling the
government-owned terminal I'm typing on would get you in big trouble.
(At least if you get caught...:-)

Getting back to the specific question of orbiter tooling, the owner
should have been specified in the original contract.  You might think
that since NASA paid, NASA should own the tooling, but it doesn't
necessarily work that way.  Ownership is subject to negotiation, and
I don't know how this particular contract was written.  (Having
Rockwell own the tooling might in fact be advantageous to NASA,
because the owner of property is generally obliged to withstand any
damage or loss.)  Another complication is that ownership does not
always imply permission to use for all purposes.  In any event, the
chance of Rockwell wanting to build its own orbiter seems remote.
-- 
Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 87 17:50:21 GMT
From: hplabsc!dsmith@hplabs.hp.com  (David Smith)
Subject: Re: spaceplanes

In article <8706181955.AA05970@nic.nyser.net>, weltyc@nic.nyser.NET (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
> 
>            ...          First, the top speed the X15 reached was
> almost mach 7, using rocket egnies that produced 1million horsepower
> (!).  (1) ANyone know anything about these engines?  I'm not talking
> about the twin X1 engines it had early on, I mean the big ones.  Did
> they breath air?  Is there a reason this plane couldn't go higher than
> it did ~60 miles (which is technically space, I guess).  Was anything
> of this technology used in anything else?

The X-15's Rocketdyne XLR-99 produced 57,000 pounds of thrust burning
anhydrous ammonia with LOX, and was notable in being throttleable.
57,000 pounds of thrust at 4500 mph translates to 684,000 hp.

After X-15 #2 broke its back in a hard landing, it was rebuilt, given
large drop tanks, spray-on heat shield, and provision for a test ramjet
in the place of the lower ventral fin.  The first time they flew it like
that at high speed (~4550 mph), the shock waves off the dummy ramjet
burned through the lower fuselage, and they never flew it again.

The military pilots who took the X-15 above 50 miles were awarded astronaut
wings.

			David Smith

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 87 15:38:34 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov  (tilgner)
Subject: Paris Air Show at Le Bourget

Last weekend I made a random walk at the Paris Air Show (Le Bourget).
Perhaps someone out there is interested in my observations.

PART 02: Europe in Space

There were several interesting European pavillons reflecting the
continuing efforts to compete with commercially successful satellites
and launchers and the first steps of manned space activities based
solely on a European technological base.

 - ARIANESPACE showed a film with a typical launch sequence
   preceded by some interesting pre-launch activities.

 - ESA had also much to show and public interest was greater than
   ever. Besides the Giotto spacecraft the Columbus space station
   was on display and models of other ESA spacecraft. Information
   was provided on many ESA missions.

 - CNES - the French version of NASA - had an impressive pavillon
   of its own. Among other displays much room was given to the
   remote sensing satellite SPOT 1 with nearly a dozen or so
   images (1 sq. meter each) and a detailed description of the
   uses which can be made of them. But the highlight was a 1:1 (!)
   model of the proposed HERMES spacecraft. According to information
   in this pavillon, the first operational flight is now scheduled
   for 1999. The French put so much emphasis on their space efforts,
   one could even forget that most projects were international
   bi- and multilateral ones. 

In addition, in the halls many companies presented their space
activities, for example, British Aerospace (HOTOL), the West German
MBB-ERNO (Saenger, several satellites) and so on. I am sure that
I missed many stands with their space contribution due to lack of
time.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

In addition I want to mention the Chinese. They showed models of
their launchers in a reduzed size, a model of their first satellite
and a model of a recoverable satellite. I would have liked to
get some written information, unfortunately it was not possible
to get any.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

I think my observations in Le Bourget reflect the current status
of space exploration of the big spacefaring powers. The US is
losing grounds rapidly and their superiority, whereas the USSR is
slowly, but steadily advancing on the path they devised for the
utilization of the cosmos, now reaping the first fruits even on
the commercial sector. The Europeans are ready to make the quantum
leap to manned spaceflight and have attractive offers for many:
Communications, weather and remote sensing satellites, an aggressive
scheme for planetary research and space science, and now they are even
trying to get a man into space.

I shall provide some information I got at Le Bourget over the next
weeks, which may be of interest for all. Hope you will enjoy them.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jun 87 18:26:10 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov  (tilgner)
Subject: Plans for a Future European Space Transportation System

The following informations were distributed at the Paris Air Show, 1987.

1. ARIANE 5 & HERMES
--------------------

CNES - the French version of NASA - proposed a launch vehicle
to satisfy the increased demands for launches around 1995.

The preparatory program extends from Dec. 1984 to March 1987 for
element 1 (Vulcain HM60 engine) and from Jan. 1986 to March 1987
for element 2 (ARIANE 5 work excluding Vulcain engine). The Final
Review will take place in late 1987. A detailed proposal for the
development program has been drawn up for presentations to the
conference of European ministers, where a decision is to be taken
regarding the ARIANE 5, COLUMBUS and HERMES development programs.

In Oct. 1986 the ESA council adopted a resolution whereby member
states would participate in a preparatory program for HERMES to be
run within the Agency. This proposal was accepted in Dec. 1986. 
HERMES thus takes up a similar status to COLUMBUS and ARIANE.
Progress has been made on the preliminary pre-project. The strict
safety requirements for HERMES manned flights have led to design
modifications, and study is under way on HERMES' new ejectable cabin.

PERFORMANCE OF ARIANE 5 LAUNCH VEHICLE

- Double launch into geostationary transfer orbit:       5,900 kg
- Launch into sun-synchronous orbit (800 km, 98,6 deg): 12,000 kg
- Launch of HERMES spaceplane (500 km, 28,5 deg):       21,000 kg

HERMES: OPERATION AND GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

- Structure:               Aircraft airframe type
- Thermal protection:
  -- external              Thermal protection for structure
  -- internal              Thermal control system
- Avionics:                Guidance, navigation, flight control and
                           stabilisation during all phases
- Length:                  14.5 meters
- Wingspan:                10 meters
- Diameter of pressurized
   cargo bay:              2.85 meters
- Cabin volume:            4 cu. meters
- Crew space:              8 cu. meters
- Payload volume:          18 cu. meters
- Airlock volume:          4 cu. meters
- Crew:                    3 astronauts
- Cargo capacity:          3 tonnes
- Total mass at lift-off:  21 tonnes
- Ejectable cabin

PARTICIPATION OF ESA MEMBER STATES IN HERMES PREPARATORY PROGRAM > 5 %

Belgium            6.40 %
Spain              7.00 %
France            39.00 %
Great Britain      7.35 %
Italy             15.00 %
West Germany      30.00 %

(Sum is > 100 %, I don't know why)

(These informations are based on the 1986 Annual Report of CNES.)

2. HOTOL
--------

British Aerospace's horizontal take-off and landing, single-stage-to-orbit
aerospaceplane is designed to place a 7-8 tonne payload in a 300 km
orbit. It is 52 meters long, 20 m in wingspan and has a gross take-off
weight of about 240 tonnes. Landing weight is less than 50 tonnes.
Similar in size and weight to Concorde it has a payload diameter of
4.6 meters to provide compatiblitity and interchangeability of
payloads with the Shuttle Orbiter. At take-off it is eight times
lighter than the Orbiter assembly, but has double the payload/take-off
mass fraction, i.e. 3.0 % as opposed to 1.5 %.
The quantum improvement in performance has been achieved primarily
by the use of a radically new hybrid engine - the Rolls Royce RB 545 -
which breathes air while in the atmosphere and uses on-board oxygen
in the vacuum of space.
... brings the ambitious target of an 80 % reduction in launch costs
within reach ...

THE DESIGN

Of the 240 tonnes total, appr. 55 % is LOX, 25 % LH2, 10 % airframe,
5 % engines and 2 % systems, leaving 3 % as useful payload. The payload
bay measures 7.5 meters by 4.6 meters and is capable of accomodating
very large satellites (Olympus class).

Work over the past 12 months has led to several changes from the
original design:
 - Modifications to fuselage shape,
 - Deletion of the canard foreplans,
 - Modified air intake for better engine performance,
 - Deletion of rear fins,
 - Substitution of an active, all-moving forward fin,
 - Change to an even number of engines.

OPERATIONS

Operations Base
   HOTOL will fly from a standard airfield with facilities for
   transport aircraft flying-in the prepared payloads; fuel and
   pyrotechnics loading bays and a maintenance and loading hangar.
   Turnround from landing to take-off could be as little as 48 hr
   if necessary.

Missions
   - satellite launch and recovery,
   - servicing of manned and unmanned platforms,
   - microgravity and scientific experiments,
   - military operations.

Take-off and Climb
   Take-off at 250 knots is from a trolley and a conventional runway
   of appr. 3,500 m. Provision is made to abort safely during the
   1,800 m take-off run or during the climb. After take-off the
   vehicle will accelerate to between 500 and 600 knots and then
   climb at constant airspeed during the airbreathing phase to
   Mach 5 at 26 km (85,000') when the air intake closes. The engine
   then converts to pure rocketpower, using the on-board LOX. Thereafter
   acceleration continues to 90 km and a velocity of 7.9 km/sec.

Re-entry
   Mission duration can range from 12 to 100 hours with 24 hours fairly
   typical. For the re-entry phase a high-angle of attack is maintained
   to maximize lift co-efficient. This enables re-entry to be
   achieved at high altitude to minimize peak velocity and aerodynamic
   heating. In general, re-entry temperatures exceeding 1,200 K will
   occur only under the nosecone, the leading edges and the lips and
   center body of the intake. These 'hot spots' are in the order of
   1,750 K.

Approach and Landing
   For the final phase of the unpowered glide recovery the upper
   portion of the flightpath is lengthened or shortened to cater
   for tail or handwinds and an 18 deg glideslope is maintained by
   deploying and retracting the air brake. Descent is at 2.5 to 3
   deg., touchdown at 160 knots, and groundroll on a wet runway is
   1,500 m.

DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMME

Following the Proof-of-Concept Study there will be a sequential
project definition and initial development phase over a period of
about 4 years. Successful completion should allow entry with
confidence into a development phase beyond 1991, leading to flight
trials in the final two years of the century and operational service
at the turn of the century.
The cost of the development program are currently estimated at a 
round figure of 5 billion pounds.
When the concept has been "proved" in the unmanned role, a dedicated
manned version will be introduced to support the European man-in-space
program.

CONCLUSION

HOTOL is the key to Europe's attainment of total autonomy in Space.

(Information from a paper by British Aerospace, Space & Communications
Division.)

3. SAENGER
----------

Eugen Saenger (1905-1964) conceived the project of a rocket-propelled
aerospace plane in 1943(!). In the period 1962-64 Saenger acted as
advisor for the MBB-Junkers studies on single-stage and two-stage
winged space transport systems.

Europe needs a cost-effective Space Transportation System ...
which reduces the space transportation to some 10 % of the present
values by replacing expendable launchers by fully reusable systems.

DESIGN FEATURES

 - SAENGER is a fully reusable 2-stage winged space transportation 
   system,
 - it allows maximum operational flexibility; it is the only system
   which allows launches from European airports into all orbital
   inclinations,
 - The total launch mass is < 500 tons (B 747 class),
 - For launch and landing conventional airport facilities are foreseen
   without any special launch assist installations,
 - The first stage is a forerunner of a future hypersonic global
   transport plane, carrying the second stages a rocket plane (HORUS)
   or an expendable rocket (CARGUS) to its separation speed of Mach 7
   at an altitude of 35 km,
 - The payload mass and volume of HORUS is designed for convenient
   transport of people and small payloads to the Low Earth Orbit
   space station,
 - The unmanned second stage for cargo transport (CARGUS) is a
   derivative of the ARIANE 5 core stage with minor modifications.

MISSIONS AND PAYLOADS

 - Space station crew exchange plus supply of material: 2-6 astronauts/
   mission specialists plus 2-4 t cargo,
 - Orbital passenger transport: up to 36 passengers,
 - Platforms servicing missions: 2-4 specialists, payload 3 t or 1 t
   (polar),
 - Small cargo transport: 2 pilots plus up to 4 t payload in 500 km
   orbit,
 - Heavy cargo transport: up to 15 t by expendable ballistic second
   stage CARGUS.

HORUS

 - Advanced rocket propulsion (ATC-engine) with 250 bar chamber pressure,
 - Payload bay design for 2-6 astronauts plus cargo transport (2-4 t),
 - Cabin design for Space Tourism,
 - Total mass ~90 tons including 65 t propellants (LH2/LOX),
 - Advanced lightweight thermal protection system (metallic multiwall
   concept).

LAUNCH FROM EUROPEAN AIRPORTS

The two-stage assembly is accelerated by the first-stage turboramjet
engine to the ground lift-off speed of 140 m/s, followed by the 
ascent and acceleration to the maximum speed of Mach 7 (2,100 m/s).
Ignition of second stage engine and separation occurs at 35 km
altitude. The two second stage main engines with 700 kN initial
thrust (each) accelerate the HORUS vehicle to a velocity of 7,940 m/s
at 80 km altitude. This MLAT (Minimum Loss Ascent Trajectory)
comprises the Hohmann ascent to the final orbit altitude, e. g.
500 km, with an apogee injection maneuver.

(This information was provided by MBB Space Systems Group.)

Additional information from MBB International, distributed at Le Bourget:

 - SAENGER could be realized until 2005,
 - The German Ministry of Research and Technology (BMFT) introduced
   SAENGER to ESA.

Note:

In troff SAENGER could correctly be written as follows, when using
the -ms macro definitions:

.AM
SA\*:NGER or Sa\*:nger

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #264
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jun 87 06:22:12 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04196; Thu, 25 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT
	id AA04196; Thu, 25 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 87 03:17:46 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706251017.AA04196@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #265

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 265

Today's Topics:
		  Re: space news from April 27 AW&ST
			    250,000 miles
			  Re: 250,000 miles
			 Re:      soviet sps
		       Re: Orbiting Solar Power
		       Max Gs and tissue damage
		     ETs,FTL,Nuclear Disarmament
	    Re: Orbiting Solar Power (frustration? not me)
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #262
		       Re: Orbiting Solar Power
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 87 23:34:58 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: space news from April 27 AW&ST

I should clarify one item that I've already had one inquiry about:

> Details of the work being done on the Aerospace Plane project.

The reason why I didn't go into this at greater length was not the
desire for terseness, but the nature of the "details".  This article was
basically two pages of stupefyingly boring discussion of which companies
had gotten how much money to do what.  The technical content was
effectively nil.

"There is only one spacefaring        Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
nation on Earth today, comrade."   {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jun 87 19:19:00 GMT
From: wsmith@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: 250,000 miles


Is this accurate?:

No human has ever been more than a 1/4 million miles from the surface
of the earth to date?  (Is Apollo 13 an exception?  By how much?)

Bill Smith
wsmith@a.cs.uiuc.edu
ihnp4!uiucdcs!wsmith

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 87 18:17:19 GMT
From: phoenix!pucc!6089031@princeton.edu  (Shantanu Saha)
Subject: Re: 250,000 miles
 
Apollo XIII at apocynthion was 248,665 miles above the surface of the
earth.  Guiness lists this as the greatest altitude reached by humans.
 
Robert A. West     (Q4071@PUCC)
US MAIL: 7 Lincoln Place / Suite A / North Brunswick, NJ 08902
VOICE  : (201) 821-7055

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jun 1987 17:03-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.bitnet@wiscvm.edu
Subject: Re:      soviet sps
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov


I would very much expect they are trying for some propaganda. I suspect
there are other points to their reasoning:

	1) They do not want to become dependant on outside sources for
	   energy, ie oil. They have good reserves now, but nothing lasts
	   forever. They are much more fearful of dependency than we
	   are.

	2) They depend on the foreign exchanged gained by selling
	   energy, gold, etc to make up for the weakness of their
	   economy in other areas: ie purchase of wheat. Thus internal
	   expenditures are more like university 'funny money' to them.
	   The value of prestige, foreign exchange etc more than offset
	   the cost for them.

	3) There is great propaganda to be had by doing it before we do
	   and supplying some demonstration rectenna to a third world
	   client. Maybe Cuba, Nicaragua, Vietnam, or a nonaligned
	   country. They needn't supply much, just SAY this is only the
	   beginning, and that the superior technology of the peoples
	   socialist...(etc)

	4) The USSR has the dream and has had it built into their
	   culture since Tsiolkovsky. This may actually be one of the
	   more important reasons underlying it all. Leaders have to
	   justify things in terms of ideology though.

	5) When the world wakes up and starts seeing the glint of a
	   multitude of giant orbiting structures, who do you think the
	   peasant in the fields of the 3rd world, or even the kid in
	   the industrialized world, will look to for leadership? The
	   US can produce all the marvels it wants, but when you look
	   up in the sky at night, that's where you will see the pioneers,
	   and that is who the world will follow.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 87 12:56:37 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Orbiting Solar Power

Dale Skran reports:

>     "Guiry Marchuk, president of the Soviety Academy of Sciences, said
>     last week the Energia will be used to launch heavy communications
>     satellites into geosynchronous orbit, large planetary missions,
>     large new space station elements, and experimental solar power
>     satellites that could beam electricity to Earth."
>   
>   DALE SKRAN: Apparently the Soviets are unaware of Gary Allen's proof
>   that Solar Power Satellites are not possible.

First, SPSs are certainly possible.  The real question is whether they
are economical and desirable.

Second, I don't understand why such a vague statement is being taken so
seriously.  I have seen a couple of articles in the newspapers claiming
that the Soviets are planning to launch SPS, but all they contain is a
couple of vague quotations like the above, and a lot of elaboration by
"informed Soviet observers in the US".  If THAT is evidence that the
Russians are planning to launch SPSs, then any O'Neill speech is proof
that General Motors is planning to build a Chevrolet factory in the
asteroid belt.

My impression is that Mr.  Marchuk is just delivering the standard space
industrialization hype that NASA and the space societies have been
delivering for the past twenty years.  If NASA does it, why shouldn't
they do it too?  It does make nice propaganda, doesn't it?

Actually, there seems to have been some discussion of Powersats by
Russian spaceniks (including refrences to launching on the Energia
booster) well before the latest "revelations".  From a summary I read in
an US magazine [1] a while ago it seems the general tenor is not very
different from the US literature on the subject.  It says there that in
some cases, it is not clear whether they are reporting their own dreams,
or merely echoing the American ones.  In view of this, Mr.  Marchuk's
statement is hardly a revelation.

   *   *   *

I am seeing more and more postings that basically say "the Russians are
doing X, which shows X is the right thing to do".  That is funny; I
always imagined the Russians reacting that way to Western technical
decisions.  Please folks, don't take the current Russian exploits as
proof that everything they do --- in particular, their manned program
--- is more sensibly directed than ours.  After all, the basic outlook
of their manned program, like that of NASA, is in good part a carryover
from the Apollo era.  The fact that they are now doing it better than
the US doesn't mean they are doing the right thing.

The Soviet space establishment can hardly be assumed to be immune to
inefficiency, mismanagement, red tape, and institutional inertia.  Their
space policy, like that of NASA, must be in large part determined by
pressures from their aerospace industries, the military, and the
politicians' need for flashy results and rosy projections.  Like at
NASA, the one thing everyone in there wants most is a secure job and a
promising career.  Like NASA, they will surely use anything they can to
justify their continued existence.  Many of the criticisms that have
been made to the goals of the US space program apply to theirs, too.

Reference:

[1] Alain Dupas, "The USSR and space power plants"
    Space Policy vol. 2 no. 4 (November 1986).
    
Additional references mentioned in [1]:

[2] Leonid Leskov, "Power-industry orbital complexes of the 21st century"
    Space Policy, February 1985.
    
[3] Alain Dupas, "Le programme spatial sovietique"
    La Recherche, November 1984.
  
(No, I didn't read these.)

Jorge Stolfi  ARPA: stolfi@dec.src.com USENET: ...!decvax!decwrl!stolfi

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 87 01:10:55 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA  (MacLeod)
Subject: Max Gs and tissue damage

In article <8169@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:

>I don't
>object to things like bruises and nosebleeds in a good cause, e.g. getting
>me into orbit.

My nose can bleed as much as it pleases during liftoff.  I'm more
concerned with brain trauma, specifically microhemorrages, that have a
cumulative effect.  If every launch is the equivalent of a round with
Mike Tyson, I'll pass.

Until it gets easier...

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 87 23:37:30 GMT
From: smeagol!jplgodo!wlbr!wlbreng1!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (John Unekis)
Subject: ETs,FTL,Nuclear Disarmament

A modest proposal :

Why not combine three goals in one-
A)The quest for an FTL drive
B)The search for extraterrestrial intelligence
C)Nuclear Disarmament

How , you may ask?

Simple,

The strongest argument against nuclear disarmament is that the other
side might cheat and not really dissasemble all their missiles. We might
then find ourselves being attacked with missiles that should, by treaty
at least, not exist. The solution is to disarm by launching the missiles
into space and detonating them there. We could challenge the Russians to
match us explosion for explosion until both arsenals were exhausted.
Bombs which have been detonated already cannot later be reassembled and
used in a sneak attack.

A serendipitous benefit of this big fireworks display would be to
attract any curious forms of life posessing FTL drive ships to come see
what the backwards locals of Earth were celebrating. Their arrival would
prove once and for all the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence.


Having made contact with the aliens, we would then influence them with
liquor and loose women (or formaldehyde and Iguanas, whatever turns an
ET on) to learn their secrets. With the knowledge of FTL drives in hand,
we could then construct a fleet of spaceships and make our presence felt
in galactic society. Just think how impressed a society of sentient
beings which has existed for hundreds of thousands of years would be
with our cultural achievements. Picture Yoda drinking Budweiser from an
aluminum can and watching Vanna White do her thing on Wheel of Fortune.


Suddenly a question comes to mind. Maybe ETs have known about us for
some time. Maybe they have been watching us develop as a civilization.
Maybe they would be just as happy if we didn't make it off this little
ball of rock.

------------------------------

From: mdc14!wbm
Date: Tue Jun 23 17:05:43 1987


space

Dear mailer:
	Please add me to the space information mailing list.

		Thank you,
--------
William B. McCormick
uucp: !{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!mdc14!wbm

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 23 Jun 87 14:42:58 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Orbiting Solar Power (frustration? not me)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <211@nysernic> Chris writes:
>	Your point is valid that the Soviet Powersat report may be no
>more than propaganda, but understand that whoever said it (Dale or
>Eugene?) exagerated out of frustration at the impotence of the US
>program in comparison the the Soviets.
>					-Chris

"Not I," said the little hen.
Must be Dale for all the amon@h.cs.cmu's.

One thing you learn working for NASA is patience.  You can tell my slant
on space: un-manned, deep space exploration (not what Ames is known for
currently).  I will be posting something on that shortly, I am waiting
for permission (not NASA, author's).

The Soviets, ESSA, China, and Japan are all pretty much the same
regarding technology (see aeronaut comment below).  That something
is orbiting is nothing more than a visual symbol to one's technology.
Are you afraid of "rocks dropped by an overpass" like Johnson's
character in Wolfe's "Right Stuff?"  There are distinguished scientists
who have waited 20 years to fly instruments;
the problem is computer people have this problem of wanting it RIGHT
NOW.  The thing you have to remember is that all these rockets are
bascially 1950s technology including the Shuttle.  It's the aeronauts,
not the computer people, who make the decisions what goes into them.
I would also hate to base any "space race" on "escalation."  How do you
think the Soviet's felt in the late 1960s?  Can we go into space
together?  Sally Ride just proposed a joint Mars mission.  I hated Star
Trek and Star Wars because we could not seem to shake the military slant
from space (but I admit to watching and sometimes enjoying them as films).

"And all of our rockets blow up....." (Wolfe)

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 23 Jun 87 11:10:44 SA
From: Tero Siili <FYS-TS%FINHUT.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V7 #262

Re:HOTOL

The structure of HOTOL landing gear is very light, because the basic idea
is as follows: HOTOL takes off from a conventional runway on a carriage,
which is eventually not raised to orbit. This carriage has the structural
strength, which supports HOTOL empty weight PLUS the weight of the payload
carried PLUS all of the fuel load(LH2 and LOX). Most of the fuel is burned
during ascent and the payload is left on orbit, as expected. This means,
that landing mass is very small comapared to take-off mass. Therefore,
the landing gear has much lighter structure, than the take-off carriage
and uses thus much less space. If someone wants detailed info on HOTOL,
its best to send a letter to British Aerospace Info dep. I can't recall
their address, but contact nearest UK embassy or equivalent.

Tero Siili
Helsinki University of Technology,
Finland

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 87 19:00:47 GMT
From: vanvleck!uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rsch.wisc.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: Orbiting Solar Power

In article <828@jumbo.dec.com> decwrl!jumbo!stolfi (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
>I am seeing more and more postings that basically say "the Russians are
>doing X, which shows X is the right thing to do".  That is funny; I
> ...
> ...  The fact that they are now doing it better than
>the US doesn't mean they are doing the right thing.  
>

	I don't recall seeing anyone say that everything the Russians
do is the right thing.  The point, which perhaps you have missed, is
that they are doing a lot.  THey have a working, productive space
program which has advanced them years as far as space productivity is
concerned.  Can you deny this?  Sure, they could be doing it better,
but they are doing it better than us.  With all our fancy managemnet
styles and MBAs, we are so over managed that nothing ever gets done.
THe US hasn't made a significant contribution to space technology in
years.  The criticism is that we SHOULD be doing it better than the
Soviets, but instead we are doing it worse than everyone.  No one says
we have to do it the way they are, but shouldn't we be doing it at
least as well as them?  They are doing it the easy way and GETTING
RESULTS. We were at one time trying to do it the harder/better way but
somewhere along the line got bogged down and now we aren't doing
anything. Doing half bad is many times better than doing nothing.  

	Your point is valid that the Soviet Powersat report may be no
more than propaganda, but understand that whoever said it (Dale or
Eugene?) exagerated out of frustration at the impotence of the US
program in comparison the the Soviets.  Understand also that all the
hoopla in this group about the Soviet program is not meant as "Look at
the Soviets and what they are doing, aren't they great, aren't they
wonderful, they always do it right", it is meant to be read as "Those
*&&^&*#$%*^&%*^%%#*^$ Russians are doing all that and WE CAN'T DO
SQUAT???!!!!???!!!???!!! *&*&*&&&^%$%$##@$**%**%%$$# <add more
frustrated expletives>... something is VERY WRONG here!!!"  Of course
most people (including myself) applaud any advancement in space and
science, and don't neccisarily hate the Soviets, but are very
frustrated that WE aren't  contibuting anything.

					-Chris

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #265
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Jun 87 06:21:25 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01796; Fri, 26 Jun 87 03:18:13 PDT
	id AA01796; Fri, 26 Jun 87 03:18:13 PDT
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 87 03:18:13 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706261018.AA01796@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #266

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 266

Today's Topics:
	  Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling)
			    Jobs in space
     Re: Launch Vehicle Size (was Re: Breaking out of the Cradle)
			   Re: X-15 engines
		 launch method to replace first stage
		     West German space activities
			 Soviet space shuttle
		  Upcoming Soviet Manned Spaceflight
		   Re: High G and playing with life
		     Reducing population pressure
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jun 87 15:21:21 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Privately built shuttle (ownership of tooling)

in article <8706181641.AA16876@ames-pioneer.arpa>, eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) says:

>>The feds, DOD and NASA, tend to own the tooling used to build things like

> No, you are wrong.  NASA does NOT own the tooling.  Sort of.

Thank you for the correction. I should have known that NASA does not
operate the same way as the armed services. With the tooling and plans
in the public domain, why does Rockwell need permision to use them?
Could you clarify the "sort of" part of your reply?

>>The Navy likes to own the whole manufacturing plant, look around at
>>the NIROP plants all over the country.

NIROP stands for, I believe, Naval Industrial Reserve Ordinance Plant.
NIROP plants are, as was explained to me during new hire orientation,
owned by the Navy and operated by individual corporations, such as
Hercules Areospace and LMSC, maybe even by Northrup, I don't know. If
THIS is also incorrect please tell me. I hate "knowing" things that are
wrong.

> Like they say in the ads: Interested principals only.
> 
> --eugene miya
>   NASA Ames Research Center

		Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Wed 24 Jun 87 11:47:41-PDT
Date: Wed 24 Jun 87 11:47:41-PDT
From: Alan R. Katz <KATZ@venera.isi.edu>
Subject: Jobs in space
To: BBOARD@venera.isi.edu, space@angband.s1.gov
Cc: katz@venera.isi.edu
Mail-System-Version: <VAX-MM(213)+TOPSLIB(128)@VENERA.ISI.EDU>


I am forwarding this for anyone who may be interested or knows someone 
who may be interested.  Please do not direct questions to me:

				Alan
: : : : : : : : : : : : 

Date: Wed 24 Jun 87 10:38:29-PDT
From: Rand Simberg <SIMBERG@ECLA.USC.edu>
Subject: Hiring Space Cadets

I have to hire about eight people in the next few weeks, to handle the
new business which Rockwell has been winning lately.  We just got a
large contract for SDI development and testing (KEW), we are going to
start flying the STS again in about a year and need flight support
people, and we are developing new launch vehicle concepts.  We are also
looking for people to analyze lunar bases and Mars mission scenarios.

The specific skills that I need are in the areas of space mission
analysis and planning, ascent and on-orbit performance, requirements
derivation and functional flows for launch and orbit transfer systems,
space and ground operations, system reliability, and programmatics.  We
also have several openings in mechanical design, avionics, mass
properties and system configuration.

Please distribute this message to any pertinent mailing lists and
respond either online to Simberg@ECLA.USC.edu, or by mailing resumes to:

	Rand Simberg   MC AA96
	Supervisor, System Analysis & Integration
	Rockwell International
	Space Transportation Systems Division
	12214 Lakewood Blvd
	Downey, CA  90241

I am looking particularly for people who have a strong interest in
space.  You don't have to be crazy to work here, but it sure helps!

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 87 19:57:31 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Launch Vehicle Size (was Re: Breaking out of the Cradle)

In article <448@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
> I've heard similar comments before about the necessary size and the 
> estimated development cost for efficient rocket transporation systems.
> While I can't prove they're wrong, I do have a hard time buying 'em.  
> Let's consider the issue of size:
> 
> What we're talking about is mainly just the ratio between vehicle dry
> mass and the propellant mass that it can carry.  Vehicle dry mass is
> heavily dominated by the mass of propellant tankage.  Now there's a 
> theoretical result (can't remember whom it's named after, offhand) 
> that says the minimum ratio between tankage and propellant mass is a 
> function of the height of the tank.  The shorter the tank, the lighter
> it can be in relation to the propellant it can hold.  From that result, 
> you'd expect that "small is beautiful" for rockets.  It should be 
> possible to build small rockets with better mass ratios than large 
> ones.  That's a theoretical result, however, that seems to run counter 
> to actual experience.  How come?

There are two main contributors to why big rockets generally have better
payload fractions.  These are (1) hardware that does not scale linearly
with propellant mass, and (2) atmospheric drag.

A rocket stage can be divided into the following parts: propellant
airframe, engine section, and electronics.  The engine section includes
the rocket engines themselves, fuel valves, and some device that steers
the engine exhaust (called a thrust vector controller).  The sizing
criterion in this part of the stage is engine thrust.  Thrust, in turn,
is mostly determined by propellant weight (i.e thrust=about
1.4xpropellant weight).  Engine weight is mostly linear with thrust,
since the combustion chamber and nozzle are pressure designed.  Valves
are sized by fuel flow rate, which is proportional to thrust.  Engine
steering is driven by engine weight, again proportional to thrust.  So
basically, the engine section scales linearly with propellant mass.

The electronics includes sensors such as thermocouples for engine
temperature, tank pressure gauges, and accelerometers and gyroscopes to
tell you how you are moving.  All of these feed a guidance computer and
a radio.  The former figures out how to steer the rocket engines to
maintain a programmed flight path, and the radio sends back to the
ground information on how the flight is going.  All of these items need
a power supply.  All of them, including the power supply, are
independant of how large the rocket is.  A typical value today is 2500
lbs total for this set of hardware.

The airframe includes tanks and the intervening structures between the
tanks, engines, and everything else. The most efficient shape for a
propellant tank is a flattened ellipsoid with the vertical axis =
0.5*sqrt(2) times the horizontal diameter.  This shape is most freqently
seen in water storage tanks in the suburbs.  Two effects conspire to
distort the tank of a small rocket from this ideal.  The first is the
pressure head required on the inlet side of the engine pumps.  A typical
value is 50 psi, and one way to get pressure head is by making the tank
taller.  The other way is by making the tank thicker and pressurizing
it.  Either way, the tank is heavier than required purely for holding a
given mass of propellant.  The second effect is aerodynamic drag.  Drag
is proportional to vehicle cross section, so there is a benefit to
making your vehicle skinny.  Drag is proportionally more important as
you get smaller, by the square-cube rule of area to mass.  So smaller
rockets optimize to skinnier shapes than big ones, with a weight penalty
in the process.

The fixed weight of the electronics and the tank weight penalties for
smallness are equivalent to about a 10000 lb loss in payload.  The size
at which this penalty becomes 'small' you can decide for yourself.  I
use 100,000 lb payload, so it is a 10% penalty.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 87 11:57:07 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: X-15 engines

The X-15 was flown with at least two different types of engines, the
Little Engine and the Big Engine.  The Big Engine was the XLR-99 and had
a thrust of 57,000 pounds - only 21,000 pounds less than the Redstone
booster which launched Shepard & Grissom into their suborbital flights.

This is on page 200 of The Right Stuff.

	John

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 87 23:58:33
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 June 25 23:58:33 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 June 25 00:55:06 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: launch method to replace first stage

Can somebody refute these two ideas (or are they workable ideas)?

(1) Launch ramjet from open end of wind tunnel. Air is sucked into the
tunnel a supersonic rates near the fans, but the tunnel tapers larger
upwind (outward) so wind rate tapers down to a mere hurricane near end of
runway. Ramjet starts at supersonic part, where the wind itself is fast
enough to stuff air into the engine. It accellerates rapidly so by the
end of the runway it is going supersonic itself no longer needing such a
strong headwind to stuff air into the engines.

The advantage of that idea is you wouldn't need a first stage, you could
just start with ramjet at ground level. This is comparable to laser
launch in that most of the launch facility stays on ground instead of
going up and then getting jettisoned.

(2) Ramjet or rocket is carried to high altitude, where it is dropped
with only slight forward velocity (a few hundred MPH from the 747 or
whatever carrier). It dives into lower atmosphere as it fires its
engines, both gravity and engines causing speed increase until its little
teeny wings have enough lift to allow the vehicle to bank upward.
Ideally, for minimum wing drag, the design is to almost but not quite
reach the ocean at the bottom of the drop, but of course allow a margin
of safety of a few thousand feet.

This method still needs a first stage, the carrier airplane, but avoids
needing to fire rockets in the vicinity of the carrier. Thus the
breakaway is soft instead of hard, and there is no danger of blast from
rocket or ramjet damaging the carrier plane.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 87 20:02:45 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov  (tilgner)
Subject: West German space activities

West Germany's government will have to make some important decisions
on its space activities late this year: whether
 - to participate in ESA's ARIANE 5/HERMES project and whether
 - to participate in ESA's COLUMBUS project, the European module
   of the US Space Station.
According to the press many scientists and engineers are thinking that
the HERMES concept is already out of date now and are preferring HOTOL
or SAENGER. But, however, due to political reasons, the chances of
HERMES of getting a go-ahead soon, are very good.

A study of the "Deutscher Industrie- und Handelstag" (DIHT), an
organization of West German industry and trade proposed a NASA-like
organization for coordinating the West German space efforts. [You may
believe it or not, until now the space activities are loosely
coordinated by the Federal Ministry of Research and Technology, the
space activities are scattered among universities, private companies and
special research institutions.] In addition the DIHT criticizes the lack
of a long-term concept of space exploration.  The study discussed these
problems in some detail. In conclusion it proposes to participate in
HERMES as well as in COLUMBUS, provided that the West German industry
will get an important part of HERMES and that there is a complete
equality between the US and Europe concerning the Space Station. In
addition the study of such advanced space transportation systems like
HOTOL or SAENGER should not be cancelled. ("Sueddeutsche Zeitung", June
22, 1987)

The Socialdemocratic Party of Germany (SPD), now in opposition, is
favoring the same position, according to a news report today.  However,
if the US wants to use its Space Station militarily, Europe should go
its own way, a spokesman said, summarizing an opinion which is quite
common here. ("Sueddeutsche Zeitung", June 23, 1987)

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 87 22:24:46 GMT
From: amdahl!dlb!auspyr!sci!daver@AMES.ARPA  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Soviet space shuttle

I was looking through the June issue of Spaceflight magazine (one of
the magazines of the British Interplanetary Society).  In it, they have
a drawing of a soviet space shuttle docked to a soviet space station
(the station is labeled Novii Mir, or "New World").  The shuttle is
docked to the station by its tail.  The shuttle seems to have a name on
it, but i can't make out the last two letters.  It starts off "beh oo
err" (gack, transcribing cyrillic is painful).  The last two letters
could be "yerii (61) en".  The next to the last letter could be either
a hard or a soft sign (or quite a few other letters if the top somehow
got cropped).  The last letter could be an "i" (the backwards N) or a
"u".  I don't know enough russian to make a guess as to what word it
should be.

In the blurb, they said something about it having undergone six [test?]
flights already, and would be ready sometime in 88 for a (probably
unmanned) launch.

Anyone have more details?  I seem to remember reading an article somewhere
that doubted even the existence of the soviet shuttle.

It would be somewhat amusing if the soviets had their shuttle flying before
ours does.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 87 19:35:37 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!stollco!til@seismo.css.gov  (tilgner)
Subject: Upcoming Soviet Manned Spaceflight

The USSR announced a new manned spaceflight with two Soviet 
cosmonauts and one Syrian cosmonaut, beginning at July 22,
according to a West German newspaper.

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 24 Jun 87 12:26:23 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: High G and playing with life


There are several points to be made about high G forces, blackouts,
neurological damage, and so forth.

Not all episodes of unconsciousness are created equal.  The biggest
hazard of someone passing out while, say, getting their blood drawn or
during a real hellfire-and-brimstone Baptist sermon is head trauma
from the fall, not from the blackout per se.  The Air Force regularly
takes pilots to unconsciousness in their centrifuges without ill
effect, and in fact this is an important part of their training.

The issue of "posture" is not a detail, it is critically important.
People blackout from G-forces when the acceleration is in the +Gz
direction (ie, blood is drawn out of the head toward the feet).
Pilots of high performance aircraft can usually tolerate about +9 Gz
with use of G-suits, straining maneuvers, etc.  A shuttle re-entry
inflicts about +1.7 Gz over a period of ?20 minutes, which ain't no
problem at all - unless you've been weightless for a week.

Acceleration from front to back (+Gx) can be tolerated to a much
higher degree.  Ham the chimp took +17 Gx during the launch of his
Mercury-Redstone flight and -14 Gx during re-entry.  (The description
in The Right Stuff is a joy!)  Apollo re-entries gave the astronauts
-7 Gx ("eyeballs out") or so.

I would be willing to be blacked out by acceleration stress, but only
for a second or two.  Brain cells do not appreciate being without
oxygen for very much longer than that.

	John Sotos
	Stanford U.


-------

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jun 87 20:04:53 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Subject: Reducing population pressure

In article <8706210908.AA01344@brahms.Berkeley.EDU> brahms.Berkeley.EDU!carrier@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (Stephen Paul Carrier) writes:
>    d. Maybe technological sophisticates have no use for planetary
>    surfaces.

>Expect population pressure to be a real consideration in colonization.
>Suppose a colonizer expands so that its dominion is a sphere whose
>radius increases at a constant rate.  The volume of the sphere varies
>only as the cube of time so the population cannot grow exponentially,
>as it would like to do.

Realistically, unless interstellar travel is much easier than scientists
now think it is, shipping your excess population off to nearby stars is
impractical.  One ship might be enormously expensive to build, and it
could carry, say, 10^5 beings, together with all the equipment
(biological and technological) they'll need to set up shop in another
solar system (and that is one BIG ship).  Add either equipment to hold
them in suspended animation or a complete ecosystem to support them
while they travel.  And sufficient fuel (much here depends on how fast
you want to go and what constitutes fuel).  To get rid of 10^9 beings
you need 10^4 of these huge ships.  And meanwhile the population is
still growing.  It's a losing battle.

I can think of three cheaper alternatives:

	(1) Warfare.  This method has been successfully used on Terra
	    many times.

	(2) Restrict breeding.  Why assume population growth _has_ to
	    be exponential?

	(3) Build space habitats rather than ships.  Much less expensive
	    because no motors, no fuel, no structural requirement to
	    withstand acceleration, no requirement to minimize mass (so
	    you can just tunnel into an asteroid or small moon, for
	    instance).  Also easier to get volunteers for.

Andre Guirard

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #266
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jun 87 06:19:22 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04168; Sat, 27 Jun 87 03:16:21 PDT
	id AA04168; Sat, 27 Jun 87 03:16:21 PDT
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 87 03:16:21 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706271016.AA04168@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #267

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 267

Today's Topics:
		   Re: ETs,FTL,Nuclear Disarmament
		Re: The limitations of mathematicians
	       Can we follow in the Soviets footsteps?
     Adult Space Academy Information (last time I promise) (long)
   Re: Adult Space Academy Information (last time I promise) (long)
		   Re: High G and playing with life
		     Who to talk to at Space Camp
		     SuperNova and Fermi Paradox
			SCRAMjet engine tests?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 87 03:51:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!upba!dsndata!denny@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Denny Page)
Subject: Re: ETs,FTL,Nuclear Disarmament

> [...] The solution is to disarm by launching the missiles 
> into space and detonating them there.

And how do you propose explaining this when the Galactic Cops show up
and charge the planet Earth with discharging a Weapon inside the limits
of a solar system?   :-)

Denny	hplabs!hpfcla!dsndata!denny

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jun 87 13:53:26 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa  (Peter DaSilva)
Subject: Re: The limitations of mathematicians

Isn't there a math group where you can all go play Tortoise-and-crab
while we talk about space?

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 87 18:01:23 EDT
From: Donald.Schmitz@arm.ri.cmu.edu
Subject: Can we follow in the Soviets footsteps?
To: BBoard.Maintainer@a.cs.cmu.edu

Given recent discussion, it seems many of us are ignoring the potential of
the NASA space station and shuttle because they are not the best or most
efficeint design.  Ironically, at the same time people are proposing exotic
(relative to shuttle) alternatives, they are also praising the Soviets for
using obsolete but working and reliable hardware to mount a successful space
program.  Given the political inertia of NASA projects, a good idea may be
to think of ways to do the most with what we (will hopefully) have, ie. a
fleet of aprox. 4 shuttles and a small space station with a crew of aprox.
10.

For example, can we use space station construction technology and spare
shuttle parts to build space launched boosters?  Assume it is practical for
the shuttle to carry external tanks to the station (we now have a place to
store them until there are enough to use).  Imagine a vehicle assembled from
6 external tanks tied together via a light framework similar to that used
for the space station.  Add a shuttle load of engines, maybe 6 SSME's, or
possibly 2 resurrected F-1s (its probably much more practical to retool F-1s
than an entire Saturn).  Seems like such a beast could deliver a good sized
payload to the moon (roundtrip) or Mars (anyone with the background care to
work out ball park numbers?).  Enough raw materials (tanks and engines)
could be delivered every year to build 1 or 2 boosters, at very little
additional cost to the originally planned missions.

Of course this would require the ability to deliver large quantities of fuel
and payload to orbit. Hopefully this will provide an incentive for private
companies to develop commercial orbital transport systems.  Imagine the
number of competitors working on such systems if 1/3 of NASA's budget was
allocated for buying fuel for such missions (once the station is built,
hardware costs should be low).  If capitalism lets us down, we can contract
with the Soviets; they'd probably trade LOX in orbit for SUN workstations
delivered to Moscow, pound for pound :-).

I'd be interested in seeing dicussion along these lines, such as missions
for the vehicle I've described, and other general schemes. This seems more
constructive in the near term (next 5 years) than ideas for skyhooks, etc.
A question I haven't seen addressed here is how to suggest such ideas to the
people who actually make NASA project plans.  Maybe if we hash out the
details of promising plans, we can forward them to the right place, and have
a chance for our collective armchair engineering to make a difference, or at
least get people thinking (guess I'm a perpetual optimist).

Don Schmitz@arm.ri.cmu.edu.ARPA		Robotics Institue, Carnegie Mellon
					Pittsburgh, PA 15213

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jun 87 22:29:26 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Adult Space Academy Information (last time I promise) (long)

Here is the most complete information I have on Adult Space Camp.  I will
do no more general postings except to modify or change this information if
necessary, or to keep the group updated on the status of the Adult Level II
program

Thanks to all of you for writing to Huntsville, the staff was very impressed
by the amount of interest generated through Usenet.


Adult Space Academy comes in three flavors:
	1. Adult level I(3day) - The program they've been offering for
				 the past two + years, suitable for
				 the person off the street.
	2. Adult level II(3day)- That program upgraded with new simulators
				 and computer hardware, more complicated
				 mission, etc.  Suitable for people who've
				 attended before, space enthusiasts, etc.,  
				 but probably still simple if you work in
				 the field.  Program begins with adult sessions
				 this fall (September 18).
	3. Adult level II(10day)- There is only one session planned this
				  fall as an experiment.  The 10 day program
				  is designed for high school juniors, seniors
				  and college frosh.  The session is Sept. 28 -
				  Oct. 7.  Missions of 8-24 hours, advanced
				  training, neutral boyancy work.  Details
				  below.

In the past, only 3 day Adult sessions of Space Camp/Academy have been
offered, because the people at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville
were under the impression that adults would not want to take the time
off of work for a longer session.  The single Adult Space Academy Level II
10 day program came about because people (mostly Usenet and Compuserve types)
wrote camp and expressed their interest in attending.  The date was set
to overlap a previously planned 3-day Level II session being attended by
a group from Compuserve's Space and Space Education forums, at least
in part so a group session of 10 day for 1988 can be discussed and organized.

The Space Academy Level II program is described in the brochure as follows:

The training curriculum for Level II is patterned after NASA crew training
manuals and performed in facilities designed from astronaut training
simulators.  The academic curriculum is written and kept current by engineers
and scientists currently working at NASA and in the private sector, by
University of Alabama professors and researchers, and by certified
instructors in SCUBA and aviation.

There are three tracks of study and training: aerospace (pilot or commander),
engineering (mission specialist), or science (payload specialist).  The
three tracks will combine as a team for final training and the simulated
missions.  24 students per session with 8 in each of the three tracks.

Aerospace Track trainees will focus on the foundations needed for a
potential aerospace engineer, Shuttle commander or pilot, or aviation
career.  The academic program includes celestial navigation, aviation
ground schooling, meteorology, orbital mechanics and space piloting.
Field visits include the U.S. Air Force Arnold Engineering Development Center
where advance wind tunnel facilities are testing tomorrow's fighter
aircraft, or a visit to the flight line of the Air National Guard
for briefings, engine testing and a day's mission.

Engineering track students study robotics, optics, materials science,
structures and thermodynamics, and space environment to prepare for their
mission specialist role.  They are trained in SCUBA techniques to conduct
EVA's and microgravity experimentation in the underwater neutral boyancy
facility at U.S. Space Academy.

Science Track students design, build and conduct their own space shuttle
experiments with instruction in solar and space plasma physics, space biology,
astrophysics, remote sensing, materials science, optics, computers and
instrumentation.  SCUBA instruction will allow them to test their experiments
in a microgravity environment prior to mission simulations.  Their experiments
will be considered as candidates to fly on future shuttle missions in the
Space and Rocket Center's Get-Away_Special canisters.

All three level II tracks work together in integrated working group sessions
to plan their space shuttle missions using NASA's Mission Integration Planning
software.

-------End brochure info


The program is located at the Space and Rocket Center in Huntsville,
Alabama, home of Marshall Space Flight Center.  The museum and camp/academy
are operated by the state of Alabama with much help from NASA and various
contractors.  The museum is comparable in quality to the space sections
of the National Air and Space Museum, with the additional advantage
of a large outdoor rocket park that includes a Saturn V, and a full
shuttle stack (mockup orbiter Pathfinder, ET and SRBs).


I have no connection with Space Camp/Academy except as a pleased attendee,
and the person who organized the drive to get them to schedule an adult
10-day session.  If you have any specific questions about the program
I will be glad to try to answer, but a better source is the Camp itself.
U.S. folks can call them at 800-633-7280 toll free, the address is
	Space Camp/Academy
	The Space and Rocket Center
	Tranquility Base
	Huntsville, AL 35807

 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+
 |  Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                 A|W|A     |
 |  8519 White Pine Drive        The cause endures...               H|T|H     |
 |  Manassas Park, VA 22111        The hope still lives...          /|||\     |
 |  (703)361-1290 (h)           And the dream shall never die.     /_|T|_\    |
 |  (703)749-2315 (w)  (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker)             " W "     |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 87 21:22:54 GMT
From: puff!williams@rsch.wisc.edu  (Karen Williams)
Subject: Re: Adult Space Academy Information (last time I promise) (long)


My father is an engineer who has lived in Huntsville for many, many
years. Every summer when I visited him I made sure to visit the
Space Museum. Even without the space camps, it's a great place to
visit. They have many *real* spacecraft (some of which you can get inside),
a mockup of the shuttle in which you can take a "trip" via of the magic
of videotape, an outdoor park with a ride for experiencing weightlessness,
real astronaut food for sale, and many other exhibits. (Able and Baker lived
out the rest of their lives there. Miss Baker died shortly after my last
visit there.) Should you visit Huntsville, I recommend the museum even
without the space camps. (An advantage of having a father who lives
there is that I got to see the Enterprise when it was on the Arsenal for
repairs.)

-- 
                                              Karen Williams

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 87 20:20:07 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: High G and playing with life

In article <12313116013.39.SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU> SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (John Sotos) writes:
>
>There are several points to be made about high G forces, blackouts,
>neurological damage, and so forth.
...
>The issue of "posture" is not a detail, it is critically important.
>People blackout from G-forces when the acceleration is in the +Gz
>direction (ie, blood is drawn out of the head toward the feet).
>Pilots of high performance aircraft can usually tolerate about +9 Gz
>with use of G-suits, straining maneuvers, etc....
>
>Acceleration from front to back (+Gx) can be tolerated to a much
>higher degree.  Ham the chimp took +17 Gx during the launch of his
>Mercury-Redstone flight and -14 Gx during re-entry.  (The description
>in The Right Stuff is a joy!)  Apollo re-entries gave the astronauts
>-7 Gx ("eyeballs out") or so.

There is also a strong time dependence.  I have in front of me a 
plot from Webb, Paul M. D. "Bioastronautics Data Book,", NASA SP-3006, 1964
titled "G Tolerance in 4 vectors".  It is unfortunately not clear if
"tolerance" means before blackout, or before some other limit; also, it
is not clear if this includes the use of G-suits, etc.  Since the
plot is included in a design study for a high-acceleration vehicle, I
think it is safe to assume these are roughly what NASA considers safe for
manned vehicles:

Time (min)	+Gx	-Gx	+Gz	-Gz
.01 (<1 sec)	35	28	18	8
.03 (2 sec)	28	22	14	7
.1		20	17	11	5
.3		15	12	9	4.5
1		11	9	7	3.3
3		9	8	6	2.5
10		6	5	4.5	2
30		4.5	4	3.5	1.8

All the curves are straight lines on log-log paper with slopes of around
1/4.  Note that the -Gz curve goes below 1 at something like 200 minutes --
this is therefore the maximum time that NASA recommends for standing
on your head :-) :-).

There is also a plot on "Acceleration Onset Tolerances" (from USAAVLABS
Tech Rept. 67-22, "Crash Survival Design Guide") which indicates that
up to 30 G's of acceleration, the rate of change of acceleration should be
limited to 600 G/sec.  At 1370 G/sec, the plot indicates "Definite signs of
shock", and at 3400 G/sec, "Cardiovascular Shock -- heart function and
blood circulation have stopped".

>
>I would be willing to be blacked out by acceleration stress, but only
>for a second or two.  Brain cells do not appreciate being without
>oxygen for very much longer than that.
>
>	John Sotos
>	Stanford U.

Seems to me the limit for beginning of organic damage is more like 3-4 
minutes, but I wouldn't volunteer to test that....

	Jordin Kare

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 87 15:22:59 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Who to talk to at Space Camp

Andy Sheppard (thanks andy) just told me the person to talk to if you want to
make phone reservations for the 10 day Adult Space Academy session is
named Cynthia (no last name, just like FM disc jockeys :-)).

She's the only one who's likely to have the slightest idea of what you're
talking about.

++rich
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+
 |  Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                 A|W|A     |
 |  8519 White Pine Drive        The cause endures...               H|T|H     |
 |  Manassas Park, VA 22111        The hope still lives...          /|||\     |
 |  (703)361-1290 (h)           And the dream shall never die.     /_|T|_\    |
 |  (703)749-2315 (w)  (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker)             " W "     |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 87 16:25:01 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: SuperNova and Fermi Paradox

*** REPLACE THIS LINE WITH YOUR MESSAGE ***



The Star Betelgeuse is large enough to explode as a Supernova and 
being only 300 Light Years away will produce enough Xrays to blow off
the Ozone layer and fry us. ( Reference Science News June 20, 1987, page
391)

Great maybe this explains the Fermi Paradox... All intelligent life
gets blasted away with SuperNova radiation before they can start 
moving out into the stars.

I don't think there is even a way to set up an early warning detector.
The Xrays would arrive as fast as any warning signal from a monitoring 
post.

				We have got to get off this mudball
				
					Fred

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jun 87 01:54:24 GMT
From: bloom-beacon!gaserre@eddie.mit.edu  (Glenn A. Serre)
Subject: SCRAMjet engine tests?

Does anyone out there know of any flight tests of SCRAMjet (supersonic
combustion ramjet) engines that may have been conducted?  If so, I would be 
interested in the results that were obtained; specific impulse, problems, 
surprises, etc.  Net posting, email of results, or a pointer to an 
appropriate source would be much appreciated.

Thanks in advance.

                                --Glenn Serre
                                  gaserre@athena.mit.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #267
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jun 87 06:18:03 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05777; Sun, 28 Jun 87 03:15:06 PDT
	id AA05777; Sun, 28 Jun 87 03:15:06 PDT
Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 03:15:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706281015.AA05777@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #268

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 268

Today's Topics:
	      Re: Can we follow [suggestions and goals]
		    Re: max Gs (playing with life)
		Electrons and X-Rays and UV (oh, my!)
		     Re: Betelguese and Supernova
		   Aircars and Futures of the Past
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 26 Jun 87 09:39:49 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Can we follow [suggestions and goals]
Newsgroups: sci.space

Don Schimtz wrote:
>Given the political inertia of NASA projects, a good idea may be
>to think of ways to do the most with what we (will hopefully) have, ie. a
>fleet of aprox. 4 shuttles and a small space station with a crew of aprox. 10.
>
>For example, can we use space station construction technology and spare
>shuttle parts to build space launched boosters?
> .  . .
>hardware costs should be low).  If capitalism lets us down, we can contract
>with the Soviets; they'd probably trade LOX in orbit for SUN workstations
>delivered to Moscow, pound for pound :-).
	This would be interesting.  Would like to see the faces of LtC
	North or Mr. Schulz.
>A question I haven't seen addressed here is how to suggest such ideas to the
>people who actually make NASA project plans.  Maybe if we hash out the
>details of promising plans, we can forward them to the right place, and have
>a chance for our collective armchair engineering to make a difference, or at
>least get people thinking (guess I'm a perpetual optimist).

Don-- (and others)

What we have here are the confuse of two problems: 1) lots of technology
but no goals (like the Persian Gulf, etc.) and 2) "getting people to
listen."

Let me address 2) first, the easier.  The people who read the net don't
have a corner on intellectual brilliance.  I can tell you 9 out of 10
ideas which have been posted to the net have been proposed before, and
submitted in PAPER to public information offices in NASA.  This does not
mean they can all be tried, I'm certain 9 out of 10 submitted ideas
would fail, then only 1 out of 10 unfailed ideas would have "use."

Some people get contracts let to study ideas like a firm in Mississippi
for using fuel tanks as space telescope observatories.  Start a
consulting firm..... The idea of
"using" fuel tanks for things is over a decade old.  But there are other
concerns like a) launching satellites (paying customers), b) performing
experiments in space (like blue missions [DOD]), c) etc.
The only thing is some people expect the PIO to be on the net.  They aren't.
They are also not prepared to shoot down the infeasibility of idea like
like certain Swiss patent offices of the past.  My colleagues and I are
not PIO people.  We are scientists and engineers with jobs to do.
Like the one I am ignoring.

On the issue of goals.  Yes, we can strap tanks together and go to the
moon.  The question is to what end?  We might only succeed in another
Apollo mission.  We want to go into space.  Why?  [I know lots of good
personal reasons, but few for society, I engage in other fivolous
activities, so I've collected a few].  My personal interests are
scientific: say planetary science as one example.  We have discussed the
usual applications and spinoffs; we have discussed planetary migration
from a colliding object, etc.  We have all this neat technology which
can't solve our problems and no where to go.

But we also have to get people out of the armchair.  If everybody stayed in
an armchair (I'm in one now), would anything every get done?  I think not.
Things will get done to `small' goals by a few people for somewhat
personal reasons of research long after most people have lost interest
(in reading the net or anything on paper).  Some of us will still be
plugging away in our own small ways.  Too much said. Back to work.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 87 06:19:52 GMT
From: phoenix!pucc!6089031@princeton.edu  (Shantanu Saha)
Subject: Re: max Gs (playing with life)

In article <8182@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
 
>> >For a space launch system, it's not necessary that the passengers remain
>> >conscious, so the blackout point is irrelevant...
>>
>> Oh contrare:  irrelevant?  Can you discriminate Henry?
>
>To clarify so as to preclude further nitpicking:  irrelevant except insofar
>as it may be a symptom of impending injury, which (as I said) is the real
 
Translation: irrelevant, except for the fact that it is exceedingly
relevant.  My limited knowledge of anatomy and the followup to which
you are responding both tell me that blackout is not a warning of
impending injury, it *is* injury.  It is dangerous enough for trained
fighter pilots in the prime of life and good health, and is regarded
even by them as a risk for emergencies.  To accept blackout as routine
for getting into space would make it unacceptable for anyone other than
a military pilot, and needlessly risky even for them.  Don't forget that
your medical facilities in space will be lacking for a long time.
 
>issue at hand.  I agree that things like blackouts, bruises, and nosebleeds
>are warnings which should not be disregarded completely, but the risks they
>warn of should be *assessed*, not blindly fled from.  If they are not large,
>they can be accepted.
>
 
Assessing a risk entails determining if the risk is necessary.  This
risk is unnecessary.  We accept the possibility that a launch vehicle
may blow up, because we have no better way to do it at the moment,
and because that risk can be minimized by proper design and construction.
The risk of repeated low-level but unavoidable injury, which may turn
into a lethal injury without warning, cannot be so easily ameliorated.
Your plan can be dismissed on a back-of-the-envelope analysis, which is
a lot different from blind flight.  The only blind flight would be the
experience of the first crew member to have his retinae detach under
launch.
 
>This may be unfair, Eugene, but it doesn't surprise me that it was a NASA
>employee who raised this.  Risk-free spaceflight is strictly a NASA delusion.
>Anyone who goes into space, by any means, is taking risks.  I, for one, would
>be willing to take some chances to get into orbit....
 
There is a difference between a calculated risk and recklessness.  And
by the way, Challenger did not occur because of an overcommitment to
safety, nor is the re-study an over-reaction.  The fact that risk
assessments could seriously contemplate four lost missions per hundred
from forseeable causes demonstrates that NASA has not been fanatical
about safety.  The fact that re-using the boosters was done to score the
propaganda victory of a re-usable launcher as well as orbiter, although
a number of engineers questioned the safety of the arrangement makes a
claim that NASA is unwilling to risk lives absurd.
 
Given the choice of risks, I would rather take a ride on a controlled
bomb than on your catapult to oblivion.
 
 
Robert A. West     (Q4071@PUCC)
US MAIL: 7 Lincoln Place / Suite A / North Brunswick, NJ 08902
VOICE  : (201) 821-7055
 
...!seismo!princeton!phoenix!pucc!q4071

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 27 Jun 87 14:48:02 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Electrons and X-Rays and UV (oh, my!)

Comments on some recent postings:
> [...] The solution is to disarm by launching the missiles
> into space and detonating them there.

  On the off chance that this is a serious proposal, let me
hasten to mention that it is a real bad idea.  ICBMs do not
have nearly enough delta-v to put warheads into excape
orbits, and detonating nuclear bombs in Earth orbit means
putting lots and lots of fission electrons into the
Van Allen Belts.  There are still significant numbers of
fission electrons in the inner belt from the Starfish prime
explosion over twenty years ago, and they play hell with
electronics (not to mention damaging unshielded people).


> The Star Betelgeuse is large enough to explode as a Supernova and
> being only 300 Light Years away will produce enough Xrays to blow off
> the ozone layer and fry us. ( Ref. Science News 6-20-87)

     Depends on what you mean by "fry us".  If the ozone layer goes
away, it means that you dark-skinned people will have to cover up
when you go out into the sun the way that us fair-skinned types
have had to do all our lives.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jun 1987 19:48-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova

Not only is Betelguese big enough to go supernova, it is thought by
some to be in the last gasp of life. It is currently going through
intense mass loss by way of a solar wind.  Supernova should(?) occur
within a few thousand years according to some articles I've read.

Seems reasonable to think we'll be spread out a bit by then. I also
suspect we'll be able to predict the day of it's doom pretty closely by
then. The physics of supernovas are already understood to an
approximation. The neutrino burst from Sanduleak proved that.

------------------------------

Date:  Sun, 28-JUN-1987 04:23 CDT
From: <HIGGINS%FNALC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  Aircars and Futures of the Past

Peter Nelson (apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu) wrote:
"Seriously, I don't know if any of this nanotechnology will come to pass
in our lifetimes.  Technology has a way of advancing both faster and
slower than we expect.  A lot of 'futurists' of past decades thought
we'd all be flying around in air cars by now..."

As it happens, I've become intrigued by discarded visions of the future;
as a kid I swallowed those *Popular Mechanics* stories hook, line, and sinker,
and I feel a bit betrayed that the world didn't turn out much like they
predicted.   Recently I prepared an hour-long slide lecture on flying cars--
"Doorman, Call Me an Aircar!"-- and I've delivered it at a couple of science
fiction conventions.

The technology to make cars fly has been in hand for fifty years.  Prototypes,
both of convertible airplane-automobiles and of personal VTOLs, have been
built and flown.  But machines that satisfy mass-market needs of price,
utility, safety, and convenience never did appear, and probably never will.

Where are the undersea cities?  Videophones?  Nuclear airplanes?  Hovercraft?
Or (ah, the relevance to the newsgroup emerges!) lunar bases and Mars
expeditions?  All these things were expected to be standard features of the
1980s when I was growing up.   While we *did* get a host of other marvels,
some developments which were technically feasible just didn't catch on in the
Real World. I think of this whenever I meet a space enthusiast with some exotic
scheme for building or financing his favorite Buck Rogers project.   Reality
is not often kind to such technophilic dreamers.  (But the exceptions
to this rule become all the more interesting for their success.)
                                      Bill Higgins
                                      Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                      HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #268
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jun 87 06:19:00 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07109; Mon, 29 Jun 87 03:16:06 PDT
	id AA07109; Mon, 29 Jun 87 03:16:06 PDT
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 03:16:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8706291016.AA07109@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #269

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 269

Today's Topics:
	     Wait... I've written that somewhere before!
			 Government in space?
		   Space and the Democratice Future
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 15:00 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Wait... I've written that somewhere before!

I received a rude shock while reading the July 1987 Omni. Grant Fjermedal,
in his article on arpanet bboards, included an anonymous quotation from
myself about the astrometric telescope facility. Fortunately, that quote
was followed by a real silly quote about how environmentalists should
support space development because it will allow polluting industries to be
moved off-planet.

By the way, the current incarnation of the space station has no place to
put telescopes or earth observation instruments. I suggest we scuttle the
whole thing and spend the money on free flying telescopes, unmanned earth
observation platforms, long duration shuttle missions and Spacelab flights
(most have which have been cancelled after Challenger). We could have
Spacelab flying almost immediately, instead of waiting until the turn of
the century. If any civilian missions need a space station, let's put 'em
on Mir (or watch as the europeans do so); if any military missons need a
station, let DOD build and launch their own.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 17:39:59 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Government in space?
To: PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>

>> Chief financial officer of American Rocket Co. observes that there will
>> be opposition to private launchers because of loss of government jobs.
>> Says that in government programs, for every producer "there are four
>> guys carrying clipboards".

> Has anyone ever read "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand?

I am afraid we objectivists are outnumbered by those who still see big
government as the fast route to space.  You would think that the expense
and futility of Apollo, the reentry of Skylab, and the 2.5+ year Shuttle
grounding would have convinced people otherwise.

Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope not)
but when it is done, it will be done at a profit.  Nothing but short-
lived small scale projects such as Apollo and Skylab can be done at
a financial loss.  And those are of no possible benefit to man's future
permanent presense in space.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Reply-To: pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov
Date: Sat, 27 Jun 87 12:02:31 PDT
From: scubed!pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Space and the Democratice Future

Space and the Democratic Future

Andrew Hall Cutler
San Diego L5 
(A chapter of the National Space Society)
(619) 284-2779 or 455-4688

        President Reagan has done his best to make space policy a 1988
campaign issue.   The Challenger  accident and its aftermath have
focussed public attention on NASA and space activities.  The space
station continues to grow in cost, shrink in size and slip farther
into the future.  The National Commission on Space has abdicated its
responsibility to propose policy and tell us how to acheive it.  The
Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) has generated tremendous
controversy about what America should be doing in space. 

        Few presidential candidates will have sensible positions on
space policy,  yet such a position could be a powerful tool in the
1988 campaign and a sturdy plank in the party platform.  There is
tremendous public interest in space,  and our space program is
portrayed as the exemplar of American science and technology.  No
politician has yet exploited the public's love of space.   A well
thought out position on space policy could gather broad public support
across the political spectrum.   

        Space is popular with the american public, yet NASA is high on
the list of budgets to cut when the public discusses deficit
reduction.  This is because the public perceives space as a new
frontier, someplace they want to go.  NASA is an elitist organization
which sends a few select, highly trained astronauts into space using
incredibly expensive technology no individual could afford.  The
public want access to the space frontier for themselves and their
children, and they do not see NASA giving it to them.  Hence space
remains popular while NASA's budget is subject to continual attack.

        There are several problems with current federal support of
space research and development.   Most of these are widely
acknowledged within the technical community,  but can only be solved
with the help and interest of congress and the administration.  Some
major problems are that research funding and directions are
inordinately influenced by people in privileged positions;   that
funds are readily obtained by established people and organizations to
work on well understood problems,  while new investigators find it
extremely difficult to obtain funding at all and established
investigators have a difficult time pursuing new ideas;   that it is
extremely difficult for young scientists and engineers to find
positions where they may pursue an appropriate technical career;  
that university research activities have become a detriment to
education rather than a boon to it;   that major projects and
directions are chosen more on the basis of political support than on
the basis of true merit,  due to the lack of an appropriate
cooperative relationship between the technical community,  congress
and the administration;   and that research too often leads to costly
government sponsored development.  These problems represent a weakness
in the foundation of our technological society,  which must be
repaired by  appropriate policy measures.   

        James Fletcher is Reagan's choice of a NASA administrator to
reinvigorate our space program. When Challenger  exploded and we could
no longer ignore the fact that NASA had become rotten through and
through, word went out "who would be a good administrator?" Back came
an answer from the NASA bureaucracy: "James Fletcher! He's a Good Ol'
Boy - we get along with him fine! He'll fix what needs fixin'!" Only
Ronald Reagan could consider that a recommendation.

        Fletcher brings a history with him - he was also NASA
administrator under Richard Nixon.  Under Fletcher's guidance, NASA
stopped producing Saturn rockets, cancelled several apollo flights for
which the hardware had already been delivered (there are Saturn V's
rotting in the sun at Johnson Space Center, Marshall Spaceflight
Center and Kennedy Space Center. They are there because Richard M.
Nixon and James Fletcher decided not to send them to the moon. Speak
of government waste!), and proposed the Space Shuttle, which would be
incredibly cheap to develop, and would be flying for $5,000,000 per
flight by 1978. It actually flew in 1981.  Each flight costs about
$500,000,000.  Launch costs have not fallen for over 20 years!   NASA
is now proposing the National Aerospace Plane (NASP), which will be
incredibly cheap to develop and cost $5,000,000 per flight.  Some of
the same slides used 16 years ago to describe shuttle economics are
being used again to describe NASP.  We shouldn't complain - at least
NASA is recycling something.

        What we need is the kind of space program John F. Kennedy
tried to give us - progressive, bold, and focussed; with peace and
human progress the ultimate goal.  Apollo built on previous
accomplishments and provided the hardware to perform a multitude of
useful tasks in space.  Unfortunately, Richard M. Nixon did not build
on the fine foundation he was provided with - he did not provide NASA
with appropriate policies, he did not make any use of the engineering
and organizational framework built around apollo, and he ultimately
threw away the hardware and technology that was apollo's true legacy
to the space program and the American people.

        We need a prioritized set of goals in space. These goals are: 
we must acquire low cost access to earth orbit; build a properly
conceived space station (instead of NASA's current amazing shrinking
space station) with which we can learn to live and work in space;
return to the moon to stay;  and explore and ultimately inhabit Mars;
in that order.  This must be directed towards our ultimate goal -
establishing a spacefaring civilization with settlements beyond earth. 
We should use the resources availabe in space to make this easier,
cheaper,  and to provide economic benefit to Earth as soon as this is
feasible.  

        None of these goals are spectacular events.  Reaching them
takes a long time and a lot of hard work,  but in pursuing them we
will reap unimagined rewards.  Each of these goals involves about ten
years of preparatory work, another ten years of heavy, sustained
effort, and then adequate support to continue indefinitely after
things get in gear.  

        There is no question that NASA as it currently exists cannot
reach these goals for any sum of money.  There is no question that
these goals can be reached for a reasonable sum of money.  There is no
question that a strong and sensible American president can start this
process,  like JFK started apollo, and that this president would enjoy
unsurpassed support for such an act.

        The space program we need bears little resemblance to what we
have gotten over the last 15 years. Skylab, Viking and Voyager were
great accomplishments - and were done for about 3% of the total money
spent.  We need a program that gets results with 100% of its funding,
not 3%.  We need a program that explores the solar system, learns
about space, the earth, and our place in the universe, and that lets
us change our plans every few years to take advantage of our new
knowledge. We have a program where our vehicles, missions and
technologies are planned out until the year 2000 with no slack to take
advantage of new results, and no real effort devoted to finding them.

        The most basic space activity is launching things to orbit. 
NASA has done very poorly with this.  Like many other aspects of
American society, it is time to go back to the basics.  Every other
country with a space program is developing large moderately priced
rockets using straightforward, simple technology and an evolutionary
approach.  NASA insists on trying complex new technologies which do
not build on prior experience.  First we had the space shuttle, now
the aerospace plane.  NASA threw away the Saturn rocket technology in
order to pursue the space shuttle, which has far less capability. 
This spring, we learned the Soviets have finally launched a rocket
with about the capacity of the Saturn V we threw away, and that NASA
does not expect to launch the space shuttle until 1990 (trapping
several flight ready payloads on the ground and delaying many already
long overdue programs).  Until NASA is willing to use simple and
inexpensive rockets we are not going to have an effective space
program.

        We have been discussing a civilian space program. The military
space program is currently twice the size of NASA,  and SDI hopes to
dwarf both soon.  The only American president in living memory who
truly understood the military,  General Dwight D. Eisenhower,  decided
that our space program should be civilian.  The events of the 28 years
which have passed since he made that decision have proven him right.

        SDI is not technically feasible.  Over half of the university
physics faculty at the top 20 research universities in the country
have signed a letter pledging not to accept SDI money.  This sounds
impressive.  We must remember that these are extremely independent
people who typically accept any money they are offered.  Their
solidarity in criticising SDI is not impressive, it is  incredible.

        The usual "technical" argument for SDI is as follows: "We did
a lot of classified work on this technology, and it was very
promising. Very promising.  It's classified though, so you'll just
have to take my word for it."  This would be a lot more convincing if
it weren't applied to every technology that appears unworkable when
analyzed in light of basic principles and the open literature.

        Since SDI cannot win support on its merits in the marketplace
of ideas, the Reagan adminitration has tried to close the market
down.  Donald Hicks, Undersecretary of Defense,  stated publicly last
year that he did not see why DoD should give money for any kind of
research to anyone who criticised SDI.  He made it clear that there
would be no formal action - closed discussions in the back room would
take care of the problem.  Critics would find their proposals
receiving poor reviews and would not be funded. Under pressure,  Hicks
stated that his views did not represent the official policy of DoD.  
Yet the public threat that the  "good old boys network"  would take
care of any SDI critics had a chilling effect on debate  -  and only
time will tell if it is being carried out.

        Despite its lack of technical justification,  SDI has an able
spokesman in its director,  Lt. Gen. James Abramson.  He assures us
SDI will be inexpensive,  reliable and will let through less than 1 in
100,000 warheads. This is the same James Abramson who ran the shuttle
program for several years and assured us that the shuttle would be
inexpensive,  reliable and would blow up less than 1 time in 100,000.  
His basic story hasn't changed, but events have made it rather hard to
believe of the shuttle,  or of SDI.

        We need a democratic president with the bold vision to give us
John F. Kennedy's space program again. This program would not be one
dramatic large program, nor an attempt to dazzle the world with
advanced technology.  It would be a program based on the 30 years of
technical maturity we now have in space operations, directed at
understanding and occupying our place in the universe.  The
republicans don't seem to have this vision - they are too concerned
with militarizing space and corrupting the NASA bureaucracy. A
candidate who understands the role of science and technology in the
modern world,  and America's need to be first in it can lead us to a
bold future in space.  This leadership will win him vibrant public
support across the political spectrum.  America and the democratic
party need this leadership.  We must demand it of our candidates.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #269
*******************
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11934; Wed, 1 Jul 87 03:02:59 PDT
	id AA11934; Wed, 1 Jul 87 03:02:59 PDT
Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 03:02:59 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8707011002.AA11934@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #270

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 270

Today's Topics:
		       "Challenger Shrugged"...
		       private space companies
		   Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables
	  space news from May 11 AW&ST, and short editorial
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 29 Jun 87 07:40 CDT
From: <CSCPO%UNO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  "Challenger Shrugged"...

    RE: From: "Keith F.  Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>

    I am afraid we objectivists are outnumbered by those who still see
    big government as the fast route to space.  You would think that the
    expense and futility of Apollo, the reentry of Skylab, and the 2.5+
    year Shuttle grounding would have convinced people otherwise.

    Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope
    not) but when it is done, it will be done at a profit.  Nothing but
    short-lived small scale projects such as Apollo and Skylab can be
    done at a financial loss.  And those are of no possible benefit to
    man's future permanent presense in space.

                                                  ...Keith


   The above article was quite interesting given its "objectivist"
credentials.  But I'm curious though, Keith, why wouldn't one taking an
"objective" perspective (i.e.  free of Ayn Rand's ideology) come to a
rather different conclusion, namely that relying on private industry to
supply equipment for the space program brings in an unnecessary element
of risk, that of production-for-private-profit?  Was not the Challenger
explosion which resulted in great loss of human lives, not to mention
material losses, a prime example of this?  And criticizing "big
government" unqualified is one-sided; what must be taken into
consideration is "big government within a capitalist economy."



------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 87 18:35:01 GMT
From: unc!skinner@mcnc.org  (Andrew Skinner)
Subject: private space companies


    This is my second posting concerning private space companies--more power
to 'em.  Thanks to Eugene Miya for suggesting that i ask Dale Amon, and thanks 
to Dale for sending me this list.  There were other responses showing interest,
but this was the only one informative on the particular subject.

All the following, down to his signature, is quoted from Dale Amon's list:

Private Launch vehicles:
	Space Services Inc of America (SSIA)
		Based in Houston Texas
		CEO is Deke Slayton
		Wallops Island launches expected within year.
		Booked: Celestis group (ashes in space)
			A private geopositioning sat. company
			(can't remember name off hand, but NOT Geostar)
		Responsible for test launch of Conestoga from Matagordo
		Island a few years ago.
		Texas oil money.

	AMROC
		based in SF area.
		CEO is George Koopman
		other principles include James Bennet
		Heir to technology developed by defunct Starstruck aka
		Arc Engineering. Solid fuel, liquid oxidizer.
		Have tested engine at Vandenberg. Estimated 20-30 K lbs
		thrust on testbed.
		Marketing Industrial Launch Vehicle One (ILV-1)
		Will launch from Vandenberg.
		Bank financing.

Pacific American Launch Services
		based in Mountainview area
		CEO Gary Hudsen
		searching for major financing
		design of Percheron rocket that blew up on pad at
		Matagordo.
		design of Phoenix E concept pushed by Society
		Expeditions (Seattle)
		Also working on a Heavy Lift vehicle concept
		Hardworking, some backing but ???


Martin Marietta, General Dynamics and MacDonnel Douglas are
commercializing the rockets they build (Titan, Atlas, Delta) and each
has around 9 firm bookings. Launches will be from Cape and Vandenberg.
Talk of refurbishing another Delta pad to deal with increased load.
They have little if any planning aimed at increasing their market or of
dealing with the world after the current backlog of comsat and
government requirements is handled.


Geostar
		based in DC (formerly in Princeton)
		owned by Dr. O'Neill and Space Studies Institute
		Expected to be Fortune 500 in th 90's
		Private location satellite network. Have all necessary
		licenses, hardware is designed, customer base
		development begun. First pair of transponders failed.
		Piggy back on a comsat launched on Ariane.

MacDonnel Douglas
		continuing with electrophoresis development, awaiting
		shuttle to come back online. Charles Walker is the
		principle investigator. Currently working out of office
		in DC, his regular office is in St. Louis. He will be
		flying again, and will have more shuttle flights than
		anyone else.

Spacehab
		Seattle based
		Expansion to pressurized space for shuttle, extension
		to valuable mid deck locker space. Firm bookings and
		fly now pay afterwards deal with NASA. Flights firmly
		booked.

Space Industries
		Houston based
		Max Faget
		Industrial Space Facility. Pressurized shirt sleeve man
		tended modules for rental to industry.
		Joint Venture with Westinghouse Space (Pittsburgh)
		Two flights firmly booked with NASA. They have high
		priority when shuttle flies.

>I'd recommend you subscribe to Spaceworld (NSS montly magazine) and
>Space Calendar a weekly events newsletter if you want to keep up with
>who is doing what.
>
>					Dale Amon
  I suppose that someday when i really want a job i will somehow come up with
time to check this out more thoroughly.  Hope it is useful.
    andy

------------------------------

From: gatech!mdc14!wbm@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables
Date: Mon Jun 29 15:25:44 1987

	Does anyone know what the cost for each additional shuttle
flight was costing before the Challenger?  How did it relate to non-
reusable rockets?
--------
William B. McCormick
uucp: !{decvax,hplabs,ihnp4,linus,rutgers,seismo}!gatech!mdc14!wbm

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jun 87 01:47:32 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 11 AW&ST, and short editorial

NASA payload projections for mid-1990s show routine need for a booster
capable of 60-100 klbs of payload.  100-200 klbs after year 2000.

Italy is interested in doing a logistics transport canister for the
space station, over and above its participation in the ESA side of the
station.  Discussions may begin this summer.

Soviet Proton marketeers will be in Washington this week to brief
possible customers.  Some fuss when they were accidentally booked into a
congressional hearing room in the Rayburn House Office Building; local
Soviet reps say the site will be changed.

Arianespace chairman d'Allest says that US and Europe should settle
their disputes about what constitutes a fair price for a commercial
launch, since the US-Europe price differences pale compared to China's
50%-lower prices.

Canadian space-station negotiating team formally asked NASA "just who is
calling the shots in the US, NASA or DoD?".  NASA says the answer was
"NASA".

Growing support for a lunar base as the next major US space goal.
Various NASA internal studies are underway on the matter.  The Moon base
is cited as being worthwhile in its own right, useful as a stepping
stone (both directly and technologically) to Mars, and attainable sooner
and at lower cost than Mars.  Plans would call for a Lunar Polar Orbiter
in 1994, an unmanned sample return/rover mission in 1996, more complex
unmanned missions in the late 90s, two manned missions per year starting
in 2000 as preliminaries, a lunar oxygen plant in 2005, and then about
four manned missions per year until 2010 when the base would be
complete.  The manned missions would be launched from the space station
using a pair of orbital transfer vehicles each.

[See editorial below.  -- HS]

Mars sample return/rover missions would probably be mounted in the late
90s regardless.  Use of lunar oxygen could greatly ease a manned Mars
mission; in particular, it would reduce weight requirements enough to
launch such a mission using reusable orbital transfer vehicles rather
than a custom-built boost stage.

Canada is busily getting its act together for space station utilization.
In general the international partners appear to be much better prepared
for early use of the station than the US.  Various details on what is
being done about this.

Space scientists complain to Senate panel that space science does not
need the station, and that heavy emphasis on materials processing etc.
has resulted in a station design that is ill-suited to missions like
planetary exploration support.

CNES (French National Space Agency) opens discussions with Soviets about
compatibility between Mir and the Hermes spaceplane.  Hermes will have
higher payload than the current Progress freighters.

Starfind, Inc., a small navsat company, signs with Space Services Inc.
for five satellite launches starting late next year.  Starfind claims
high accuracy, relatively small and cheap satellites, and operational
capability with only one satellite.  The last two of those are
specifically cited as advantages over Geostar, Starfind's major
commercial competitor.

USAF issues formal announcement of Advanced Launch System (heavylift
booster) program.  Sort of an RFP, but giving potential suppliers more
flexibility in that they propose.  Goal is fully operational system in
ten years with limited operational capability earlier, and an ultimate
cost reduction of a factor of ten over current systems.  Various other
motherhoods.

NASA and Orbital Sciences disagree about cost of TOS upper stage for
Mars Observer.  NASA says $63M, compared to original commercial
projection of $20M.  OSC says $63M is the result of "strange
bookkeeping" which "probably has a lot of [NASA] internal costs charged
to it", and the actual price to NASA will be $30M under existing
contracts.  Original proposals said $20M, but NASA wanted a lot of
changes.

DoT asks administration to get its act in gear on commercial use of USAF
launch facilities, claims this is urgent if US expendable companies are
to remain competitive.  Three issues seem to be sticking points:

1. Expendable companies want government to share responsibility for
damage caused by launch accidents, and set insurance liability limits.

2. They want assurance that commercial launches will not be preempted by
government missions except in genuine emergencies.

3. Costs and details on range-safety supervision need to be clarified.

NASA plans modest improvements to its tracking network to receive
signals from the Soviet Mars/Phobos mission.  US will provide Soviets
with the data in return for access to it and participation in
interpretation.

US Geological Survey's Eros Data Center, the main US outlet for civilian
space imagery, signs contract with Spot Image.  Eros will serve as
broker for US government use of Spot images, simplifying paperwork for
users.

France studying synthetic-aperture radar satellite for military and
other uses as followon/supplement to Spot/Helios.

Los Alamos is thinking about restarting work on nuclear space
propulsion, notably a nuclear orbital transfer vehicle.

USAF Astronautics Lab stacking Titan 34D SRB for test firing, after
repeated delays due to weather.

Glavkosmos officially denies that the April 24 Proton failure was really
a failure.  Space Commerce Corp of Houston, the US Proton marketing
agent, learned of the failure from AW&ST, asked Glavkosmos about it, and
was told that it was a successful launch into high elliptical orbit (!).
SCC replied that they didn't believe this, and requested acknowledgement
of the failure and details of its circumstances.  No response yet.

Two Mir EVAs, intended to add a new solar array to Mir to provide extra
power for Kvant, delayed without explanation.

Widow of Challenger pilot Michael J. Smith files $1.5G lawsuit against
Morton Thiokol, the US government, and Lawrence Mulloy (ex-head of the
NASA SRB program).  She also asks that M-T be barred from further
shuttle work.

[As regular readers know, I have a low opinion of such lawsuits... but
that last part sounds like a fine idea.		-- HS]

AIAA describes current state of civilian space program as "crisis",
calls for 40% NASA budget hike, a clear national space policy providing
specific long-term objectives and commitment to do them, and a dedicated
decision- making body free of inter-agency squabbles.  "The budget
policy of the past two decades will ensure that the US becomes and
remains a second-class power in space."

Cosmonauts from Syria, Bulgaria, and France are training for Mir
missions.  The French cosmonaut in particular will be aboard Mir for a
month and will do an EVA, probably in late 1988.  The Soviets hope to
have a second major module added to Mir by then; it is not clear which
docking port it will use.  Jean-Loup Chretien, one of the French
cosmonauts now in the USSR, says the Soviet training procedures are long
and tedious but the results are better than European and US approaches.

Current Mir crew expected to return to Earth in December.

Pictures of German test stand for Ariane 5 engines.

USAF growing concerned about the increasing number of offshore oil
platforms near Vandenberg launch site.  A particular worry is that Delta
strap-on boosters splash down in a fairly wide pattern only a few miles
offshore.

Second launch of Japanese H-1 booster, this August, will carry
experimental navsat which will be tested by boats and airliners.

[We interrupt the sequence of Doing It Right editorials for a brief one
on...

The Moon Vs. Mars

My personal prediction is that if any concrete and specific long-term
goal for NASA is really set any time soon, it will be a return to the
Moon.  This will play much better in Peoria than obscure Earth-orbit
science, and Mars would take rather longer and cost rather more.  The
Moon will look like a good compromise between the bean-counters and the
ambitious explorers: an exciting objective on a more modest scale than
Mars.

I hope I'm right, because it's the right decision.

The Mars enthusiasts make a big thing out of how their project is *not*
going to be an Apollo-style one-shot.  They are going to do exploration
the way it should be done, establishing infrastructure for an ongoing
program.  They do seem to have forgotten that Apollo wasn't originally
*supposed* to be a one-shot either, but they have also missed something
more subtle.  If this is the right way to explore Mars, and doing so is
desirable, then surely the same arguments apply to the Moon.  By their
standards, we clearly have not explored the Moon properly.  I agree.  So
why are we talking about starting with Mars?

Even if the rightness of exploring our own backyard first isn't obvious,
look at it from the bean-counter viewpoint.  The Mars people are
implicitly saying that Apollo was good enough for lunar exploration, and
it's time to go on to Mars and leave the Moon behind.  These are the
same people who claim they want something more than a one-shot mission
for Mars!  The bean counters will assuredly ask: if a one-shot was good
enough for the Moon, what's wrong with it for Mars?  Pushing on to Mars
without going back to the Moon first only strengthens the one-shot
mentality that the Mars people claim to be against.  One might wonder
about their motives: do they *really* care more about the ongoing
program than about the first mission?

Finally... DAMMIT, WE HAVE UNFINISHED BUSINESS ON THE MOON, WHICH HAS
WAITED TOO LONG ALREADY!  NASA's Moon-base idea puts the next manned
Moon mission nearly 30 years after Apollo 17, which is bad enough (and
should and could be improved on!  The Lunar Polar Orbiter is the only
really necessary unmanned precursor.  One Apollo-style mission would net
more useful results than all the other proposed unmanned junk put
together.).  Mars can, should, and must wait.  It's time -- high time,
long past time -- to go back to the Moon.  To stay.

						-- HS]

Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #270
*******************

From ota  Thu Jul  2 03:03:17 1987
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14164; Thu, 2 Jul 87 03:03:17 PDT
	id AA14164; Thu, 2 Jul 87 03:03:17 PDT
Date: Thu, 2 Jul 87 03:03:17 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8707021003.AA14164@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #271

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 271

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Challenger shrugged
	     Only for profit, not survival?? I disagree!
		      Re: Comrade Atlas shrugged
		       private vs public debate
			 NASA vs. NOAA budget
		 Re: Space and the Democratic Future
			   Opinions wanted
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 1 Jul 87 08:32 EST
From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Re: Challenger shrugged

<CSCPO%UNO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> writes:
 
>    The above article was quite interesting given its "objectivist"
> credentials.  But I'm curious though, Keith, why wouldn't one taking an
> "objective" perspective (i.e.  free of Ayn Rand's ideology) come to a
> rather different conclusion, namely that relying on private industry to
> supply equipment for the space program brings in an unnecessary element
> of risk, that of production-for-private-profit?  Was not the Challenger
> explosion which resulted in great loss of human lives, not to mention
> material losses, a prime example of this?
 
On the contrary, if a privately owned company with no governmental
restrictions had lost 51L, do you think they would still be giving MT
their business?  The CEO would be lynched at the first public stock
meeting.  It isn't capitalism that failed, it's the companies that live
off of government supplied coercive monopolies.
 
>                                            And criticizing "big
> government" unqualified is one-sided; what must be taken into
> consideration is "big government within a capitalist economy."
 
Sorry.  Big government cannot exist within a TRUE capitalist economy
(NOT the mixed economy we now have).
 
Ron Picard                         (Anti-trust laws should be
General Motors Research Labs        approached with exactly that
Warren, Mich. 48090                 attitude)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 11:57:38
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 July 01 11:57:38 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 July 01 12:45:31 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: "PICARD%gmr.com"@relay.cs.net, Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Only for profit, not survival?? I disagree!

<KFL> Date: Sun, 28 Jun 87 17:39:59 EDT
<KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
<KFL> Subject: Government in space?
<KFL> To: PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net
<KFL> Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

<KFL> Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope not)
<KFL> but when it is done, it will be done at a profit.

I *must* rebut this!! Survival is more important than profit. In the long
run, space colonization is primarily for survival, and must be done
regardless of profit.

<KFL> Nothing but short-lived small scale projects such as Apollo and
<KFL> Skylab can be done at a financial loss.

If that is true, it is sad, and *must* be changed. Arms control is
counter to profit, yet we need arms control, and must find a way to
counter whose who just want to make a buck even if it dooms the human
race in the end. In the long run, space colonization is in the same
class, we must find a way to do it, profit or not.

<KFL> And those are of no possible benefit to man's future permanent presense
<KFL> in space.

Mostly agreed, the aborted version of Apollo where we didn't fly the last
few missions and didn't have a follow-up, and Skylab where we didn't put
enough fuel on board to keep it up there permanently and couldn't get
enough money to go back up to boost it up higher, were of some value but
not much directly toward permanent manned presence in space.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 87 16:36:43 GMT
From: voder!blia!heather@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Heather Mackinnon)
Subject: Re: Comrade Atlas shrugged

In article <35c837d0.44e6@apollo.uucp>, nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes:

> >   I am afraid we objectivists are outnumbered by those who
> >   still see big government as the fast route to space.
> >
> >    Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I
> >    hope not) but when it is done, it will be done at a profit.
> 
>   All of which, of course, explains why the Soviet space program is
>   going nowhere while we sail through the cosmos on the wings of
>   our glorious capitalistic space program.  

I'm going to catch flames for this, but I'll go ahead anyway.

America is no longer a free market capitalist society.  The US has
adopted all the planks of Marx's communist manifesto (public schooling,
progressive income taxes, regulated enterprise, etc).  Our government
has appropriated a monopoly on space just as it has appropriated and
granted monopolies on public utilities and banking.  The Constitution is
being eroded; the government is increasingly seizing powers that were
not granted to it in the Constitution.

Private space firms could not now survive because the government would
regulate and tax them out of existence.  With space becoming
increasingly militarized, the government will need tight control of
spacefaring civilians.  You can't develop a frontier unless there is a
high return on investment and a lot of freedom in the development of the
frontier.

If you want to compare a capitalistic society to a communistic one,
then I suggest you find one first.

In case you can't guess, I lean towards objectivism myself.  I would
love to see the government back its nose out of commerce and let the
free market have a chance at space.  We have the resources and the brains
to do truly magnificent things in space.  What we need is a few daring
individuals and entrepreneurs to commit themselves to space development
and for the government to, if not help, at least not hinder them.

We fought a war two centuries ago for freedom: freedom to trade with
whom we choose, freedom to explore the frontiers of our land, freedom
from inequitable and exhorbitant taxation.  We have a new frontier
now, a very exciting one, and we need to re-claim our freedoms.

Time to get off my soap-box,

Heather Mackinnon
Status:  free and natural person

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 1 Jul 87 09:15 MDT
From: <ROPER%COLORADO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  private vs public debate

I'm surprised to see the question of whether private industry or
government should at be the core of our space program playing such a
large role in the space digest. The capitalism versus socialism debate
is now a century old and, given the resources devoted to weapons of
destruction between the superpowers flying the two flags, it doesn't
seem to have served us well.  Observing the revolving doors between top
brass at the Pentagon and officers of DoD contractors, the
private/public distinction is being applied to a grey area where it
doesn't have a clear empirical counterpart.

An alternative and, I think, more interesting question, is what can the
US do alone and in competition with the Soviet Union versus what could
be done in a joint effort.  Surely we must first envision a cooperative
effort before it can become a reality.  What better place for that
vision to evolve than on the Space digest.

------------------------------

Posted-From: The MITRE Corp., Bedford, MA
Cc: cb@mitre-bedford.arpa
Subject: NASA vs. NOAA budget
Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 13:20:56 EDT
From: Christopher Byrnes <cb@mitre-bedford.arpa>

  I was wondering what the NASA budget was in respect to the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) budget.  I assume
that NOAA is (among other things) directly or indirectly responsible
for deep-sea exploration such as those submarine trips to deep sea
"vents" which discovered unusual life forms several years ago.  It
would be interesting to compare what NOAA spends on exciting and
pioneering exploration versus the more mundane (but still necessary)
stuff such as running the National Weather Service.

  Is it fair to draw comparisons between NASA and NOAA?  Both agencies
are charged with maintaining vital national services (launching
important payloads and predicting the weather).  Both agencies are
responsible for exploring major unknown areas which may contain
resources which are vital to the future inhabitants (and taxpayers) of
Earth.  Both exploration programs have to work with international
partners on major explorations (Spacelab, the "Titanic" discovery,
etc.).  Both programs have major military implications (how much does
the Navy spend on its own deep-sea research program)?  Both explore
areas that the general public (occasionally) finds interesting.  Both
have had major programs scaled back (remember those deep habitats that
were built to see if people could live and work on continental shelfs,
that idea seems to have been dropped).

  The reason I ask is to see if we can draw any lessons from NOAA's
experiences over the past few years.  Does their exploration budget
suffer from the same funding swings as NASA's?  Do their major (and
headline grabbing) scientific discoveries lead to any funding
increases?  How long does it take them to get big ticket items funded
through Congress?  Is NOAA's low public profile the result of planning
or poor public relations?  I wonder if their approach is better or
worse in the long run.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 87 18:29:14 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Space and the Democratic Future

In article <8706271916.AA13557@crash.CTS.COM>, 
jim@pnet01.UUCP (Jim Bowery) writes:
> Space and the Democratic Future
> 
> Andrew Hall Cutler
> San Diego L5 
> (A chapter of the National Space Society)
> (619) 284-2779 or 455-4688

> We need a prioritized set of goals in space. These goals are: 
> we must acquire low cost access to earth orbit; build a properly
> conceived space station (instead of NASA's current amazing shrinking
> space station) with which we can learn to live and work in space;
> return to the moon to stay;  and explore and ultimately inhabit Mars;
> in that order.  This must be directed towards our ultimate goal -
> establishing a spacefaring civilization with settlements beyond Earth. 
> We should use the resources available in space to make this easier,
> cheaper,  and to provide economic benefit to Earth as soon as this is
> feasible.  

Before picking a few nits in the rest of the posting, let me say that
the paragraph above is the best capsule statement I've seen of what
our goals in space should be.  I trust I have permission to send it
to my Congressman.
 
> Some major problems are ... that funds are readily obtained by
> established people and organizations to work on well understood
> problems, while new investigators find it extremely difficult to
> obtain funding at all and established investigators have a difficult
> time pursuing new ideas;

This is at best confusing, but I don't know anyone who finds "funds
are readily obtained."  I work for a pretty well established
organization, and the fields of X-ray and infrared astronomy are
universally recognized as important research areas needing space
observations.  The Uhuru, Einstein, and IRAS satellites have all been
extremely successful.  Yet the followup missions, AXAF and SIRTF,
won't fly until the mid to late 90's at best.  For SIRTF, where I
have personal knowledge and interest, formal study of the mission
concept began in 1977 or 78; informal discussions had been held for
several years before that.  Our instrument proposal was submitted in
1983 and selected in 1984.  The best schedule anyone has been willing
to predict is for a new start in FY 1992, and if you wanted to sell
insurance against a later start, you would have plenty of buyers.
The FY'92 start means a launch in 1996, or almost 20 years after the
initial studies.

No other scientific missions are doing any better.  The Explorer
program is stuck, in spite of having received about 40 (!) proposals
in response to the latest Announcement of Opportunity.  The last I
heard, NASA was considering returning all proposals without
evaluation on the grounds that there is no money for any of them,
regardless of merit.  (This information is a few months old and may
be out of date.)

On the other hand, I don't know anyone from Morton Thiokol.  If they
and their ilk are the ones you had in mind, you should make that clear.

> extremely difficult for young scientists and engineers to find
> positions where they may pursue an appropriate technical career;  

My understanding was that unemployment is down and salaries are
greatly up compared to 10 years ago.  Perhaps you are using a very
restrictive definition of "appropriate?"  Or have I been misled?

> that university research activities have become a detriment to
> education rather than a boon to it;   

This is at best controversial.  Derek Bok, the President of Harvard
University, has just released his annual report in which he cites the
presence of research activities on campus as the greatest single
educational strength of US universities as compared to universities
in other countries.  My own experience is in agreement with Mr. Bok's
conclusions: I found contact with researchers (many of whom did not
hold teaching appointments) to be the most valuable part of my
education.

> that major projects and directions are chosen more on the basis of
> political support than on the basis of true merit,

This is meaningless unless you can give an objective definition of
"true merit."  And it is likely to be offensive to anyone in
political life, to whom "political support" is the measure of value
of any program.  Perhaps what you meant to say was something like
"Political decisions as to major projects and directions often depend
more on who will profit financially than on the whether the projects
will help achieve our national goals..." and one could add, as you say:
> due to the lack of an appropriate cooperative relationship between
> the technical community, Congress and the administration;


> that research too often leads to costly government sponsored
> development.  

You're getting at a real problem, but in a very indirect and
confusing way.  From an ideal economic point of view, research that
would not lead to development wouldn't be funded.  In the real world,
one cannot accomplish that, because we don't know in advance which
research will lead to developable results.  (Also, some of us think
that there is a place for "pure" research, even if it will never show
a profit.)  There are really two problems: One is that lack of
accountability may lead to inappropriate technologies being selected
for development, especially if a decision to develop is made before
the research results are in.  The other problem is that development
may be less efficiently carried out by government than by private
organizations.  There is no perfect solution; simply making all
development and the decisions thereon private would not be useful
unless business could anticipate profit on a relatively short time
scale. On the other hand, informed and competent management could do
a lot to alleviate these problems.
-- 
Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

Sender: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com
Date: 29 Jun 87 13:23:15 PDT (Monday)
Subject: Opinions wanted
From: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com
Cc: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com
Reply-To: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com

I have been reading Space Digest with much interest.  While not
understanding all of it, still, I have learned a lot.  I am submitting a
"tidbit" which none of you may feel is interesting enough to reply to,
but if anyone DOES want to reply here it is.  Just remember that I am a
novice, not like some of your great brains, so while it may seem simple
to you (the answer I mean) It's not obvious to me.

This is a dream I had 11 years ago and was so vivid and fascinating that
I have never forgotten it.  What I am asking is - does anything that I
dreamed seem to have a solution based on scientific principles.  This is
the first place that I have run into where I could even ask this
question of some knowledgable minds.

Dream Segment I

I was taken to outer space and saw a very strange craft or ship with
sails. (actually the discussion on sails must have triggered my memory
of this strange dream.  I didn't understand the discussion much but
found it facinating - maybe your proposed "sails" would be using solar
winds?)  I was told that the "fuel" of future would be "clean and
cheap".  That sails would be used and powered by the solar winds.

Question:  Is there such a thing as solar winds?  If there are, could a
vehicle be powered by sails catching the solar winds?

Dream Segment 2

Quick shift: I was taken to observe a tornado.  I was told that the way
to "diffuse" this terrible and destructive storm was the "run the energy
around in reverse" down the center.  Then I was shown this and it did.

Question:  Would such a thing be possible, if so, how?

Dream Segment 3

Quick shift: I was walking through a strange forest.  The trees were
somewhat shaped like celery bunches, that is broad wide "branches" if
that is the correct word here, growing up like celery does, instead of
out like most tree branches (more like - is it  cedars that grow close
and straight up?)  On the "branches", like bark maybe,  the trees or the
bark was fur.  Leopard, bear, sable, you name it.  I was told that
instead of the animals having to die to give us their beautiful fur that
we would "grow" the different types of animal fur on trees and then
"harvest/ skin/peel" the fur off and then the tree would grow a new
"crop" of fur.  Thus the trees would not die either but repenish
themselves.

Question:  Would such a thing, scientifically, be possible (someday)?

Hoping for some replies in your DL,

Leeanna Dibrell: OSBU South:Xerox

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #271
*******************

From ota  Fri Jul  3 03:03:39 1987
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17599; Fri, 3 Jul 87 03:03:39 PDT
	id AA17599; Fri, 3 Jul 87 03:03:39 PDT
Date: Fri, 3 Jul 87 03:03:39 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8707031003.AA17599@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #272

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 272

Today's Topics:
		  Reply to Opinions Wanted on Dream
		   Re: The rocky road to the stars
		     The rocky road to the stars
	   Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection)
			   Space Telescopes
		       Betelguese and Supernova
		     Re: Betelguese and Supernova
			 Stupid (?) question
		       Re: Government in space?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Sender: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com
Date: 30 Jun 87 10:11:11 PDT (Tuesday)
Subject: Reply to Opinions Wanted on Dream
From: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com
Cc: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com
Reply-To: "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com

Please pass this on to:  Hugh Daniel
hugh@hoptoad.uucp  hugh@score.stanford.edu hugh@lll-crg.arpa

Re>"You seem very good at remembering your dreams.  I often wonder
what it would have been like to get 'Remembering Dreams 101' in
say second grade!"

I keep a dream journal as have always had vivid technicolor dreams from
a very eary age.  Although I did remember this dream, did check back to
my journal to validate my memory was correct.

You might be interested to know that there is an entire culture (native
Polynisians) that teach their children from the earliest to share their
dreams and to MASTER/CHANGE them.  A book was written which includes
this culture (forget the name at the moment) in CREATIVE DREAMING by
Patricia Garfield.  It does work for I have used her techniques (to
change my dreams and to master my nightmares.  Don't have them anymore).

Dreams are, in a lot of cases, used as a safety valve from the daily
stresses.  I have found that take more I master my daily life and take
action the less anxiety type dreams I have.  (nightmares are extreme
fear and stress).

One of the things I do is teach dream interpretation and have found I
have gained a lot from "listening" to my dreams and learning from them
(my students do too so I have a lot of case histories besides my own
experience to prove this is of benefit and works).  This dream has
another interpretation (I gained from that too)  but, as time went on, I
couldn't help but wonder if there might not be some scientific meaning
also.  Hence, my query.  Thanks for your resonse.

A lot of scientific study and research has and is being done on dreams.
Did you see the movie "Dreamscape"?  Fascinating.  Taking some known
facts about dreams (and that you can control/change them ala Garfield's
book) and putting it in a story form.  I believe it an be rented at some
video stores.  If you are interested in following up dreams, I highy
recommend this movie.  Entertaining for the non dream-interested person
too.

Leeanna Dibrell:OSBU South:Xerox

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 30 Jun 87 10:03:41 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars
Newsgroups: sci.space

I just tossed out a NASA Activities which had an article on the people
at JSC and MSFC studying the problem of impacts.  There are three
solutions of which I can remember 2 off the top: 1) is the equivalent of
armor plate.  This is what is used to shield craft like Galileo's
computers: battleship armor. 2) the second is to use a thin layer of
aluminum to dissipate energy (of small particles), the problem being
after some of the Al is vaporized some spauling (sp?) takes place.
Which is the same principle as certain types of tank armor and
anti-armor work.  Sorry, I forgot the third.  The article did mention
the consideration of sweeper satellites to collect stuff (Note I think
it would make cleaning the CFCs from the atmosphere look trivial.) and
the problems of space suit penetration [astronaut must hurry back to the
airlock, etc.]

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jun 87 13:32:02 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: The rocky road to the stars

I have the impression that collisions with largish "dust grains" may be
a serious obstacle to interstellar travel.  At the speeds usually
considered necessary for interstellar trips, such collisions seem
unavoidable and too energetic to be shielded effectively.  Has anyone
analyzed this problem before?

For definiteness, consider a spaceship traveling at 10^7 m/s.  That is
real slug speed, only 1/30 of the speed of light.  At that speed it
would take 120 years to get to the (next-)nearest star.  Still, since
kinetic energy is proportional to mass time velocity squared, hitting a
1g pebble at that speed should be as bad as hitting a 1 ton boulder at
10^4 m/s (low Earth orbit speed) or a 10,000 ton asteroid at 360 km/h.
Conversely, a 1g hit at 10^4 m/s, which would probably blow a hole
straight through the Shuttle, is energeticaly equivalent to a 0.000001g
hit at 10^7 m/s.  (Here I am ignoring relativistic effects, which would
only make the picture worse anyway.)

How likely are such collisions?  A spaceship with 10 m^2 cross section
(about 4 m diameter) will sweep 10^17 m^3 of space per light year of
travel.  If the average density d(M) of particles with mass >M in
interstellar space is a bit more than 10^-17 per cubic meter, the
probability of colliding with one or more such particles will be
practically 1.  I dont have any idea of what is d(M) for "large" M (say,
1 mg), but I expect 10^-17 particles/m^3 to be far below the detection
threshold.

From some back-of-the envelope calculations it seems that no practical
amount of shielding would resist multiple hits by pebble-sized
particles.  Destroying those particles before they hit the ship also
seems unfeasible.  For example, if we try to vaporize each pebble with a
laser beam, we must do that while the pebble is VERY far away, so that
the gas cloud has enough time to dissipate completely before the
spaceship gets there.

I hope to give more details in a future message. Meanwhile, any
comments?

  Jorge Stolfi
  
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Then Nicholl, using his own calculations, demonstrated that it was
    absolutely impossible to give any object at all the velocity of
    12,000 yards per second.  And, algebra in hand, he maintained that
    even if such a velocity could be attained, such a heavy projectile
    could never be lifted beyond the limits of the Earth's atmosphere!
    It would never reach even an altitude of twenty miles.  And
    furthermore!  Even if such a speed could be attained, even if it
    would suffice, the shell could not withstand the pressure of the
    gases produced by igniting 1,600,000 pounds of powder.  And even if
    it could resist the pressure, it could not withstand the
    temperature, it would melt as it left the Columbiad, and a red-hot
    rain would fall on the heads of the foolish spectators.

    Barbicane did not even wince at these attacks; he simply got on
    with his work.
                         -- Jules Verne, From the Earth to the Moon (1865)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 10:13:43 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Henry writes
>> telescopes
>
>This is probably as it should be.  Such devices *want* to be free-flying,
>to get away from vibration and other complications of a manned facility.
>The space station should be reserved for things that really want people in
>continuous attendance, which such instruments generally don't.  The current
>focus on microgravity work is also dubious.  Things like satellite assembly
>and servicing are much more convincing reasons for the station.

I would rather improve the reliability of satellites rather than service
them in space.  Murphy's law holds: the part you will need will
doubtless be on the ground ;-). There would be more money for electronics
and computer science.

>We could have a space station flying almost immediately, if NASA would get
>off its behind and start using existing hardware, instead of frittering away
>another decade and another ten billion dollars by reinventing everything.

We can launch cans, with O2 cylinders, batteries, and extension cords.
Needless to say, Mr. Spencer over simplifies.

I can see from the Max G posting that all Henry wants to do is go into
space.  No, pilots blackout are frequently washout of military programs.
Training?  For what?  I think I see the problem because Henry's
viewpoint is not uncommon.  I think the perspective to take can't be a
correct one for many years to come.  The question is not `why not send XXX
into space' the question should be `why send XXX' in to space.  The
question is from the viewpoint of a selection board.  It's not that I
don't want to go into space, but I think only the most qualified people
should go.

Consider: if you want a discussion try this for a while.  On what basis
would you select people to go into space?  From the biyearly
Congressional report, Dr. Robert Voas in the section on Medical and
Psychological is quoted:

 . . . intelligence without genius, knowledge without inflexibility,
  bravery without foolhardiness, self-confidence without egotism, physical
  fitness without being muscle-bound, a preference for participatory over
  spectator sports, frankness without blabbermouthing, enjoyment of life
  without excess, humor without disproportion, fast reflexes without panic
  in crises.

Consider other criteria: weight, eyesight, etc.  There are over 20 sets
of tests given.
Can I send more life support or scientific instrumentation? [If you ever
visit the Goddard Space Center near Washington DC there was a mock up
the last time I was at the Visitor Center of a Mercury capsule which you
could crawl into (very small) the original 7 must have all been short
and light weight].  Would each reader consider whether they would warp the
criteria such that they would fit for their own personal gain?

The purpose isn't just to send people into space, but to get something
out of it.  This isn't quite the same thing as adventure.  I want us to
go out there for knowledge, not personal gain.  

On a personal note: I was offered a desk job yesterday at the new Space
Station office in Reston, VA.  I can see it now, yet another Unix battle
(versus PCs running PC/DOS or OS/2).  I said no for now.

From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 87 14:12:51 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Space Telescopes

> [...]
> By the way, the current incarnation of the space station has no place to
> put telescopes or earth observation instruments.

There was no desire in the astronomical community for telescopes on the
space station. Local contamination, interference in pointing, etc., 
were too much. NASA wanted another justification for the SS, but the
objectives are incompatible.

> I suggest we scuttle the whole thing and spend the money on free
> flying telescopes, unmanned earth observation platforms, long duration
> shuttle missions and Spacelab flights (most have which have been
> cancelled after Challenger). We could have Spacelab flying almost
> immediately, instead of waiting until the turn of the century. If any
> civilian missions need a space station, let's put 'em on Mir (or watch
> as the europeans do so); if any military missons need a station, let
> DOD build and launch their own.

Hear, hear!

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 09:37:03 PDT
From: ota@galileo.s1.gov
To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Betelguese and Supernova

It may indeed be that checking out nearby supernova candidates will be
the first application that requires an interstellar trip.  Remote probes
at the nearest half dozen likely supernovas could relay early warning of
an impending explosion.  This might be the highest leverage scientific
program ever undertaken, at least in terms of lives saved.  At the very
least is would be a colossally interesting project.
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jun 87 21:30:53 GMT
From: nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova

In article <8706291637.AA03371@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes:
>It may indeed be that checking out nearby supernova candidates will be
>the first application that requires an interstellar trip.  Remote probes
>at the nearest half dozen likely supernovas could relay early warning of
>an impending explosion.  This might be the highest leverage scientific
>program ever undertaken, at least in terms of lives saved.  At the very
>least is would be a colossally interesting project.
>	Ted Anderson

	Now excuse me for nit picking, but would this give us any
early warning?  It seems to me that by the time indications of an
impending SN got to the probe, and the warning message from the probe
got back to earth, the same conditions that triggered the warning
in the probe would be detectable here.  Am I missing something, or was
this an oversight?

						-Chris

Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs       *   *   *   *   *
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc        \ / \ / \ / \ /
                                                        \           /
REX QUANDUM.  REXQUE FUTURUS.                            -----------

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 87 10:11:05 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!liuida!yngla@seismo.css.gov  (Yngve Larsson)
Subject: Stupid (?) question


Please forgive this ignorant amateur for asking this question:
What is a Clarke Orbit?

BTW, how many Europeans (or rather, non-US or -SU citizens) have
entered space to this date? 

-- 
Yngve Larsson                        UUCP: {seismo, mcvax}!enea!liuida!yla
Dept of CIS                            Arpa: YLA%IDA.LIU.SE@SEISMO.CSS.GOV
Linkoping University, Sweden                          Phone: +46-13-281949

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 87 13:05:39 GMT
From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Government in space?

In article <220834.870628.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> > From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>
> 
> >> Chief financial officer of American Rocket Co. observes that there will
> >> be opposition to private launchers because of loss of government jobs.
> >> Says that in government programs, for every producer "there are four
> >> guys carrying clipboards".
> 
> > Has anyone ever read "Atlas shrugged" by Ayn Rand?
> 
> I am afraid we objectivists are outnumbered by those who still see big
> government as the fast route to space.  You would think that the expense
> and futility of Apollo, the reentry of Skylab, and the 2.5+ year Shuttle
> grounding would have convinced people otherwise.
> 
> Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope not)
> but when it is done, it will be done at a profit.  Nothing but short-
> lived small scale projects such as Apollo and Skylab can be done at
> a financial loss.  And those are of no possible benefit to man's future
> permanent presense in space.
> 								...Keith

Sure there will be space colonization, and it probably will not be done
at a profit.  Too get a hint of how & by who, see this mornings paper.
U.S. business is contracting to U.S.S.R. for the launch of communications
satellites.

As someone else's signature says, "There is only one country on earth with
a space program, comrade."





























-- 
 "Beware the babble problem!"   || James W. Meritt      
         -Gilbertus Abans       || Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
          of Septimian          ||

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #272
*******************

From ota  Sat Jul  4 03:02:55 1987
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19875; Sat, 4 Jul 87 03:02:55 PDT
	id AA19875; Sat, 4 Jul 87 03:02:55 PDT
Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 03:02:55 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8707041002.AA19875@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #273

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 273

Today's Topics:
		 Re: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables
		   Re: The rocky road to the stars
		       Metric vs. English units
		       Re: Government in space?
		 Re: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables
	    Re: Opinions wanted: Dream of solar windsailer
		   Re: The rocky road to the stars
			  The End of Apollo
				 FTL
			free enterprise space
		       Re: Stupid (?) question
		  How many non-standard spacenauts?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 87 23:28:46 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables

> 	Does anyone know what the cost for each additional shuttle
> flight was costing before the Challenger?  How did it relate to non-
> reusable rockets?

It is difficult to assess this sort of thing because there are so many
variables.  For example, shuttle flights are cheaper to the government
(effectively a subsidy for government flights), while expendables appear
to be significantly cheaper to commercial customers (less paperwork).
Which prices do you count?

A rough rule of thumb is that unsubsidized costs to low orbit are around
$5000/lb for all existing launchers.

The NRC report on achievable post-Challenger-recovery shuttle launch
frequency said that overall launch costs were sensitive to the overall
poundage per year but almost completely insensitive to what mix of
launchers were used, implying that real costs are pretty similar.  The
NRC was presumably thinking mostly of government or government-funded
payloads on government-funded launchers, which might mean a modest cost
advantage for expendables for straight commercial use.
-- 
Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 1 Jul 87 23:49:05 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars

> I have the impression that collisions with largish "dust grains"
> may be a serious obstacle to interstellar travel.  At the speeds
> usually considered necessary for interstellar trips, such collisions
> seem unavoidable and too energetic to be shielded effectively.
> Has anyone analyzed this problem before?  

In a word, yes.  Check out the Project Daedalus report from the British
Interplanetary Society, for example.  Results are sensitive to estimates
of the density of interstellar debris of size X, but in general the problem
does not seem intractable.  The Daedalus report studied a large unmanned
probe at about 15% of the speed of light, and concluded that some simple
precautions would suffice.  Basically all that was necessary in interstellar
space at those speeds was a bit of armor on the leading face.  That cut
the probability of real trouble down to 0.1% or so.

> From some back-of-the envelope calculations it seems that no practical
> amount of shielding would resist multiple hits by pebble-sized particles.

This is true, especially at the higher speeds -- the energies get up into
the nuclear-weapon range before long -- but such particles appear to be
very rare.  We don't have a lot of direct data on this, but some upper
bounds can be set by indirect evidence.

> Destroying those particles before they hit the ship also seems unfeasible.
> For example, if we try to vaporize each pebble with a laser beam, we must
> do that while the pebble is VERY far away, so that the gas cloud has enough
> time to dissipate completely before the spaceship gets there.  

Actually, there are ways.  Daedalus was intended as the simplest sort of
interstellar mission, an undecelerated flyby a la Voyager, so it would pass
through its target solar system at full speed.  *That* required more serious
protective measures, since solar systems are dusty places.  The solution was
to maintain a fine dust cloud some thousands of kilometers ahead of the
probe; incoming particles would hit the cloud and vaporize.  The distance
between cloud and probe was calculated so that the resulting fireballs
would expand to a safe density by the time they reached the probe.  While
it looked possible to maintain the cloud from the probe itself, a simpler
method was to use a secondary probe, a "dust bug", flying in the cloud
itself.  Occasionally the dust bug itself would be destroyed, so the main
probe would have to carry several.
-- 
Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 04:22:23 GMT
From: phri!roy@nyu.arpa  (Roy Smith)
Subject: Metric vs. English units

In article <8211@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
-> NASA payload projections for mid-1990s show routine need for a booster
-> capable of 60-100 klbs of payload.  100-200 klbs after year 2000.

	Does anybody else find it a bit sad that in this supposed age of
metricization, NASA still quotes payload capacity in pounds?
-- 
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 07:06:14 GMT
From: khayo@locus.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Government in space?

In article <686@aplvax.UUCP> jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
(...)
>Sure there will be space colonization, and it probably will not be done
>at a profit.  Too get a hint of how & by who, see this mornings paper.
>U.S. business is contracting to U.S.S.R. for the launch of communications
>satellites.

Don't cry "wolf" until there's a reason: I understand that the Soviet
delegation left the US with no bounty; most of the potential customers
gave them a cold shoulder, one of the reasons being that it would take
a lot of effort for them to persuade the US Customs Service that the
satellites are not high-technology items covered by the embargo (there
is an alternative of sending them to Baikonur via hyperspace - alas, not
yet).

> "Beware the babble problem!"   || James W. Meritt      
So true!
>         -Gilbertus Abans       || Johns Hopkins Applied Physics Laboratory
>          of Septimian          ||    



>>>>== .sicknature =======>  khayo@math.ucla.edu [Eric Behr]

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 17:46:41 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Cost of Shuttle vs. Disposables

In article <8232@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> For example, shuttle flights are cheaper to the government
> (effectively a subsidy for government flights), while expendables appear
> to be significantly cheaper to commercial customers (less paperwork).

It's even more complicated than that.  For government payloads, NASA
does not charge the launch cost in any direct way.  Instead, the
launch just comes out of the budget of the Shuttle Office or the
Vehicles Office (Sorry, I can't find the formal names just now.),
while the payload comes out of the Office of Space Science and
Applications , for example.  The effect of this is to thoroughly hide
the actual cost of a launch.

A recent, unfortunate exception has been the Cosmic Background
Explorer (COBE).  Originally it was to have been launched on the
shuttle, but after Challenger, COBE has been redesigned for launch on
a Delta.  The normal procedure would have required OSSA to pay for the
redesign, while the Vehicles Office picked up the cost of the Delta.
Instead, the whole cost is coming out of OSSA, which has not received
an increased budget to compensate.  This has contributed to the
backlog of Explorer missions I mentioned in an earlier posting.

A seemingly more sensible system would be to budget the launch cost
as part of each project, and let the project management decide what
launcher to use.  That would allow sensible tradeoffs between, say,
spending money to reduce payload weight versus spending money on a
bigger launch vehicle.  Don't hold your breath waiting for this to
happen. 
-- 
Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 07:58:17 GMT
From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Charlie_Alan_Bounds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: Dream of solar windsailer

About that dream of solar wind.  Yes it is real.  There are lots of science
fiction stories about solar sail spacecraft.  Basically, they are capsule
shaped devices hooked to a circular sail much like a parachute, but the chute
is several km in diameter and in the milli-micron thickness range.  Such a
thing won't be easy to steer (but parachutes are steerable), but it could be
used to launch a vehicle.

What it is:  don't ask me about physics but the solar wind is basically
caused by two things.  One is a real pressure caused by light.  Thus a ground
based laser can be used to enhance a solar sail launch.  The other aspect of
the wind is actual sub-atomic particles blasted out of the sun travelling
hell-bent-for-leather out of the solar system.  The problem with this stuff
is that it will stick to the sail, increasing its mass.

I can't give you a physics reference but some science fiction stuff is:

The Legend of Miaree by Zach Hughes
The Mote in Gods Eye by Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle
Assorted other tales by Larry Niven.

Since both Nivin and Pournelle do their physics homework before they start to
write I would take what they say with only a small grain of salt in their
work, even the fiction stuff

   Charlie (I am gatewayed to USENET on Portal and have no idea how to
            get mail to me from other systems)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 20:04:28 GMT
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com  (Jay Freeman)
Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars

<*munch*>

An interesting fact and example in this context is that an object moving at
87 percent of the speed of light (actually, the fraction is one-half the
square root of three) has kinetic energy equal to its rest mass energy.
That is, to liberate as much energy as one of the nuclear weapons dropped in
World War II, you may (a) detonate a small to medium tactical atomic bomb,
(b) blow up a long freight train (several hundred cars) full of TNT, or (c)
throw a DIME at the target area at 0.87 c ...

The point also holds for elementary particles:  At that speed, those aren't
mere hydrogen atoms you are colliding with, they are 1 GeV protons (each
accompanied by an 0.5 MeV electron in close formation).

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 02 Jul 87 19:45:21 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      The End of Apollo

    While listening to a lecture about geology from Apollo a
while back, the speaker made an interesting point--he said
that it was pointed out to Nixon that if Apollo missions
continued, sooner or later astronauts would be killed when
a solar flare occurred during a mission.  Nixon, wanting to be
remembered as the president during whose tenure men first
landed on the moon, not the one in whose tenure men first
died in space, then let the last missions die due to lack
of funding support.
    Quite a different view as to why Apollo stopped....

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 19:34:00 GMT
From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu
Subject: FTL



>   There is obviously a lot more about the physics of our universe that we have
>yet to learn.  At least some of this new knowledge will rewrite our current  
                                                    ^^^^
>physical laws and most likely provide us with a means to travel FTL with little  
                   ^^^^^^^^^^^
>more diffuculty than it takes us travel faster than sound now.  In this case,

  Unless you have some hitherto unrevealed basis for speaking with such
  confidence, I suggest you consider rec.arts.sf-lovers as a more
  appropriate forum for this kind of opinion.

                                                    --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 18:49:00 GMT
From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu
Subject: free enterprise space


         
Heather Mackinnon says:
>Private space firms could not now survive because the government would
>regulate and tax them out of existence.  With space becoming increasingly
>militarized, the government will need tight control of spacefaring
>civilians.  You can't develop a frontier unless there is a high return
>on investment and a lot of freedom in the development of the frontier.

1.  We may not be a perfect model of a free-enterprise system but we are
    a hell of a lot closer to that then the Soviets.  Despite that, they
    are doing a lot more in space than we are.

2.  There are plenty of industries which are doing very well despite
    government taxation and regulation.  I work in one of them (the
    computer workstation industry).  Entrepeneurs are starting new
    businesses in almost every industry all the time and making good
    money at it.  I just read that Microsoft's founder just became 
    the country's youngest billionaire.   The automobile industry
    is one of the most regulated industries in history and yet Ford
    recently announced record earnings.  The airline industry is also 
    heavily taxed and regulated but Frank Lorenzo seems to be doing OK.
 
  I think this is all a smokescreen.  I don't see private industry 
  clamoring to get into space.  Free enterprise entails a willingness
  to take risks.  I don't see such a willingness out there.  The
  bottom line is that private enterprise has not shown any interest.
  Oh sure, certain individuals have, but their proposals were never
  good enough to attract the sort of investment and backing it would
  take to pull it off.   This isn't the government's fault; it's the
  fault of the private sector itself.

                                            --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 16:22:09 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Stupid (?) question

> What is a Clarke Orbit?

"Clarke orbit" is the term some people prefer for what is otherwise known
as "geostationary orbit" or (ambiguously and sloppily) as "geosynchronous
orbit":  the 24-hour equatorial orbit that makes a satellite appear to sit
motionless in the sky.  Arthur C. Clarke, in his paper "Extraterrestrial
Relays" (I think that's the correct title), was the first to observe
that this orbit was a natural place for communications satellites, since
antennas then would not need sophisticated tracking systems to follow the
motion of a satellite.

It should be noted, in fairness, that Clarke himself says that ideas along
these lines were in general circulation at the time, and he was merely the
first to *publish* this one.  There is room for debate about whether he's
being excessively modest, though.  (He *has* noted that if he'd known that
practical application of the idea was so close, he would have thought
harder about trying to patent it!)
-- 
Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 22:56:10 GMT
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Wanna C. DeSupernova)
Subject: How many non-standard spacenauts?


Yngve Larsson asks about how many non-US/SU have entered space so far?

According to my personal logbook of orbital flights, I find that
the number is 19, updated 1987 July 2nd. This follows by adding 6
"non-standad" spacenauts to the 13 already summed by myself before
(Sky and Telescope, May 1985, Letter).

Most probably, the next non-US/SU person to go up will be a Syrian
cosmonaut to participate in the next Soyuz TM launch later this month.

Yaron Sheffer
Astronomy At Austin

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #273
*******************

From ota  Sun Jul  5 03:02:51 1987
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01006; Sun, 5 Jul 87 03:02:51 PDT
	id AA01006; Sun, 5 Jul 87 03:02:51 PDT
Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 03:02:51 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8707051002.AA01006@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #274

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 274

Today's Topics:
			 Re: Opinions wanted
			 Re: Opinions wanted
			 Re: I want to GO!!!
		      Re: Comrade Atlas shrugged
	   Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection)
     Re: Launch Vehicle Size (was Re: Breaking out of the Cradle)
			    Profit & Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 21:50:03 GMT
From: sundc!hqda-ai!cos!smith@seismo.css.gov  (Steve Smith)
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted

In article <870629-144954-3045@Xerox> "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@xerox.com writes:
>
>Question:  Is there such a thing as solar winds?  If there are, could a
>vehicle be powered by sails catching the solar winds?
>
There are, indeed "solar winds".  They are composed of assorted atoms
spewed out by the sun and pushed around by the magnetic fields that fill
the solar system.  I don't know what kind of pressure they would
generate; I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the solar wind
generates about the same pressure as sunlight.

A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that "light sails" would
be a very practical means of interplanetary transport.  While the
acceleration that they would generate would be miniscule, it is
constant.  A millionth of a G acting over several weeks builds up a
_very_ respectable velocity.

All of the technology needed to build light sails is available _now_.  I
seem to remember seeing somewhere a few years back a suggestion that the
US mission to Halley's Comet be done with a light sail.  The probe would
renzevous with the comet far outside the Earth's orbit, and come in with
it.  This was doable with the sail, but not with "conventional" means of
propulsion.  NASA rejected the idea out of hand with an arguement that
boiled down to "we didn't invent it, so we won't do it" (the "not
invented here", or NIH, arguement).  NASA went with a "conventional"
design, which got killed.

The thrust on a sail would come both from sunlight, coming straight from
the sun and reflecting off of the sail, and from the solar wind, which
is bent by magnetic fields.  The "sailors" would have to have a fair
ammount of "spacemenship" to handle their craft.

Light sails have been described in a number of science fiction
stories.  I believe that the first ones were "Sunjammer" by Poul
Anderson and "The Wind from the Sun" by Arthur C. Clarke.
>
> ... the way
>to "diffuse" this terrible and destructive storm was the "run the energy
>around in reverse" down the center.  ...
>
>Question:  Would such a thing be possible, if so, how?

This is another one of these things that is "theoretically possible".
Unfortunately, the ammounts of power that you're talking about approach
the atomic bomb range.  There is no way that we can control that kind of
power so that the cure won't be worse than the disease.  The (again
theoretical) way to control any kind of destructive storm is to catch it
while it is forming, and use techniques that use its own energy against
it.  This has been tried with cloud seeding in both tornados and
hurricanes, with questionable results.

>
>Dream Segment 3
>
> ... we would "grow" the different types of animal fur on trees and then
>"harvest/ skin/peel" the fur off and then the tree would grow a new
>"crop" of fur. ...
>
>Question:  Would such a thing, scientifically, be possible (someday)?
>

My knowledge of gene splicing is (to be polite) limited.  I would
suspect that it would be much easier to use animal tissue cultures than
to try to graft the appropriate genes into a plant.  The tree is, of
course, much more elegant.

Unfortunately, having fur grow on trees would probably accomplish
nothing.  The people who wear expensive furs love them for the fact that
they are expensive, or came from a rare animal, or a dangerous animal.
The fact that something that came off of a tree was genetically "the
same thing" would mean nothing.  (Footnote - I know a few people like
this)

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                      -- Steve
						 smith@cos.com
					  
"Can I ask you some stupid questions?"
"They won't be stupid, if I'm any judge.  Elementary, perhaps, but not
stupid."      -- E. E. Smith
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 87 03:55:41 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted

In article <347@cos.COM> smith@cos.UUCP (Steve Smith) writes:
>There are, indeed "solar winds".  They are composed of assorted atoms
>spewed out by the sun and pushed around by the magnetic fields that fill
>the solar system.  I don't know what kind of pressure they would
>generate; I seem to remember seeing somewhere that the solar wind
>generates about the same pressure as sunlight.

				-8
    Solar wind pressure is ~2*10   dynes/cm^2 at 1 AU from the Sun;
velocity varies but is in the range of several hundred km/sec.	The
ionized particles are so hot they can't be held back by solar gravity
or the pressure of the interstellar medium.

>A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that "light sails" would
>be a very practical means of interplanetary transport.

    If I remember old books correctly, one of the Mariner Mars
missions used light pressure on adjustable vanes on its solar panels
for attitude control during the cruise phase (NOT for propulsion).

--
    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

``There is only one spacefaring nation today. And it's not the United
    States, comrade!''

------------------------------

Date:  3 Jul 1987 15:54-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: I want to GO!!!


In the short run we can hardly argue with the facts that the best
qualified need to lead the way. You don't pilot experimental craft
without years of experience.  But I am not interested in the short run
needs except as building blocks towards long term goals.

My long term goal is to make it possible for every man, woman and child
on earth who has the desire to either visit space or to leave
permanently to do so. This is obviously not next year I am talking
about. But if we don't think in those terms, we will build a space
program that will make space the preserve of a very small elite for
many, many decades.  That is the current direction of our program, and
that is what I disagree with.

In 1995 the space station will have the best tested people that can be
found. This is proper.

In 2005 it had damn well better have anyone who wants to go. This too
is proper.

A lot comes down to the question of why people support space. There are
many reasons, and I will admit that there are other reasons than mine.
But mine are very deeply ingrained. Since I am not unique, I will give
you a pocket sketch of "where I'm coming from".

I watched Sputnik go overhead as a child, watched Vanguard blow up on
the news, watched Von Braun's Jupiter C and other launches and decided:
I want to GO.

I spent my child hood studying math and science. I watched EVERY SINGLE
manned launch and recovery live on TV (early recoveries were voice over
still pictures), through the Apollo's, even to having to ask my French
teacher in french to let me out of class to go to the library. Because
I KNEW that I was going to GO.

I went to one of the most difficult engineering schools and took the
hardest classes and teachers. I suffered through 4 years of it. Because
I wanted to GO.

And then congress decided space was not important, effectively
discarding the entirety of my youthful life. I was angry, but I was
practical, and figured things would change, but I still wanted to GO.

About a year after our 'space station' fell, I got fed up and decided to
do something about it. Having also been a crazed anti-Vietnam activist
at one time (I left the anti-war movement over the space program by the
way. Someone called it facist and I.. well I won't tell you what I told
him to do...) I figured my skills of that time would be of use to
bringing about a dream I had nurtured since almost before I was old
enough to HAVE memories.

I discovered L5 (now NSS) and found that I was not the only one with
this life experience and this deep a commitment.

We intend to GO. We have individually fought this battle for most of
our lives and we have dedicated our lives, our fortunes and our sacred
honors to continuing it. We ain't gonna go away. We're just going to
grow older and wiser and collect more influence.

We really ARE going if we have to walk.

						Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 2 Jul 87 17:13:45 GMT
From: hp-pcd!uoregon!omepd!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@hplabs.hp.com  (Howard A. Landman)
Subject: Re: Comrade Atlas shrugged

In article <2900@blia.BLI.COM> heather@blia.BLI.COM (Heather Mackinnon) writes:
>America is no longer a free market capitalist society.  The US has
>adopted all the planks of Marx's communist manifesto (public schooling,
>progressive income taxes, regulated enterprise, etc).

Hmm.  And Russia and China are not pure communist/socialist countries.

>If you want to compare a capitalistic society to a communistic one,
>then I suggest you find one first.

One of which?  Both?  Either?

>We fought a war two centuries ago for freedom: freedom to trade with
>whom we choose, freedom to explore the frontiers of our land, freedom
>from inequitable and exhorbitant taxation.  We have a new frontier
>now, a very exciting one, and we need to re-claim our freedoms.

Yes, and this time we don't even have to cheat and kill the native
inhabitants to get our way, because there aren't any.

Out of curiosity, Heather:  It sounds like you would support the right
of any space civilization to be free from fealty to the earth societies
that gave it birth, and favor even violent revolution to achieve that
end.  If so, why do you think people on earth should be asked to pay for
founding a nation of space-borne ingrates who won't give them anything
in return?  (I have my own answer, but I'd like to hear yours.)

-- 
	Howard A. Landman
	...!{oliveb,...}!intelca!mipos3!cpocd2!howard
	howard%cpocd2%sc.intel.com@RELAY.CS.NET
	"We gotta get out of this place, if it's the last thing we ever do"

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 87 19:26:06 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection)

> I would rather improve the reliability of satellites rather than service
> them in space.  Murphy's law holds: the part you will need will
> doubtless be on the ground ;-).

Satellites are already extremely expensive because of the massive investment
in ultra-high-reliability systems.  Improving their reliability will probably
make this worse.  Even with current launch systems, the cost-effectiveness of
this approach is not massively obvious for things that can be in space-
station-like orbits.

> There would be more money for electronics and computer science.

I'm told there are people who justify SDI the same way.

> >We could have a space station flying almost immediately...
> 
> We can launch cans, with O2 cylinders, batteries, and extension cords.
> Needless to say, Mr. Spencer over simplifies.

While I *was* oversimplifying somewhat, since NASA doesn't have the exact
hardware in stock right now, I think my point remains valid.  I will have
more (much more) to say about this in another of my editorials.

> ... The question is not `why not send XXX
> into space' the question should be `why send XXX' in to space.  The
> question is from the viewpoint of a selection board.  It's not that I
> don't want to go into space, but I think only the most qualified people
> should go.

I think you should not be making such decisions, and neither should I, or
a government selection board.  Not in a free society.  I agree that only
the most qualified people should go into space with their trips paid for
by tax money -- NASA's batting average is not 100% on this, by the way --
but tax money should not be the only way, or even the main way, to get into
space.

> ... On what basis would you select people to go into space?

The same way we select people to go into the air:  by ability to pay for
the ticket, and absence of a few obvious disqualifications like concealed
weapons.

> ...  Would each reader consider whether they would warp the
> criteria such that they would fit for their own personal gain?

We shouldn't have to.

> The purpose isn't just to send people into space, but to get something
> out of it.  This isn't quite the same thing as adventure.  I want us to
> go out there for knowledge, not personal gain.  

I want us to go out there for both, and more, without requiring government
approval of one's own particular reasons.  I want the West to become a
spacefaring society, in which access to space is readily available even
if one's motives are not deemed "worthy" by some faceless bureaucrat.
-- 
Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jun 87 16:53:46 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Launch Vehicle Size (was Re: Breaking out of the Cradle)

In article <448@telesoft.UUCP> roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
>and launch daily.  But if you hang all your plans on decisions that
>never materialize, you're left with only paper studies, and sad tales
>of "what might have been".
>
>- Roger Arnold                               ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger


Ah yes, the British Interplanetary Society's plans for
landing a man on the moon. The plans for the first British
shuttle.

I would include Black Knight and Blue streak here too,
even although they flew before being scrapped. (anyone
else remember them?)

The minister responsible swore blind that space flight was
only for national prestige, would never be commercially
succesful, and that we could always pay someone else to
launch the few weather and communication satallites which
might ever be needed. Someone should play his words back to
him and show him the backlog of payloads waiting to be
launched.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 10:59 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Profit & Space

Ron Picard said:

> On the contrary, if a privately owned company with no governmental
> restrictions had lost 51L, do you think they would still be giving MT
> their business?  The CEO would be lynched at the first public stock
> meeting.  It isn't capitalism that failed, it's the companies that live
> off of government supplied coercive monopolies.

Actually, the CEO of a private company that had tried to build the shuttle
would have been lynched years earlier, when it became clear what a turkey
the vehicle was.  NASA can propagate its mistakes much longer, since its
managers don't have a bottom line to keep them honest.

Can you imagine a corporation bringing back a CEO that had made such
a malinvestment as the shuttle?  No rational organization would do that...
	
Peter Nelson said:

>  I think this is all a smokescreen.  I don't see private industry 
>  clamoring to get into space.  Free enterprise entails a willingness
>  to take risks.  I don't see such a willingness out there.  The
>  bottom line is that private enterprise has not shown any interest.
>  Oh sure, certain individuals have, but their proposals were never
>  good enough to attract the sort of investment and backing it would
>  take to pull it off.   This isn't the government's fault; it's the
>  fault of the private sector itself.

This is nonsense. Willingness to take risks doesn't mean foolhardy
disregard for simple economic calculations. Private enterprise is not
investing all that much in space because, frankly, such investments would
be economically unsound. Governments are ``investing'' in space not because
politicians are farsighted decision makers but because it scores political
points with the aerospace community and, at a low level, with the general
population.

Paul Dietz
dietz@slb-doll.csnet

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #274
*******************

From ota  Mon Jul  6 03:03:34 1987
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02622; Mon, 6 Jul 87 03:03:34 PDT
	id AA02622; Mon, 6 Jul 87 03:03:34 PDT
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 03:03:34 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota>
Message-Id: <8707061003.AA02622@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #275

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 275

Today's Topics:
		   Re: The rocky road to the stars
			 Government in space?
		     Re: Wait... (I'm with Henry)
			  Re: Profit & Space
			 Perfect man in space
		     Non-profit commie colonies?
		    Old business  [flame warning]
		   Re: Non-profit commie colonies?
		  Address of Space Studies Institute
		     Re: private space companies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 4 Jul 87 15:46 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars
To: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com, space@angband.s1.gov


Jorge Stolfi asked about the presence of large dust grains in interstellar
space.  He said:

>   If the average density d(M) of particles with mass >M in
> interstellar space is a bit more than 10^-17 per cubic meter, the
> probability of colliding with one or more such particles will be
> practically 1.  I dont have any idea of what is d(M) for "large" M (say,
> 1 mg), but I expect 10^-17 particles/m^3 to be far below the detection
> threshold.

Is 10^17/m^3 too low to detect?  The way to detect large (gram
sized) particles from interstellar space is to look for meteors with
high velocity.  This has been done in the midwest with multiple cameras
(equiped with rotating disks to chop the trails to measure velocity).
Interstellar grains should have velocities in excess of solar escape
velocity.  I don't believe any such grains have been detected.

Assuming extrasolar meteors are moving in parabolic orbits, a 10x10
km patch of sky will sample about 7x10^12 m^3/second, or 10^17 m^3 in
about four hours.

This detection method will fail for very heat sensitive grains.  But
grains can't be made of solid hydrogen, which would evaporate even in
interstellar space, and organic blobs would get polymerized by cosmic
rays.

Paul Dietz
dietz@slb-doll.csnet

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  4 Jul 87 17:39:28 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Government in space?
To: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu

> We may not be a perfect model of a free-enterprise system but we are
> a hell of a lot closer to that then the Soviets.  Despite that, they
> are doing a lot more in space than we are.

Yes, but at the expense of what percent of their GNP?  Such stations
are only for propaganda - they CANNOT lead to true colonies, because
they are not profitable.  Just because the USSR officially denigrates
profit and loss doesn't mean they don't still apply.  They always
apply.

If enough voters were willing, we could have a similar or larger space
program.  But it would require either higher taxes or a higher national
debt.  It wouldn't really accomplish anything.  Sure, we could learn new
facts about the universe, but at what price?  The main thing we need to
learn about space is how to get there inexpensively.  Knowledge is not a
value in itself.  It is a value in that it furthers human life.

Knowledge about space is of great value of space colonists, but is of
little value if space colonies are not affordable.  What difference does
it make what the surface of Mars is made of if we cannot construct a
profitable mine or farm there?  And with the cost of space travel what
it is, mining would not be profitable even if Mars is solid gold or
platinum.

What we need now is a Henry Ford of space.  Someone who can reduce the
cost of a launch system with whatever mixture of new technology, new
materials, and new manufacturing techniques, until the average family
can afford one.  That is the only way we are going to get to the point
where people can opt out of the current political systems and go seek
their fortune, and like minded people, elsewhere in the vastness of the
solar system.

> I think this is all a smokescreen.  I don't see private industry
> clamoring to get into space.

There are four explanations for this:

1) In the current politcal climate, profitable systems are likely to
   be taken over by the government.  In a Republican administration,
   for "national security" or fear of "technology transfer", in a
   Democratic administration, for "antitrust" or "windfall profits
   tax".  Or the goverent may simply "borrow" the technology, and
   run subsidized launches which no company can hope to compete with.
   How can one balance high risk with potential high payoff when
   government ensures that there will be no high payoffs?  Neither
   major politcal party has any respect for private property or for
   individual rights, whatever lip service they may pay.

2) The main "fact" discovered by our space program, as far as most
   of the public are concerned, is the "fact" that space is extremely
   expensive, very hazardous, and utterly worthless.  Of course the
   same conclusion would be drawn about any other technology if it
   was run by the government.  Someone who was only aware of farming
   in the Soviet Union might conclude that farming is not practicable
   and starvation is the natural fate of man.

3) Taxation and regulation generate a constant drag on all financial
   activity.  The fact that people do make big profits, as you point
   out, does not disprove this any more than a race car moving slowly
   disproves the hypothesis that someone has his foot partway on the
   brake.

4) Perhaps it really is too early for massive space industries and
   colonization.  Perhaps these will be practical only in fifty
   years or a hundred, after the general state of technology has
   advanced considerably.

> This isn't the government's fault; it's the fault of the private
> sector itself.

You seem to see space as primary, and the means as secondary.  This
isn't reasonable.  We can continue to have a few carefully chosen men
in silvery suits orbit the Earth each year, if we don't mind higher
taxes.  With even higher taxes we can have more missions to the Moon,
or even to Mars.  But this won't accomplish anything except the
imprisonment of those not willing to pay the higher taxes, and an
increased drag on the economy and on the development of advanced
technology that could get us to space at a profit.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 3 Jul 87 11:26:52 GMT
From: hp-pcd!uoregon!omepd!littlei!ogcvax!pase@hplabs.hp.com  (Douglas M. Pase)
Subject: Re: Wait... (I'm with Henry)

In article <ames-pio.8707011713.AA23112> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>
>I can see from the Max G posting that all Henry wants to do is go into
>space.  No, pilots blackout are frequently washout of military programs.

Enough!  I'm not about to go into the medical reasons for which a pilot may
be grounded, but this drivel (which has been repeated many times (Ojala que
fuera el primero!) by many people) is an oversimplification of a complex
issue!  There is no question but blackouts require care and attention.  Any
major simptom (such as this) could reasonably be caused by a major malfunction.
This does not suggest that it is ALWAYS accompanied by a major malfunction.

About pilots... Pilots are not always grounded because they blackout.  (Yes,
I understand that this is not what eugene said.)  We'd be in awful trouble
if they were, because everybody needs sleep!  Now, people can blackout for
a lot of reasons other than exaustion.  Oxygen starvation is one common
cause, trauma to the head is another.  People are not washed out of military
flight training because they stopped breathing, unless they forgot to start
again, or just plain took too long about it.

Trauma to the head is another matter.  Pilots and prospective pilots can
be washed out for that.  If someone uses a crowbar to put a dent in your
head and it takes you a few weeks to wake up, you'd better start looking for
a new job once you do because no-one is going to let you fly their plane.
Trauma to the head severe enough to put you out, even for a few moments can
do damage to the brain tissue which usually takes a *long* time to heal.
Now you may not notice that your head is damaged right off, but start reducing
your cabin pressure to what you find at > 20,000 ft and you will.  More
importantly, take a high-G turn and you may never get out of it.  Even moderate
forces encountered in turns can put you out of commission if the trauma was
severe enough.  And the healing time is on the order of years.

So, as long as the guys with the heavy cork pop guns don't over do it, I'm
with Hen3ry, even if I miss the first part of the trip.
--
Doug Pase   --   ...ucbvax!tektronix!ogcvax!pase  or  pase@Oregon-Grad (CSNet)

------------------------------

Date: 4 Jul 87 21:40:29 GMT
From: gatech!udel!farber@rutgers.edu  (Dave Farber)
Subject: Re: Profit & Space


Dont be too sure about a executive being sent packing when he makes such
a big error . Historically in American business that just does not
work that way. Look at Xerox and SDS. Did the Xerox President get
fired no sir!!. He stayed on till retirement.

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  4 Jul 87 23:26:55 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Perfect man in space
To: eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>

> . . . intelligence without genius, knowledge without inflexibility,
> bravery without foolhardiness, self-confidence without egotism, physical
> fitness without being muscle-bound, a preference for participatory over
> spectator sports, frankness without blabbermouthing, enjoyment of life
> without excess, humor without disproportion, fast reflexes without panic
> in crises.
> Consider other criteria: weight, eyesight, etc.  There are over 20 sets
> of tests given.

Nearly 20 years after Mercury, we are still in _The Right Stuff_.  The
space age will not REALLY begin until space is available to the fat, the
tall, the nearsighted, the egotists.

How many remember when computers were avaliable only to the elite, to
the futuristic white-frocked New American Man?

> I want us to go out there for knowledge, not personal gain.

Knowledge IS personal gain.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  4 Jul 87 23:34:07 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Non-profit commie colonies?
To: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)

> Sure there will be space colonization, and it probably will not be done
> at a profit.  ...  As someone else's signature says, "There is only one
> country on earth with a space program, comrade."

Their space program runs at an enormous loss.  It is conceivable that
they might someday have a semi-permanent manned base on Mars - by some
standards, they already have one in Earth orbit - but these exist only
by being supplied from the ground at enormous expense.  They have
propaganda value and military value, but they aren't colonies by any
stretch of the imagination, nor could they ever be.  If space colonies
are ever established, it will be done by free men.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  4 Jul 87 23:49:16 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Old business  [flame warning]
To: ROPER%COLORADO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: <ROPER%COLORADO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>

> The capitalism versus socialism debate is now a century old

In a slightly different form, it goes back 23 centuries to Aristotle
versus Plato.  Are you suggesting that it is taking too long and the
forces of reason and progress should give up, leaving the future of
man to the mystics and the collectivists?

> and, given the resources devoted to weapons of destruction between
> the superpowers flying the two flags, it doesn't seem to have served
> us well.

I am willing to go on to other things as soon as they renounce coercion.
Don't hold your breath.  What would YOU suggest in lieu of this debate?

> An alternative and, I think, more interesting question, is what can the
> US do alone and in competition with the Soviet Union versus what could
> be done in a joint effort.  ...  What better place for that vision to
> evolve than on the Space digest.

Ho-hum.  We had Apollo-Soyuz at a cost of millions.  See what wonders
it got us.

If the Nazis were still around, would you advocate cooperation with
them?  Perhaps we could send a Jew into space, and they could send
a gas chamber.  A marriage made in heaven?

Happy Fourth of July, if it means anything to you.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 87 05:28:06 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Non-profit commie colonies?

In article <223536.870704.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>Their space program runs at an enormous loss.	It is conceivable that
>they might someday have a semi-permanent manned base on Mars - by some
>standards, they already have one in Earth orbit - but these exist only
>by being supplied from the ground at enormous expense.  They have
>propaganda value and military value, but they aren't colonies by any
>stretch of the imagination, nor could they ever be.  If space colonies
>are ever established, it will be done by free men.

    I don't buy this. The Soviet space program provides the same
services to their economy that ours does to the free world (albeit
they are doing a much better job of it right now). For example, there
is a Warsaw Pact comsat consortium analogous to the Western
equivalent.  They have been doing the groundwork in materials
processing, closed life support systems, and many other areas that
will enable a permanent manned presence, to engage in more activities
of direct benefit to their economy and military.  Where is the
``enormous loss''?  Further, the Soviet philosophy of space
utilization would appear to result in much lower launch and
operational costs than we have had, at least in the shuttle era.  It's
not as though they are firing Proton rockets full of rubles into the
heavens.

    As I read your articles, you appear to present two ideological
beliefs as fact:

    i) Soviet space activities are a dead end because they are
	not free-market driven.
    ii) Space colonies will be both profitable and independent
	of Earth (by definition).

These are at best questionable, and accepting either as gospel could
have disastrous effects on our future space activities, whether
government or ``free enterprise'' is responsible.

--
    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 87 05:18:16 GMT
From: jade!tart17.berkeley.edu!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Address of Space Studies Institute

Does anyone out there in net land have the address of the Space
Studies Institue.  I want to join a *real* space organization.
(As opposed to NASA's cheerleaders, L5.)


	Please POST IT TO THE NET so everyone can see it.

	--Adam J. Richter

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 87 00:42:01 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: private space companies

> Pacific American Launch Services
> 		based in Mountainview area
> 		CEO Gary Hudsen
> 		searching for major financing
> 		design of Percheron rocket that blew up on pad at
> 		Matagordo.
> 		design of Phoenix E concept pushed by Society
> 		Expeditions (Seattle)
> 		Also working on a Heavy Lift vehicle concept
> 		Hardworking, some backing but ???

Space Research Associates
	Seattle area
	CEO Paul DuBose
	Looking for venture financing
	Did 'Solar Power Satellite built of Lunar Materials; study
	     for Space Studies Institute
	Developing gas gun/rocket/tether launch system for
	cargo delivery to orbit.  Long range objective of
	building a tether 'spaceport' analogous to an airport,
	making it easier for all types of launchers to reach
	orbit.
	about 50% Boeing engineers, plus assorted other folk

Boeing Company
	Seattle, Wichita, Philadelphia, and Huntsville
	CEO Frank Shrontz
	Has 4.3 billion in cash and short term investments
	Builds Inertial Upper Stage, some spacecraft
	participating in NASP, Space Station, and Advanced
	Launch vehicle early development stages.  Hardware
	contracts subject to competitions now underway.
	Has stated goal of someday being in space what it is
	in commercial airplanes.
	Almost committed one billion dollars to develop Jarvis
	launch vehicle privately (failed through lack of customers,
	principally US Gov't.)
	Has 100,000 employees, is hiring

Rocket Research
	CEO ?
	Redmond, WA
	Builds small rocket engines, including for satellites
	Made the RCS and vernier thrusters for the Shuttle
	has high performance resistojet and arcjet engines
	under development 

Hughes Aircraft
	Now owned by General Motors
	Los Angeles
	Free world's largest builder of commercial satellites

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #275
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Jul 87 06:20:55 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05082; Tue, 7 Jul 87 03:17:52 PDT
	id AA05082; Tue, 7 Jul 87 03:17:52 PDT
Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 03:17:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707071017.AA05082@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #276

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 276

Today's Topics:
			    Free colonies
			 Profit vs. survival?
			    Last blackout
			FTL and egocentricity
		       FTL implies time travel
			 Interstellar Medium
		    SN1987A: Further Developments?
    Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle?
			No more space barfing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sun,  5 Jul 87 17:08:04 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Free colonies
To: hp-pcd!uoregon!omepd!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@hplabs.hp.com
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: hp-pcd!uoregon!omepd!mipos3!cpocd2!howard@hplabs.hp.com  (Howard A. Landman)

> Out of curiosity, Heather:  It sounds like you would support the right
> of any space civilization to be free from fealty to the earth societies
> that gave it birth, and favor even violent revolution to achieve that
> end.  If so, why do you think people on earth should be asked to pay for
> founding a nation of space-borne ingrates who won't give them anything
> in return?  (I have my own answer, but I'd like to hear yours.)

I can't speak for her, but I started this, so let me give my own answer.

For one thing, I do not think anyone on Earth should be asked to pay for
anything in space.  Anyone who wants to invest in space industries or to
found a space colony should be free to do so, unhampered by government
regulations.

Do not confuse a political change with an economic change.  The American
revolution did not repudiate any private debts individuals in the United
States had to anyone.  But most of the owners of the wealth in the US
were in the US.  Similarly, I expect that most of the owners of the
wealth in space will live in space.

So long as people in space (or on Earth) are free to run their own lives
as they see fit, it doesn't much matter what country they are officially
part of.  Unfortunately, the philsophical and political poisons of the
Old World have mostly overtaken the New, so a fresh start will probably
be necessary.  I hope to live to see a free nation established in the
asteroid belt, to which nearly any family on Earth can afford to escape.

Individuals and corporations on Earth would be free to invest in, and
freely trade with, the colony even though there is no political
connection.  As such, people who remain on the ground would reap
considerable benefit, just as Americans benefit from trade with people
in other countries and vice versa.

Perhaps people in the new country could pay the way of immigrants in
return for some period of service, as was once done in America.  If the
service is worth $30,000 a year, and the period of service is seven
years, and the average immigrant weighs 100 pounds (half would be women
and many would be children), then the cost of space transportation must
fall from the current $5000 per pound to about $2000 per pound for this
to be practical.  Perhaps I WILL live to see it.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  5 Jul 87 17:59:15 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Profit vs. survival?
To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

> I *must* rebut this!! Survival is more important than profit. In the
> long run, space colonization is primarily for survival, and must be
> done regardless of profit.

*SIGH* I thought we had already been through all this, to the tune of
several hundred kilobytes.

I don't think you understand what profit means.  An activity is
profitable if it is of net benefit, if it produces that which is
necessary for human life, or something which can be freely traded for
that which is necessasy for human life.  The very existance of mankind
is based on the fact that human labor on Earth is profitable.  If it was
not, we would all be dead.

Can human labor in space be profitable?  If not, then human life in
space is not possible except as brief excursions from Earth.

I believe that human labor in space CAN be profitable.  I don't believe
it is quite yet.

To say that un-profitable space colonization is necessary for survival
is a contradiction.  Any un-profitable space colony would DIE without
continuous expensive support from Earth, or from a profitable space
colony.

> Arms control is counter to profit,

This is true IF we cannot verify arms control treaties with the Soviets.
If we simply trust them to keep their word, and we disarm, that will
indeed be a net loss - a massive loss of life and liberty.

> yet we need arms control,

You contradict yourself.

> and must find a way to counter whose who just want to make a buck even
> if it dooms the human race in the end. In the long run, space
> colonization is in the same class, we must find a way to do it, profit
> or not.

I'm sorry, but I find this incoherent.  It doesn't seem to mean
anything.  Could you rephrase it?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 12:32:50 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Last blackout

At the risk of beating a dead horse on this blackout business, I only
note that:

(1) We have not specified exactly how the word is being used.  All
episodes of loss of consciousness are not created equal (eg, coma is
different from fainting is different from G-induced loss of
consciousness).

(2) Through 1977, the Air Force had granted hundreds of pilot waivers
for episodes of loss of consciousness.  In particular, 255 for fainting,
and 147 for head injury associated with loss of consciousness.

(3) Pilots are subjected to G-induced loss of consciousness in
centrifuges for the purposes of (a) teaching them to recognize early
signs of dimished cerebral perfusion, and (b) teaching them how to
shorten the period of functional incapacitation that follows the
recovery of consciousness.

Anyone interested in this topic will find several relevant articles in
the journal "Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine," which should
be in your local medical school's library.

	John Sotos

------------------------------

From: graham@drcvax.arpa
Date: 6 Jul 87 13:57:00 EDT
Subject: FTL and egocentricity
To: "space" <space@angband.s1.gov>
Reply-To: <graham@drcvax.arpa>

>  Unless you have some hitherto unrevealed basis for speaking with such
>  confidence, I suggest you consider rec.arts.sf-lovers as a more
>  appropriate forum for this kind of opinion.

Pray tell, how much confidence does it take to assure ourselves that we
DON'T have a handle on all physical law.  In the enormous length of time
we humans have been studying the physical sciences our galaxy has
rotated the wonderful distance of one second of arc!

It is true that we cannot operate on knowledge we don't have.  It is
equally true that we dare not assume that we have anywhere near all of
the knowledge on any subject.  Belief in the vastness of the universe
and it's laws is not fiction.  It is the motive force behind most
attempts at far-reaching discovery.

At the present, FTL is against the physical law we know.  If however, we
take the parochial attitude that it cannot exist at all, we might blind
ourselves to a quirk of physical law that allows it.

Let's not be so arrogant or terran-chauvinistic that we try to tell the
universe how to operate.  Instead, let's discovering how it operates.

Dan Graham

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 87 16:16:56 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: FTL implies time travel

>,>>>> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (John Unekis)
>> robert@uop.UUCP (Robert  McCaul)

>>>>   any curious forms of life posessing FTL drive ships....
>>.....who would arrive before the explosions, (!) :-)
> Wrong! - FTL means faster than light, not faster than TIME -

Indeed it does.  But if special relativity is correct, then any object
moving FTL will appear to some possible observer to be traveling
pastward.  That is, this observer will observe the FTL traveler's
departure to be after the traveler's arrival.  And this does *not* have
to do with when any lightspeed notification of the events reaches the
observer; I mean that the observer *after* *correcting* for any
lightspeed delays will place the arrival prior to the departure.

>    Assume that the alien planet is 4 light years away, and that the
>    alien FTL drive achieves 48 times the speed of light. The time of
>    arrival of aliens would be =
> 	Time for flash from explosion to reach alien planet (4 years)
>       + Time for aliens to travel to earth ( 1 month)
>       = 4 years and 1 month
>    This would be long after the explosions had occured.

True, true.  Although if the alien planet is moving away from the earth
at some large STL speed, the time would be ((4yr+1mo)*sqrt(1-v^2)), that
is, arbitrarily soon after the explosion.  (From our point of view, they
traveled pastward to get here that soon.  From their point of view, time
on earth was simply Lorentz-contracted so that the time it took them to
respond were an instant in the passage of time on earth.  (Actually a
little more complicated than that, but that gives the flavor of the
thing.))

Further, if there were an ansible relay station with an appropriate
velocity, or a stopover and a large delta-v on the trip, the aliens
*could* easily arrange to arrive before the explosion.  Trust me.  Under
the assumption that special relativity is correct, FTL implies time
travel.

Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 6 Jul 87 09:29 EDT
From: <POUND%BUASTA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> (Marc W. Pound)
Subject:  Interstellar Medium


I tried sending this directly to Mr. Stolfi for use in his calculations,
but it bounced back. Thus, I am posting it here.............

The average density of the ISM is about 2x10^-24 gm/cc (H,He,dust).
Dust grains represent about .002 solar masses/cubic parsec. Since they
are rather effective absorbers of visible light, typical sizes are on
the order of said wavelengths---about 10^-5 cm.

                                       Marc Pound
                                       Boston U. Astr. Dept.
                                       (pound@buasta.bitnet)

------------------------------

Date:     Sun,  5 Jul 87  17:56:20 EDT
From: nutto%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Andy Steinberg)
Subject:  SN1987A: Further Developments?

I found this in PHYSICS@SRI-UNIX.ARPA and thought I'd pass it along

Date: 21 Jun 87 06:14:42 GMT
From: grandi@noao.arpa (Steve Grandi)
Article-I.D.: <627@noao.UUCP>
In-Reply-To: Article(s) <4314@ihlpa.ATT.COM>

In article <4314@ihlpa.ATT.COM> amra@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Aldrich) writes:

>17 87Jun18 11:40 From zepp
>Steve, this will cause you to lean forward towards your monitor: There
>is a large brilliant object that is on a collision course with the
>SuperNova.  Impact between it and the SN1987 is expected to occur
>between 6 and 22 months from now.  While nobody has any idea what it
>is, the current guess is that it is a large, abnormally dense hydrogen
>cloud--perhaps a proto-star.  It is currently a full 10% brilliant of
>the nova itself, which makes it the second brightest object in that
>area.  The pending collision between it and the wave front is expected
>to tell us a lot about it's composition, from the subsequent radiation
>release...


A group at CFA (Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics) has been
observing the SN with speckle interferometric techniques and has
reported the discovery of a "companion" close to the position of the SN.

Relevant quotes from IAU circulars 4382 and 4391:
-----------
     M. Karovska, P. Nisenson, R. Noyes, and C. Papaliolios, Center for
Astrophysics, write: "High-angular-resolution speckle observa- tions of
SN 1987A on Mar. 25 and Apr. 2 using the Cerro Tololo In- teramerican
Observatory 4-m telescope (with the CfA PAPA photon- counting detector)
show a bright feature with a separation of 0".057 +/- 0".014 at p.a. 194
deg +/- 5 deg relative to the SN.  This feature appears to be 2.7 +/-
0.2 mag fainter than the SN in a 10-nm bandpass cen- tered on 656.3 nm
(H-alpha).  A corresponding feature was detected in a 10-nm bandpass
centered at 533 nm, though it appears to be somewhat fainter than in
H-alpha.  Preliminary analysis of data recorded in a 10- nm bandpass
centered at 450 nm shows no evidence of an object with- in a 4-mag
difference from the SN.  Data from nearby comparison stars, recorded
close in time using the same filters, produced clean, point-like images
with no structure above the noise at the separation and position angle
of the observed feature."

     S. J. Marcher, W. P. S. Meikle, and B. L. Morgan, Imperial College,
London, telex: "We report further observations (cf. IAUC 4369) of SN
1987A at the Anglo-Australian Telescope on Apr. 14.42- 14.45 UT using
the Imperial College speckle interferometer.  Filter passbands were 1.0
nm, centered on 587.6 nm and 658 nm.  At 658.5 nm, a source was detected
at p.a. 196 deg +/- 2 deg.  Preliminary examina- tion of the data
suggests that the source is about 3 mag fainter than the SN at this
wavelength.  At 587.6 nm, there is marginal evidence for the presence of
a source at the same position but of fainter magnitude.  To within the
quoted errors, the position of the source is the same as that reported
on IAUC 4382.  Observations of a near- by reference star (BS 2015), made
immediately before and after the SN observations, yielded
autocorrelation functions corresponding to an unresolved source."

There was much speculation concerning this "object" at the recent
meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Vancouver.  The CFA
group has a good set of unreduced data (the data is recorded on video
tape for further processing; and their tape drive was broken...) so
further details (such as the object's color) should be forthcoming.
Whatever the companion is, it is much brighter now than before the SN
went off (we would have noticed a 6th magnitude object!). Every one
wonders what will happen when the blast wave of the SN hits it.

Steve Grandi, National Optical Astronomy Observatories, Tucson, AZ, 602-325-9228
UUCP: {arizona,decvax,hao,ihnp4,seismo}!noao!grandi   Internet: grandi@noao.arpa
SPAN/HEPNET: 5356::GRANDI or DRACO::GRANDI

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 06 Jul 87 08:22:26 MEZ
From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle?

I have read in a german newspaper ('Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung')
that an escape capsule will be installed in the 'second' generation
space shuttle.  In the article it was written that it will be based on
rockets which will be externally attached to the pressure vessel.
                Can anyone confirm or deny this story?
Jens-Thomas Meyer

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 13:12:36 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: No more space barfing?

The July 1 issue of the Stanford Campus Report contains an article
entitled "Better medication may be found for motion sickness."  This
would, of course, be of extreme interest to certain people in Houston.

Excerpts:

	"Scopolamine, the current treatment of choice, reduces space
sickness by interfering with the brain's processing of sensory
information.  But the drug also produces disturbances in memory, sleep,
and vision....
	"Scopolamine acts in the brain by binding to a chemical called
the 'muscarinic receptor,' found on the surface of many brain cells.
Scopolamine binds equally well to muscarinic receptors in the brainstem,
where gravity and acceleration are perceived, and to muscarinic
receptors in the [cerebral] cortex, where higher mental functions like
memory and vision are controlled.
	"What [Steve Peroutka & Bruce McCarthy] found is that the
muscarinic receptors in the brainstem are unique, and that a more
specific experimental drug could selectively block them.
	"'Drugs targeted to this subpopulation of muscarinic receptors
may prove to be effective anti-motion sickness agents with fewer side
effects than scopolamine,' Peroutka said."

The article goes on to say that an experimental drug, not suitable for
human use, has been tested in brain tissue obtained at autopsy, and that
the methods used in the study of this drug provide a rapid and sensitive
technique to screen for selective agents.

Needless to say, a "magic bullet" against motion sickness would be a
boon to the shuttle program, given the short duration of shuttle flights
and the propensity for the symptoms to occur during the first couple
days of flight.

In a way, it is too bad that the space sickness problem didn't arise in
the Mercury program, because then we would have been privileged to have
Tom Wolfe's decription of microgravity barfing.  The whole theme of the
book could have been different: "Ours always *throw* up."

	John Sotos

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #276
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Jul 87 06:19:43 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07634; Wed, 8 Jul 87 03:16:40 PDT
	id AA07634; Wed, 8 Jul 87 03:16:40 PDT
Date: Wed, 8 Jul 87 03:16:40 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707081016.AA07634@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #277

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 277

Today's Topics:
		Grumman wins a space station contract
		     space news from May 25 AW&ST
			 RE: free enterprise
			You Were Born Too Soon
	 Really, what should summary of our space-goals say?
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 87 13:21:59 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: Grumman wins a space station contract

GRUMMAN WINS NASA CONTRACT TO DESIGN, CONSTRUCT SPACE STATION

	Bethpage, NY (Reuters) - Grumman Corp. has won a key contract to
help put together a manned space station for the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, which could grow into the defence company's
largest contract.
	NASA said Grumman's contract to support the design and
development of the space station could be worth up to $1.2 billion.
	NASA said the support contract awarded to Grumman Thursday has
an estimated value of $840 million and an option for more work worth
$406 million.  It said the final terms were still being negotiated.
	Grumman's stock jumped $1.62 to $27.50 at Thursday's close on
the news.

(copied from The Chicago Tribune, 7/6/87)

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 87 23:25:25 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from May 25 AW&ST

Lead editorial on the Soviet space program, notably the Energia launch.
"The Soviet space program has proceeded at a deliberate, some would say
plodding, pace while the US program has progressed in leaps and bounds.
But in the process, the US has thrown away valuable hardware and
capabilities it could be putting to good use today.  Soviet space
designers have shown no hesitancy in exploiting proven systems even if
they happen to be based on technology that is more than 20 years old."

CNES (French space agency) sends qualification model of Sigma gamma-ray
telescope to the Soviet Union for tests; flight model to fly next year.

Aerospatiale completing Hermes cockpit simulator.

Pictures [poor ones, this week] of the Soviet Energia heavylift booster
before launch.  Looks much like the earlier artists' conceptions: large
core, looking a bit like a stretched shuttle tank, flanked by four big
boosters.  The core burns LH/LOX, the boosters LOX/kerosene [Flight
International says the booster exhaust plume suggests LOX/UDMH instead].
The test payload malfunctioned and went into the Pacific, but the
booster seems to have functioned fine.  Energia maximum payload is 220
klbs, over three times the shuttle's, a bit heavier than that of the
partial Saturn V that launched Skylab.  The May 15 launch was televised.

Pictures of the Proton, being transported and on the pad.  Proton
marketing team visiting the US finds mild commercial interest and rabid
government opposition.  Soviet rep says US government position lacks
solid reasons; some potential customers agree.  Hughes, in particular,
is concerned that European satellite builders might offer package deals
including Proton launches at cut-rate prices.  Current US position is
that all satellites, regardless of type, are on the "not to be exported
to USSR" list.

The Soviets have refused to disclose where Proton is made or agree to
permit inspection of the plant, although they will make documentation
available to customers.  They are not familiar with the US custom of
doing X-ray inspections of solid-rocket upper stages at the launch site,
but will let customers provide equipment for such tests.  Visits to the
launch site will be allowed "as soon as we see the client has serious
intentions".  Some potential customers observe that the Chinese are
doing better on such things: they are setting up an X-ray inspection
facility at the Xichang launch site, and have opened that site to all
visitors wishing to inspect.

Top Soviet scientists present tentative Mars-exploration plans.  In 1992
or 1994, an orbiter with either two balloons or a balloon and a small
rover would be launched.  At the next opportunity, a large rover would
go up.  After that, a sample-return mission would go as two separate
launches: lander/ascent vehicle plus minirover, and rendezvous/return
vehicle.  The large rover would be aimed at delivering samples to the
sample-return mission, with the mission's own minirover as a backup.
Each of these launches would be on a Proton -- actually two Protons,
because *all* of these missions would fly in pairs for redundancy.  [Are
you listening, NASA?]  The sample-return mission pair, requiring four
separate launches, might be spread over two successive launch windows.
Sample-return missions would terminate at the Soviet space station, for
preliminary tests prior to landing on Earth.  A model of the [small?]
rover is being tested now on the Kamchatka peninsula.

[Micro-editorial: Why should the Soviets bother with an international
partnership on these missions, especially with an unreliable partner
like the US?  They are perfectly capable of going it alone, and appear
to be ready to do so sooner than the US could possibly be ready for a
joint mission.  Oh, undoubtedly they will be interested in US
participation in things like data analysis, but they would be fools to
rely on the US for critical elements of the mission hardware
itself.		-- HS]

Last Atlas H launches unspecified military payload from Vandenberg.

Arianespace sets August as target for next Ariane launch, with two more
launches to follow this year.

Second Hughes comsat for Japan Com. Sat. Co. to fly mid-89 on Titan 3.

NASA formally moves STS-26 launch date to no earlier than June 1988.

NASA finally announces plan for using expendables for its own
operations.  NASA will buy launch services commercially except for a
"transition phase" running through 1991.  Requirements foreseen for 3-5
Delta class, 1-2 Atlas-Centaur/Titan-3 class, and maybe 1-2 Titan 4.
First launches are probable in 1990, probably CRRES and Rosat.

[Wanna bet that the "transition phase" stretches out a few more years?
Especially if a less pro-private-enterprise administration is in power
by then?  NASA doesn't want to give up control.			-- HS]

NASA DepAdmin Dale Myers suggests that if the USAF is so hot on space
station operations, it should build its own in polar orbit.

The Canadian Mobile Servicing Center will be the primary system used to
dock the shuttle to the space station, meaning it will fly early.  The
shuttle's Canadarm would do for the first couple of missions, but then
its load limit will be reached.  Canada is not entirely happy yet about
station-management and military-use issues, but agreement is closer than
with Europe and Japan.  The MSC arm will be essentially the Canadarm
with one more joint and more strength and power.  Canada is concerned
about meeting the weight limits while still being able to handle a
200-klb shuttle.  Canada hopes to get one 90-day duty tour per year for
Canadian astronauts.

Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 87 14:13:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: RE: free enterprise


 {  I received the following from Email.  Since I can't seem to
    replay via Email to return addresses of the form token!token!token...,
    (as opposed to token!token@token.UUCP) I must post the reply
    to the newsgroup.  However, since I have no way of asking the sender's
    permission, I will keep him/her anonymous. }


> I don't understand how the computer workstation market is government 
>regulated ? Maybe you could explain. Safety standards and such like 
>are questionable as 'regulation' I think, since regulation implies
>limiting the actions of the firm or inductry, rather than setting 
>performance or safety standards for products.

  Look it up in the dictionary.  See Webster's Third New International
  Dictionary.  Note, '...safety and efficiency', though most of the rest
  of of the 39 line definition applies as well.  What's the basis of
  YOUR definition?  Anyway, regulations may or may not be statutory
  regulations, i.e., laws passed by Congress.  Most federal agencies
  (e.g., FCC, SEC, etc., have some broad leeway to make up their own
  rules.
 
  There are no government regulations that specify 'performance'
  standards for our workstations but there are, of course, safety
  regulations (there's that word again).  And they ARE limitations on
  our 'actions' as are FCC rules about RF emissions, IRS rules on 401K
  plans, profit reporting, income reporting and sale and disposition of
  assets.  So are SEC regulations on anything affecting sale of our
  stock and obligations to stockholders.  And both agencies plus state
  agencies regulate our accounting practices.  There are also
  regulations concerning fair and unfair business practices, anti- trust
  regulations and so forth.  Our hiring practices are regulated by state
  and federal anti-discrimination agencies. There are also labor laws
  that we have to abide by which specify hours, working conditions,
  workman's comp., maternity leave, etc.  There are plenty of
  regulations concerning product liability, false advertising, and
  implied warranties that we have to be concerned with.  There are
  local, state, and federal agencies that specify our handling and
  disposal of toxic materials that we use in manufacturing....  One
  could go on and on but the important point is that government
  regulations are a factor in all industries.  Executives always have to
  keep government rules in mind in the daily conduct of their business.

>Your understanding of the airline industry seems a bit off, since you
>claim that it is an example of a regulated industry that is doing
>well just because one man (Lorenzo) and one firm (Texas Air Corp)
>are doing well. The industry is in the middle of DE-regulation, 
>and Texas Air is one of the few that is doing relativly well at 
>the moment. The rest of the industry is having massive problems due 
>to the decline in prices, and thus the decline in service quality.
>
>I would suggest that you research it before you use it as an example.

  The main thing that was 'de-regulated' about the airline industry was
  domestic fares.  International fares are still set by (usually the
  foreign) government.  All other reporting, accounting, labor,
  advertising, tax, employee training and certification, and safety
  regulations are still in effect (as they should be).  Actually, there
  are several airlines that are doing well.  No doubt, once the shakeout
  is finished and the survivors get used to a more competitive
  environment, the industry will be stronger.
 
  What does all this have to do with free-enterprise space efforts?
                                                     
                                                      --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 10:29 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: You Were Born Too Soon

Dale Amon said:

> In 1995 the space station will have the best tested people that can be
> found. This is proper.
>
> In 2005 it had damn well better have anyone who wants to go. This too
> is proper.

Proper, perhaps, but very unrealistic. Ask yourself: how much will it cost
to put a person in orbit in 2005?  Add in the cost of lifting food, air and
water, plus amortization of on-orbit infrastructure.  Are *you* willing
to spend several hundred thousand dollars (an overly optimistic estimate)
to spend several weeks in a space station?

I don't want to flame, but I get very exasperated reading about people who
want to personally move out into space. You're living in fantasyland! The
cost is going to be outrageous until well into the next century, by which
time you'll be too old, or dead.

I also am exasperated by people who sneer at the annual US pizza (or beer,
or bubble gum, or whatever) consumption, then blithely propose to blow
several years or decades of income on frivolous orbital sightseeing. A bit
of a double standard, no?

Paul Dietz
dietz@slb-doll.csnet

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 19:28:39
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 July 05 19:28:39 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 July 05 20:13:31 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Really, what should summary of our space-goals say?

<SW> Date: 29 Jun 87 18:29:14 GMT
<SW> From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
<SW> Subject: Re: Space and the Democratic Future

<SW> jim@pnet01.UUCP (Jim Bowery) writes:
> We need a prioritized set of goals in space. These goals are: 
> we must acquire low cost access to earth orbit; build a properly
> conceived space station (instead of NASA's current amazing shrinking
> space station) with which we can learn to live and work in space;
> return to the moon to stay;  and explore and ultimately inhabit Mars;
> in that order.  This must be directed towards our ultimate goal -
> establishing a spacefaring civilization with settlements beyond Earth. 
> We should use the resources available in space to make this easier,
> cheaper,  and to provide economic benefit to Earth as soon as this is
> feasible.  

<SW> Before picking a few nits in the rest of the posting, let me say that
<SW> the paragraph above is the best capsule statement I've seen of what
<SW> our goals in space should be.  I trust I have permission to send it
<SW> to my Congressman.

I see problems with sending that to our congresscritters. It seems to
say we must get low-cost access, *then* do the other things. It will
take ten years before the next generation of spacecraft is operational,
and it may cost five times as much as estimated just like STS did, so at
that time taking the above paragraph literally may cause us to wait
another ten years for yet another generation of spacecraft. This
develop&wait cycle can last indefinitely if we are unlucky. I think we
need to "bite the bullet", to realize access to space is going to be
medium expensive for longer than we can wait, so we just have to pay up
now whatever it costs until and unless low-cost access becomes
available.

Also, the phrase "properly conceived space station (instead of NASA's
current amazing shrinking ..." may be mis-interpreted to mean we want a
yet bigger one that will take longer to get up there and we are willing
to wait ten or twenty years for that really big one we really want. I
would rather see us get something that is just right for some purposes
*now* and which is expandable for other purposes. (At the present, Mir
and Kvant would be nice if we could contract to get copies of them.)

I hope you reword that summary somewhat before sending it!

<SW> The Uhuru, Einstein, and IRAS satellites have all been
<SW> extremely successful.  Yet the followup missions, AXAF and SIRTF,
<SW> won't fly until the mid to late 90's at best.  For SIRTF, ...
<SW> The FY'92 start means a launch in 1996, or almost 20 years after the
<SW> initial studies.

<SW> ... The last I heard, NASA was considering returning all proposals
<SW> without evaluation on the grounds that there is no money for any of them,
<SW> regardless of merit.  (This information is a few months old and may be
<SW> out of date.)

This is sad. Somehow we must find the money for continuing these
worthwhile (and in my opinion, wonderful, based on many many scattered
results published in Sky&Telescope) programs. (P.s. what is happening
with successors to the wonderful IRAS?)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #277
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Jul 87 09:36:34 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12019; Thu, 9 Jul 87 03:18:36 PDT
	id AA12019; Thu, 9 Jul 87 03:18:36 PDT
Date: Thu, 9 Jul 87 03:18:36 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707091018.AA12019@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #278

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 278

Today's Topics:
   Newspaper report: State Department to block lauch of satellites
	       Re: Government vs. private space funding
		Re: Address of Space Studies Institute
		re: Address of Space Studies Institute
		       Re: Launch Vehicle Size
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 87 23:40:00 GMT
From: spdcc!m2c!frog!john@harvard.harvard.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Newspaper report: State Department to block lauch of satellites

>From July 7 Boston Globe:

State Department to block lauch of satellites
(United Press International)

WASHINGTON--The State Department said yesterday that it would block any
attempt by a US company to have its communications satellites put into
orbit by a Soviet launcher.
   The Soviets offered to use their Proton rocket to put commericial US
satellites into orbit on a contract basis after the Challenger disaster
and the suspension of the space shuttle missions.
   The Soviets were reported to be in a contact with Ford Aerospace and
Hughes Aircraft to launch their communications satellites, which have
been grounded due to lack of a suitable launch vehicle.
   The State Department issued a statement saying, "US arms control
laws, and specifically the International Traffic in Arms Regulations,
prohibit the transfer to the Soviet Union of US-origin technology which
is used in US and other western nations' communications satellites."

John Woods
jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 6 Jul 87 07:02 EST
From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Re: Government vs. private space funding

Robert Maas writes:
 
<KFL> Space colonization may be decades away, or even centuries (I hope not)
<KFL> but when it is done, it will be done at a profit.
 
> I *must* rebut this!! Survival is more important than profit. In the long
> run, space colonization is primarily for survival, and must be done
> regardless of profit.
 
Why do you assume one excludes the other?  It was said that colonization
would be done at a profit, not only for profit.  Look at socialized
medicine.  Survival is its only goal and they are far behind our system
which also makes a profit.
 
<KFL> Nothing but short-lived small scale projects such as Apollo and
<KFL> Skylab can be done at a financial loss.
 
> If that is true, it is sad, and *must* be changed. Arms control is
> counter to profit, yet we need arms control, and must find a way to
> counter whose who just want to make a buck even if it dooms the human
> race in the end. In the long run, space colonization is in the same
> class, we must find a way to do it, profit or not.
 
Space colonization is NOT in this class.  Arms control serves one of the
legitimate purposes of government i.e. protection of its citizens.  For
the government to say they are going to assure survival of a few at the
expense of many would drive one more nail in capitalism's coffin.
 
In a separate artical Heather Mackinnon writes:
 
> I'm going to catch flames for this, but I'll go ahead anyway.
 
Not from me...just a chear!
 
> America is no longer a free market capitalist society.  The US has
> adopted all the planks of Marx's communist manifesto (public
> schooling, progressive income taxes, regulated enterprise, etc).  Our
> government has appropriated a monopoly on space just as it has
> appropriated and granted monopolies on public utilities and banking.
> The Constitution is being eroded; the government is increasingly
> seizing powers that were not granted to it in the Constitution.
 
Not quite.  We have never been a completely free market capitalist
society.  However, we were MUCH closer 150 years ago.
 
> Private space firms could not now survive because the government would
> regulate and tax them out of existence.  With space becoming
> increasingly militarized, the government will need tight control of
> spacefaring civilians.  You can't develop a frontier unless there is a
> high return on investment and a lot of freedom in the development of
> the frontier.
 
I agree.  This is one reason I believe space colonization can and should
be done by private enterprise.  However, some major restructuring will
be needed before our government will give up the power it has seized.
 
> Time to get off my soap-box,
 
> Heather Mackinnon
> Status:  free and natural person
 
Our government has taken far too much of our freedom already.  I don't
want them deciding who and by what means our civilization will survive.
Sorry Heather, if you think you are free then next time the IRS calls,
tell your auditor you are innocent and it is up to him to prove
otherwise.
 
 
Lastly, Peter Nelson writes:
 
>  Heather Mackinnon says:
>>  Private space firms could not now survive because the government would
>>  regulate and tax them out of existence.  With space becoming increasingly
>>  militarized, the government will need tight control of spacefaring
>>  civilians.  You can't develop a frontier unless there is a high return
>>  on investment and a lot of freedom in the development of the frontier.
 
>  1.  We may not be a perfect model of a free-enterprise system but we are
>      a hell of a lot closer to that then the Soviets.  Despite that, they
>      are doing a lot more in space than we are.
 
The reason the Soviets are doing more is *because* we are not a perfect
free-enterprose system.
 
>  2.  There are plenty of industries which are doing very well despite
>      government taxation and regulation.  I work in one of them (the
>      computer workstation industry).  Entrepeneurs are starting new
>      businesses in almost every industry all the time and making good
>      money at it.  I just read that Microsoft's founder just became
>      the country's youngest billionaire.   The automobile industry
>      is one of the most regulated industries in history and yet Ford
>      recently announced record earnings.  The airline industry is also
>      heavily taxed and regulated but Frank Lorenzo seems to be doing OK.
 
The arguement that since some people are prospering under the current
system proves the system is good just doesn't hold water.  There are
people in communist countries that prosper, the question you have to ask
is at whose expense are they prospering.  The automobile industry may be
doing well (a statement I disagree with), but how would it be doing if
they didn't get the tax abatements and other government favors?  Where
does the money come from to support these abatements?  Why am I required
to subsidize these companies?  Why are entrepeneurs?
 
>    I think this is all a smokescreen.  I don't see private industry
>    clamoring to get into space.  Free enterprise entails a willingness
>    to take risks.  I don't see such a willingness out there.  The
>    bottom line is that private enterprise has not shown any interest.
>    Oh sure, certain individuals have, but their proposals were never
>    good enough to attract the sort of investment and backing it would
>    take to pull it off.  This isn't the government's fault; it's the
>    fault of the private sector itself.
 
>                                              --Peter Nelson
 
The government has made its dominance known.  I would not want to spend
the money necessary to establish a space company knowing the government
can pull the plug at any time for any reason.  The private sector cannot
take the blame when the government restricts its potential payoffs.
 
Ron Picard

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 87 10:18:17 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Address of Space Studies Institute

In article <4260@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> adamj@lime.berkeley.edu (Adam J. Richter) writes:
>Does anyone out there in net land have the address of the Space
>Studies Institue.  I want to join a *real* space organization.
>(As opposed to NASA's cheerleaders, L5.)
>
>	Please POST IT TO THE NET so everyone can see it.

    Space Studies Institute
    PO Box 82
    Princeton, NJ 08540

    Membership $25/year (to receive the bimonthly SSI Update).
    Senior Associates $100/year or more (see below)

    A brief description of the Space Studies Institute: SSI is not a
mass-membership organization such as the National Space Society or
the Planetary Society. It does not have chapters or try to influence
government space policy.  Excerpt from an SSI publication:

  ``Financial support for Dr. O'Neill's research by NASA was
    maintained [by NASA], however, until 1979. In 1977 it seemed wise
    to build an entity, alternative to the Federal government, which
    could maintain support for the essential research no matter what
    political winds might blow through Washington. Dr. O'Neill
    therefore sought private support for a new non-profit
    corporation... devoted to research and education with the goal of
    realizing the benefits of the High Frontier.''

    SSI is conducting basic research in mass drivers, chemical
processing of lunar materials, lunar composite building materials,
external tank use, lunar polar orbiters, and many other areas which
are important to establishing industry off the Earth.

    SSI is a place where a little money can make a BIG difference.
Funding is largely through the Senior Associate Program - people who
pledge reasonably large amounts ($100-$500/year) for 5 years.  This
provides a fairly stable source of income without having to worry
about on again/off again gov't funds. IF YOU CAN POSSIBLY AFFORD IT,
become a Senior Associate of SSI. It is one of the highest potential
payoffs you can buy - not in direct financial return to you, but in
conducting the R&D required for the human Breakout into space.

    SSI owns substantial stock in Geostar corporation, which provides
space-based location services, and it is expected that the SSI program
will be funded more through this channel when Geostar begins making
money.	But right now, the Senior Associate program is the lifeblood
of SSI.

    I will be delighted to provide more information to anyone who
inquires via email.

--
    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna

------------------------------

Reply-To: pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov
Date: Mon, 6 Jul 87 13:46:55 PDT
From: scubed!pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: re: Address of Space Studies Institute

Adam J. Richter asks for the address of Space Studies Institute to be
posted on the network -- here it is:

Space Studies Institute
P.O. Box 82
Princeton, New Jersey 08540


Mr. Richter makes a side comment that L5 is cheerleading for NASA.
First, L5 is no longer in existence -- it has merged with National
Space Institute to form the National Space Society.

Second, the first formal award of the National Space Society was given
to the four Morton Thiokol engineers who bucked NASA and their own
management to try and stop the Challenger launch.  This special
Presidential Award for ethics was presented on March 22 by Ben Bova,
President of the National Space Society to Allan McDonald, Roger
Boisjoly, Robert Ebeling and Arnie Thompson -- individuals who laid
their careers on the line to do the right thing despite the directions
chosen by the NASA bureaucracy.

Currently, there is an open debate within the Society on whether NASA
should be disbanded or not.

Being a long time member of both SSI and L5/NSS, I can recommend both of
these organizations to any individuals who want to influence our future
in space.

The address of the National Space Society is:

National Space Society
West Wing Suite 203
600 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20024

Phone: 202/484-1111

------------------------------

Date: 5 Jul 87 00:07:09 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Launch Vehicle Size

In article <452@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
> > A typical value today is 2500 lbs total for this set of hardware.
> 
> Typical?  I'll take your word for it.  But hardly representative of 
> what ought to be feasible.  Otherwise, your own plans for a small 
> demonstration model catapult fired launch system are infeasible.

That is correct.  Perhaps I should restate that more clearly:
A typical value for a rocket that flies today, with 1 year
old electrical systems, is 2500 lb.  For example, the computer
on the IUS built by Boeing is smart enough to control a Titan
launch vehicle.  The computer is an 8-bit processor with 48k of
ram (= about an Apple II).  It weighs 40 lb, not counting
batteries.  There are two of them on the IUS.  Of course, the IUS
was designed in 1973.  For a new rocket, we can do much better
with today's electrical equipment.  But, at any given time, there
will still be a constant weight component to a rocket design.


> excludes fiber based composites.  There is no optimal shape for a 
> tank made from a fiber based composite, so long as the fibers are 
> laid up in a manner that places them all under equal stress in the 
> loaded, pressurized tank.  

But there is a minimum gage.  Let us take the case of very good carbon
fiber/epoxy with a tensile stength of 400 ksi.  We design to 300 ksi to
allow some factor of safety.  Available materials are 7/1000 inch thick
per ply of fibers.  Assume the internal tank pressure is 10 psi.  Since
stress=pD/2t for a cylindrical thin shell, we can calculate the D that
corresponds to 1 ply of composite.  It is
(stress/p)*2t=d=(300,000/10)*2*0.007=420 inches.  Thus, any tank smaller
than this would waste some of the strength inherent in 1 ply of
composite.  In a realisitic design there would be at least 2 plies
oriented,say at +-20 degrees from horizontal, to give longitudinal
strength, so this is even worse.

In response to the engine inlet pressure issue, the trade is usually
tank weight vs engine pump weight, the lower the inlet pressure, the
bigger the low pressure pump inlet has to be to avoid sucking vacuum
(cavitation).  Cavitation is death to rocket engines, because they are
not normally designed for (1) the vibrations on the pump blades (2) the
vibrations caused inside the combustion chamber when you burp gas rather
than fluid and (3) the loss in wall cooling of bubbles in the coolant
lin.  All of these have caused engines to fail in the past.  Solving
these types of problems keeps propulsion engineers employed.  Of course,
you could design your engine to survive these problems, but then it
weighs twice as much.

> For a given chamber pressure, the nozzle 
> area required is directly proportional to the mass being lifted.  A 
> certain nozzle area can only supply lift for a certain mass, which 
> translates to a certain height of rocket.  You can't make a rocket 
> arbitrarily tall; to make it bigger, you have to make it wider. 

This is incorrect.  The nozzle area = throat area x expansion ratio of
the nozzle.  Most of the thrust in a rocket arises from the thrust
imbalance between the throat and a corresponding area on the top of the
engine.  In a converging-diverging nozzle, the flow becomes supersonic,
and thus is effectively zero pressure as seen from inside the combustion
chamber.  For example, in the SSME, the chamber pressure is 3000 psi.
The liftoff mass is 4,500,000 lb.  Hence, only 1500 square inches, or
10.42 square feet of throat area is required for liftoff.  The actual
SSME nozzles have an expansion ratio of 77:1.  This expansion against
the nozzle walls has an upward component, which provides thrust in
addition to the throat component.  I belive in this case it adds 40%
more thrust.  The solid rocket boosters, on the other hand, have an
expansion ratio of only 10-15:1 (I'm at home and don't have my refernce
books handy).  This is because they work at 700 psi pressure.  In both
cases the expansion is limited by when the gas reaches 15 psi in the
nozzle (= sea level pressure).  The sea-level back pressure in the SSME
nozzle causes it to lose 23% of vacuum thrust.

> But there is one area that you didn't mention where skinny tanks 
> (and small vehicles) eat it: tank insulation efficiency.  I don't 
> know how much of a problem that really turns out to be.

It is non-trivial.  A typical value is 0.2 inches of cork insulation
required on the forward part of a rocket to protect it from aerodynamic
heating.  Propellant boiloff is generally not a problem, since you are
using it very quickly.  The main reason to insulate a cryogenic tank is
to prevent ice (water, CO2, even air) buildup on the ground.

> For the sake of argument, let's accept your implication that a system
> sized for 10,000 lb. of payload would be only 55% as efficient, in 
> terms of fuel consumed per pound of payload, as one sized for 100,000
> pounds.  That represents a cost penalty of something like $2.00 to
> $3.00 per pound.  If the high launch rate, the steady production of
> vehicles, and the confidence attained from an extensive track record
> enabled the small system to achieve operational costs as low as 10
> times its fuel costs, then it would be more than twice as economical 
> as a larger system whose operational costs were 50 times its fuel 
> costs.  (For comparison, I think that operation costs for airlines run 
> about 3 times their fuel costs, while for the Shuttle, they're on the 
> order of 500 times, or more, depending on how one does the accounting).

In the aerospace industry, we experience a production 'learning curve'
as the quantity of production goes up.  Typically the reduction is
15% in unit cost per doubling of cumulative production.  So if we have
10 times as many units made, we would expect the unit cost to be
58.3% as much.  Since 1.82 times as much vehicle dry weight would
be required, the total cost would be 1.06 higher for the small
rocket IF costs were proportional to dry weight.  In practice, much
of the cost of a rocket is in the fixed weight items, rather than in
the tanks and other structure, so the cost/lb of dry weight goes up
for small rockets.

Another way of looking at this, is that, roughly, we use up the same
number of pounds of engines and tanks in 10 10,000 lb launches as we do
in 1 100,000 lb launch, but in the former case we use up 10 times as
many sets of electrical equipment.

The key measure in determining space launch cost is the number of pounds
of hardware thrown away per pound of payload delivered to orbit.  In an
expendable rocket it is about 2 lb hardware/lb payload.  In the shuttle,
it was not much lower.  We threw away 1 lb of external tank per pound of
payload.  Allowing for reuseable element comsumption at weight/life, we
use up 15,000 lb of SRBs and 3000 lb of orbiter per flight, giving a
total of 84,000 lb/50,000 lb payload= 1.68 lb/lb.  For the advanced
launch system we are about to start work on, the figure will be 0.56 lb
hardware/lb payload.  I agree that propellant is cheap.  My dream is a
launch system where I have to worry about propellant cost.  Even on the
ALS, it only is 1% of the total costs.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #278
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Jul 87 06:19:21 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14563; Fri, 10 Jul 87 03:15:19 PDT
	id AA14563; Fri, 10 Jul 87 03:15:19 PDT
Date: Fri, 10 Jul 87 03:15:19 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707101015.AA14563@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #279

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 279

Today's Topics:
		       Cosmos 1507 coming down
		     space news from June 1 AW&ST
		     space news from June 8 AW&ST
		 Light pressure for attitude control
	       Re: Light pressure for attitude control
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 87 21:40:17 GMT
From: nbires!ico!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Cosmos 1507 coming down

I have been receiving orbital elements for Cosmos 1507 norad number
14455.  The revolution rate has been making big jumps for some time.  I
don't have a good satellite lifetime routine to calculate when this
object will enter the atmnsphere.  If anyone does here are my latest
elements:

ep= 87 173.17156130
dr=0.00105267
in=65.0442
raan=22.8368
ec=.0020365
ap=264.1234
p0=95.7736
mm=15.86070513

Thanks in advance.     Bruce Watson

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 87 22:21:26 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 1 AW&ST

Cover photo is an Amroc test firing in a test stand at Edwards.

Probable payload of the secret Atlas H launch from Vandenberg on the
15th was a USN White Cloud ocean-surveillance satellite cluster.

Soviets add some more miscellaneous boosters to their commercial
marketing efforts.  Nothing notable; Energia is not on the list.

Rocketdyne and NASA doing SSME test firings at a rapid pace.  The
turbine blades now are cleared for 10 missions (used to be 3-5).

Fletcher has unofficially discussed the possibility of cancelling
Galileo.  This is unlikely, but the latest shuttle schedule slip means
Galileo once again has to fight for a launch slot early in the manifest.

NASA to form new office devoted to advance planning for manned Mars or
Moon missions.  Big deal.  NASA insiders increasingly feel that nothing
will happen on such objectives, given Fletcher's ineffectual efforts and
White House disinterest, until both Fletcher and Reagan are replaced.

White House and DoD tried to prevent NASA DepAdmin Dale Myers' call last
week for DoD to develop its own space station, but spoke up too late.
DoD says it has no interest in building its own.

Progress 30 docks to Mir.

Mir is increasingly short of power, due to postponement of the EVAs to
add another solar array and to unfavorable sun angles of late.

Soviets say Energia will be used to launch heavy comsats, large
planetary missions, large new space-station pieces, and experimental
solar power satellites.

"[Energia] is capable of placing at least 220,000 lbs into orbit, a
capability the US will not regain until about 1993 -- 20 years after the
US abandoned Saturn V operations. ... The US will be unable to undertake
manned space station operations until at least 1994-95 -- 20 years after
abandoning Skylab operations."

New DoD space policy formally orders a change of policy towards simple
low-cost spacecraft in larger numbers.

DoD is still dickering with private industry about launch facilities.
One new idea has been added: DoD will consider long-term leases on the
older, deteriorating pads at the Cape, on condition that they be
refurbished to DoD specs and be available to the military in a crisis.

Eutelsat books two Atlas-Centaur launches in 1990 for large comsats.

First full-scale SRB firing since 51L.  This one mostly used old-style
hardware and was aimed at gathering data rather than testing
improvements, although a few new things were included.  Next test, to
include the full new design, slips to mid-August (from late July).

Choice of O-ring material switches back to Viton.  Materials with better
low-temperature properties, originally attractive, have problems with
the grease used in installation and are permeable enough to make leak
testing difficult.

First Titan SRB test set for June 3.

Rockwell engineer criticizes NASA space-station design for having too
many non-standard elements and not allowing for future growth.  He
proposes an alternate modular design that could provide Skylab-level
capabilities after four launches.  Also criticizes industry for
rubber-stamping NASA's ideas rather than coming up with its own: "Why
are the artist's conceptions of eight major corporations so nearly
identical?  In a real competition seeking real answers there would be a
different version for each of them... Any one of these competitors
should be able, unfettered, to accomplish more in six months than has
been done in the past two years."

Airlines criticize FCC proposal to share aviation comsat frequencies
with other mobile users.

Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 87 00:14:51 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 8 AW&ST

[Finally!  I'm CAUGHT UP!  Note that I "normally" run about a month
behind on these summaries: AW&ST takes a little while to reach my post
office box, sits there for a few days until I pick it up, and then has
to get read and summarized.  I could tighten things up a bit more, but
not a lot, so I'm content to declare a month's lag to be normal. -- HS]

Mitsubishi and McDonnell-Douglas continue to discuss the possibility of
creating a super-Delta by using the upper stage of the Japanese H-1 with
the Delta 2.

DoD is "putting into operation" a new spysat system, "Vortex", using
imaging radar for tracking armored units (and, presumably, warships).

USAF will increase expendable purchases, and is looking at moving more
payloads off the shuttle in view of the shuttle schedule slip.

GAO nearing end of investigation of Fletcher's relationship with Morton
Thiokol, especially in regard to the 1973 SRB contract award.  Fletcher
says he's confident it will clear him, and denies widespread rumors that
he will leave NASA soon.

NASA sets up confidential safety-reporting system to permit employees to
speak up anonymously.

Detailed picture of Energia on the pad, albeit from the belly side with
the payload invisible.  One oddity is moderately large boxes on the
sides of the boosters, perhaps for electronics or recovery systems.
[The Soviets have mumbled about recovering the boosters.]

Comsat orders very low, thanks to the lack of launch capacity.  The
bigger satellite builders are busy with old business, but there may be a
lean period coming up.  A surge of orders is expected a couple of years
down the road, because many of the satellites now in service will be in
need of replacement early in the next decade.

FCC criticized for its policy of approving satellites in blocks,
producing an artificial boom-bust cycle.

NASA starting tests on emergency ground-arresting system to stop a
shuttle orbiter from overrunning the runway.  Tests to be run at Dulles,
using the ex-orbiter Enterprise.  The system is similar to military
systems already in use.  The nose and fuselage of the orbiter penetrate
the net, which wraps itself around the wings and main landing gear and
then separates from its supports; four nylon tapes attached to the net
connect to water- turbine drag devices designed to stop a 100-knot
orbiter within 1000 ft.  Enterprise will be winched into the net at very
low speeds to verify how the net behaves and examine the loads it places
on the orbiter.

British Satellite Broadcasting orders two direct-broadcast comsats from
Hughes, including launch vehicles (Deltas) and insurance, with delivery
to the customer in orbit rather than on the ground.

Office of Technology Assessment reports on media use of satellite
imaging.  Spot and Landsat both have disadvantages that prevent wide
media use: resolution isn't quite good enough, delivery time is far too
long, and news media aren't used to interpreting such images.  An actual
"mediasat" is unlikely to arrive soon, because it's too costly for the
current market.  It would create a number of problems, not least the
conflict between the First Amendment and the 1984 Landsat Act (which
requires DoC licensing of remote-sensing satellites and subjects them to
national-security rules).

NASA forms Office of Exploration to study manned Moon and Mars missions,
and to provide a bureaucratic compartment for such work (which doesn't
fit any of the existing compartments well).

Discussion of some results from last year's SDI Delta test.  Predictions
about debris behavior were verified.  Interestingly, there were two
distinct debris clouds, centered on the original orbits of the two
satellites.  The hypersonic shock wave from the initial contact
pulverized the two satellites before they could make complete contact,
and the debris clouds just passed through each other.

McDonnell-Douglas gets $0.5G SDI contract for an orbital test of a large
neutral-beam particle accelerator in 1991, probably aboard the shuttle.

NASA asks for industry proposals to study advanced SRBs.

Anik C-1 comsat, in storage orbit since launch two years ago, will be
used by Pan Am Pacific Satellite starting late this year.

Color photographs of Energia on the pad, including some showing
(fuzzily) the slightly-mysterious payload pod.  The payload is a black
cylinder, relatively long and thin with some white markings.  A closer
look at the boxes on the sides of the boosters still gives no indication
of what they are for.

The Energia pad structure does not include a large orbiter servicing
room like the one used by the US, suggesting that shuttle servicing will
mostly be off-pad.  This fits with previous Soviet practice.  However,
there are at least two Energia pads at Baikonur, and the other(s) might
differ.

Letter of the month:

	"...As Soviet work on their space foundation goes relentlessly
	forward, all talk in America is of prestige and Mars.  What this
	discussion misses is something the Russians seem to have known
	for years.  The ultimate result of all the triumphs and
	tragedies through which we are now living will be the emergence
	of human civilization in space.

	"This does not merely mean stations and bases and travel between
	them but settlements that grow into cities and whole cultures...

	"...Basic exploration of the Moon and cislunar space essentially
	has been accomplished, so it would seem logical now to proceed
	with the settlement of those places.

	"Instead, the talk is of Mars.  If civilization in space is our
	ultimate purpose, why are we talking of opening new territories
	such as Mars when territories on the Moon and in cislunar space
	have not been used?  Just as we undermined our long-term future
	in space by side-stepping consolidation in Earth orbit to go to
	the Moon, we are now in danger of doing the same by
	side-stepping consolidation on the Moon to go to Mars...

	"Will the public support another program of exploration in which
	they have no role other than to pay the bill and watch on
	television?  Or will they support a program that offers to some
	of them and more of their children the freedom of the frontier?"

						"Timothy Morgan, Iowa"

Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 09:49 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Light pressure for attitude control
To: jon@csvax.caltech.edu, space@angband.s1.gov

Jon Leech said:

>     If I remember old books correctly, one of the Mariner Mars
> missions used light pressure on adjustable vanes on its solar panels
> for attitude control during the cruise phase (NOT for propulsion).

I believe that was the Mariner probe to Mercury, not Mars.  Light pressure
is much higher near Mercury.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 87 19:51:44 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Light pressure for attitude control

> >     If I remember old books correctly, one of the Mariner Mars
> > missions used light pressure on adjustable vanes on its solar panels
> > for attitude control during the cruise phase...
> 
> I believe that was the Mariner probe to Mercury, not Mars.  Light pressure
> is much higher near Mercury.

No, he's right, Mars.  There were light-pressure vanes on the ends of the
solar panels on Mariner 4 (and presumably on its stillborn twin, Mariner 3).
As I recall they haven't been seen since, which would suggest that they
didn't really work very well.
-- 
Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #279
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Jul 87 06:20:38 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01216; Sat, 11 Jul 87 03:17:13 PDT
	id AA01216; Sat, 11 Jul 87 03:17:13 PDT
Date: Sat, 11 Jul 87 03:17:13 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707111017.AA01216@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #280

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 280

Today's Topics:
		  Re: Opinions Wanted & Solar Sails
			    basic rocketry
			  Re: basic rocketry
			       Colonies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 08 Jul 87 13:54:30 EDT
From: Steve Abrams <EXT768%UKCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Re: Opinions Wanted & Solar Sails

  On 2 Jul 87 07:58:17 GMT, <imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Charlie>
  (Charlie ???) posts, in reference to 'Subject: Re: Opinions wanted: Dream
  of solar windsailer,'

The idea of using solar radiation pressure as a motive force is not a
new one.  Robert Forward (creator of the "Starwisp" design) credited the
original idea to Konstantin Tsiolkovsky (editorial note: SEE!  The
Soviets were ahead of us in space ... well, future vision anyway ...
even then).  Much mathematical development came around 1960, when the
magnitude of solar radiation pressure was first measured by the
balloon-borne satellite ECHO I.  This measurement was prompted when the
erratic orbit of Vanguard I was attributed to solar radiation pressure
(if I remember correctly, the on-off eclipses by the Earth caused it).
In the mid-seventies, much more development occurred when sails were
suggested to launch a Halley probe.  The bean-counters and bookkeepers
blocked it, though.

The lack of maneuverability of most solar sail designs is one of the
greatest problems with the use of solar sails.  Many designs have been
suggested, aside from the circular one mentioned, including hexagonal,
square, kite-shaped, and heliogyro (in which the sail is long, thin
strips of material radiating from a payload/control section like the
spokes of a bicycle wheel).  Most sail materials, because of the
inherent thinness of the sail material, have problems with wrinkling (it
can greatly reduce the effectiveness of a sail).  The usual suggestion
is to spin the sail, thereby allowing centrifugal force to keep the sail
material flat.  Unfortunately, conservation of angular momentum makes it
difficult to change the orientation of the sipn axis.  It's like a
gyroscope ...  unbalanced forces must be applied to cause the system to
precess.  Opposite forces must be applied after the spin axis has been
altered by the desired amount to halt the precession.

As for the physics of solar sails, I include the following from a posting I
once made in the Physics SIG (because most articles about solar sails are
woefully inept at providing a mathematically-explicit physical picture --
if nothing else it gives good references):

"We begin by considering a circular piece of solar sail material of radius
R, reflection coefficient R1, transmission coefficient T, and mass density
RHO.  All units, for convenience here, are MKSA.  We put this piece in
space (assumed to be a vacuum) 1 AU from the Sun where the solar
irradiance, or Poynting vector of solar radiation <S>, is 1353 W/m**2 (CRC
Handbook, 55th Ed., 1974-5, p. F-189).  We want to calculate the total
force exerted on the sail material by solar radiation pressure...I'm sure
this is old hat to many of you, but bear with me.  From "Electromagnetic
Fields" (Wangsness, Roald K.; 1979, John Wiley & Sons, p. 482, Eq. 25-97),
we are shown that the pressure due to radiation, P1, is

P1 = [(1+R1)(<S>)/c]*(cos theta(inc1))**2

where c is the speed of light in vacuum; and theta(inc1) is the angle of
incidence of the solar radiation (from the normal to the sail piece).
Since the area of the circular piece is pi*(R**2), we find that the total
force, F1, on the piece is

F1 = P1 * pi * R**2 = [(1+R1)(<S>)/c]*(cos theta(inc1))**2  *  pi * R**2

Of course, for other sail shapes, this formula varies."

However, Jonathan Scott <GUCJS@SEGUC21> took exception with my classical
use of the Poynting vector (although most graduate-level electromagnetic
theory texts use it).  In response,

"I herewith proceed to describe the application of special relativity to
the Poynting 'vector.'

    The 'sort of vector' alluded to earlier is, as described by Furry in
'Examples of Momentum Distributions in the Electromagnetic Field and in
Matter' (Am Jrnl Phys, v37, #6, June 1969, pp. 621-636), more precisely
described as a component of the total energy-momentum tensor, T sub (mu
nu); mu,nu = 1,2,3,4,

   S sub mu = -i*c* T sub (4 mu),  mu=1,2,3

where T sub (mu nu); mu, nu = 1,2,3 are the components of Maxwell's
electromagnetic stress tensor.
The scalar term, returning to Furry, we see is the energy density, u, where

   T sub (4 4) = -u

The vector term is the momentum density, g, where

   T sub (mu 4) = i*c* g

The primary problem that arises from the standard EM class description of
the Poynting vector comes from an ambiguity in its definition.  This
definition comes from Poynting's theorem which results in a conservation
law

   PARTIAL-t(u) + div S = - J dot E

(note: PARTIAL-t is used to denote partial differentiation with respect to
time; dot denotes the scalar product of two vectors).  Most texts then
proceed to identify S with (c/4pi)*(E x B).  Since the *divergence* of this
value is used in the conservation law, any vector (a curl of a vector, too)
whose divergence is zero can be added to this term without affecting the
"conservation."  This ambiguous vector has been referred to as "hidden"
momentum, angular momentum, etc. in the literature.  Mulser ("Radiation
Pressure on Macroscopic Bodies," J Opt Sci Am B, v2, #11, Nov 1985, pp.
1814-1829) describes "the correct conservation equation of electromagnetic
momentum and momentum transfer to a system of particles (mechanical system)
is obtained" as

   PARTIAL-t(S/c**2) + div T = - KAPPA

where KAPPA is defined earlier as

   KAPPA = (charge density * E  +  current density x B)

and "where S = EPSILON0*c**2 * (E x B), T sub (i j) = -EPSILON0*[(E sub i *
E sub j)  +  (c**2 * B sub i * B sub j)  -  1/2 * DELTAFUNCTION sub (i j) *
(E**2 + (cB)**2)]."  Mulser continues in his development with the following
conclusion described in his discussion section (p. 1825:

"(4)  No conceptual difficulty with the overall radiation force F on a
macroscopic body in vacuum arises since in such a case for an arbitrary
volume (V) fixed in space and surrounding the body completely with its
surface SIGMA holds according to Eq. 1.4 (PARTIAL-t(S/c**2) + div T = -
KAPPA):

***EQ. 4.4***
   F = [-(1/c**2)*PARTIAL-t(TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of INTEGRAL(over arbitray volume
V) of S dtau)]  -  [TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of INTEGRAL(over SIGMA) of T dSIGMA)]
However, the radiation field must be known.  In an empty region of V,
[PARTIAL-t(S)  +  c**2 * del T] vanishes.  For a plane wave normally
incident upon a plane surface at x=0 the following equations hold for
constant amplitude:

   E = E sub i  +  E sub r = Re E sub i(exp(i*phi sub i) + r*exp(i*phi
       sub r))
   B = Re (vector k sub 0)*E sub i(exp(i*phi sub i) - r*exp(i*phi sub
       r))/OMEGA

and because PARTIAL-y(T sub (i j))=PARTIAL-z(T sub (i j))=0 from Eq. 4.4,
Eq. 1.1 follows:

   p sub r = -(1/c**2)*PARIAL-t(TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of INTEGRAL(from zero to
   infinity) of S dx)]  -  [TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of INTEGRAL(from zero to
   infinity) of PARTIAL-x(T sub (x x) dx)]

	   = TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE of T sub (x x) (0)
	   = (EPSILON0/2)*TIMEAVERAGEDVALUEof [E dot E  +  c**2 * B dot B]
	   = (1 + R)*I/c

owing to I=MAGNITUDE(TIMEAVERAGEDVALUE ofS) and R=rr* by definition.
Thereby it was assumed that the penetrating fraction of I is absorbed.  In
the same way, for the pressure on a plane surface exposed to a parallel
monochromatic beam from vacuum under the angle of incidence THETA relative
to the normal N-caret and reflectivity R(THETA) for fixed polarization one
obtains

   p sub (r THETA) = (-2*R(THETA)*I/c)*cos(THETA)**2  N-caret  +  [1 -
   R(THETA)]*I/c * (vector k sub 0/k sub0)

If the medium is transparent the second term is absent."
So, we see that the radiation pressure equation used in the original
posting (from Wangsness and using the classical Poynting vector) is only
modified by the second term in the last equation.
Mulser describes this:  "Only for the case of perfect isotropy and
reflectivities R=0 and R=1 under all directions does the integration of p
sub (r THETA) lead to" the equation used in my original posting (given
earlier...Steve)."

Well, now that you've waded through all that, you probably think that I've
forgotten about the solar wind (describes the particulate matter *only*,
not radiation, too).  The effect of the particulate matter is about an
order of magnitude less than the effects of radiation pressure, but they
are *not* negligible (a nuisance, yes!). First, since they are absorbed,
*not* reflected, the resultant acceleration is less than half that due to
radiation.  Planetary magnetic fields tend to warp the trajectories of
particles resulting in a wide variation in intensities (as would solar
flares).  This could lead to "nutation" if the sail is spun.  The stresses
involved, however, would probably tear the sail apart (It's made as thin as
possible, remember).

Let's move on to <sundc!hqda-ai!cos!smith@seismo.css.gov>'s (Steve
Smith) reply:

>A simple back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that "light sails"
>would be a very practical means of interplanetary transport.  While
>the acceleration that they would generate would be miniscule, it is
>constant.

Steve's "simple" calculation, as he describes it, is based on an
oft-overlooked flaw that does somewhat limit the effectiveness of solar
sails.  Steve says that "the acceleration...is constant." It is not for
the very simple reason that the intensity of solar radiation decreases
as 1/r**2, where r is the distance from source to sail.  Even
laser/maser-assisted sail systems suffer from divergence that lessens
the intensity of the radiation with distance.

>All of the technology needed to build light sails is available now .

Again, this isn't entirely correct.  The theory is well developed, but
the technology is not.  The aforementioned "wrinkling" problem isn't;
micrometeroid punctures (and the perturbative oscillations they induce)
isn't; and vapor-deposition (or similar process) is nowhere near the
point at which homogeneous sails of the necessary size can be produced.
These problems can probably be overcome (or, at least, lived with) but
the "deployment problem" is a little more formidable.  However the sail
is produced, the minute it starts to present a significant area, all
these forces anticipated for propulsion will just be a nuisance.
Self-deploying designs have similar problems.

As you might guess, I've spent considerable amounts of times studying
this topic (since the sci-fi and futurist accounts of this idea left
much to be desired).  I really like this idea and *believe* that it can
be made to work.  Unfortunately, that means money, people, time, effort
must be devoted to the idea.  The only organization I know of that is
putting anything into solar sails is the World Space Foundation (they've
actually built a prototype -- too heavy for real use, though) in
Boulder, Colorado.

For those who might be interested in this topic, I include the following
bibliography:

"Solar Sailing," Eric K. Drexler, Space Colonies (publ. by CoEvolution),
pp. 134-9: The first non-science fiction article I ever saw on the
subject...it gave me the "sailing" bug.

"Ride a Laser to the Stars," Robert L. Forward, New Scientist, 2 Oct
1986: Wonderfully imaginative and visionary article on the possibilities
of interstellar exploration via solar sails...a litle too gradiose for
the present (sigh).

"Heliogyro Solar Sailer Summary Report," MacNeal, Richard H.; Hedgedeth,
John M.; and Scheurch, Hans U.; NASA-CR-1329: Avaiable at any Federal
Depository Library (there's one in each state) or any other that carries
the documents abstracted in STAR (NASA bi-weekly publication); This
report is abstract # N69-28861.

"Orbital Perturbations and Control by Solar Radiation Forces," Van der
Ha, J.C.; Modi, V.J.; Journal of Spacecraft, 1977, pp. 180-7: Very good
technical article.  Mathematical and physical description of processes
by which sail-powered craft can alter their orbits significantly (i.e.
raise their perigees...remember, an escape orbit is just one that has an
"infinitely" high perigee.) just by utilizing solar radiation forces.

"Examples of Momentum Distributions in the Electromagnetic Field and in
Matter," Furry, Am Jrnl Phys, v37, #6, June 1969, pp. 621-636 and,

"Radiation Pressure on Macroscopic Bodies," Mulser, J Opt Sci Am B, v2,
#11, Nov 1985, pp. 1814-1829: These two articles give a much more
precise description than most graduate level texts.

"Electromagnetic Fields," Wangsness, Roald K.; 1979, John Wiley & Sons,
Chapter 25: good undergraduate-level text

"Classical Electrodynamics," J.D. Jackson, 1975, John Wiley & Sons,
Chapters 6,7,11,12: good graduate-level text

Sorry for the length...

Steve Abrams

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 87 17:02:17 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: basic rocketry

What causes pogo?

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 87 19:36:09 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: basic rocketry

>What causes pogo?
>
>--JoSH

Walt Kelly, as I recall :-)

	Jordin Kare

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  6 Jul 87 23:45:09 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Colonies
To: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)

> Where is the [Soviet's] ``enormous loss''?

Nobody in the west knows what percent of their GNP goes into their space
program, but it is clearly more than in the US.  This could have gone to
produce food or consumer goods or industrial infrastructure.  That is
the loss.

> ... will enable a permanent manned presence, to engage in more
> activities of direct benefit to their economy and military.

Their military?  Could be.  Thus it could be profitable in the same
sense that a robber's gun is profitable.  He can rob people of many
times the value of the gun.  I hope we are able to prevent this.

> As I read your articles, you appear to present two ideological
> beliefs as fact:

> i) Soviet space activities are a dead end because they are
> not free-market driven.

See Von Mises' _The Anti-Capitalist Mentality_ for a proof that a
socialist economy wall always grind to a halt unless it has a free
market economy to track.  It is conceivable that they could imitate
us if we have a space colony, but it is not possible that they can
do it first, except at a loss, which is not a real colony.

> ii) Space colonies will be both profitable and independent
> of Earth (by definition).

They may or may not be independent of Earth in practice, but they are
not true colonies if they couldn't survive prolonged lack of all contact
with Earth if they needed to.  And if the value of what they produce is
less than the value of what they consume, they will be called home or
will die out as soon as the Earthbound investors, whether government or
industry, tire of the financial loss.

As for political independence - I don't think that is a major issue.
Once you are beyond low Earth orbit, it is pretty trivial to go
anywhere in the solar system.  If enough of the colonists don't like it
where they are, they can go elsewhere, and never be found.  By that
method if no other, political independence is always possible to any
self sufficient dissatisfied minority.

And no colony need have political ties with another or with any Earth
nation to trade with them.
								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #280
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jul 87 20:35:40 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03790; Sun, 12 Jul 87 03:29:36 PDT
	id AA03790; Sun, 12 Jul 87 03:29:36 PDT
Date: Sun, 12 Jul 87 03:29:36 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707121029.AA03790@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #281

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 281

Today's Topics:
			     Re: Colonies
			  SSC in California?
			      starfish?
			   Nielsen Ratings
			  just one question
		     Re: private space companies
		   not a engineering problem (much)
		 Re: not a engineering problem (much)
			   Overpopulation?
			Starships will be slow
		      Re: Starships will be slow
		     satellite repairs in batches
		   Re: satellite repairs in batches
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 87 05:38:48 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Colonies

In article <224288.870706.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>> From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu	(Jon Leech)
>
>> Where is the [Soviet's] ``enormous loss''?
>
>Nobody in the west knows what percent of their GNP goes into their space
>program, but it is clearly more than in the US.  This could have gone to
>produce food or consumer goods or industrial infrastructure.  That is
>the loss.

    Righto. Clearly, then, we should scrap all public and private space
activities and put the labor and capital into 'food or consumer goods or
industrial infrastructure' instead. There is no difference between
capitalist space activities and socialist space activities in terms of
what services are returned. Communications, weather, earth observation,
etc. satellites provide services which are of net economic benefit no
matter what ideology the recipients are. The same will hold true for
space manufacturing (another area where the Soviets are building the
groundwork to outclass us), powersats, and other activities which return
more tangible products than information, if and when such activities
take place.

    If space activities are a net drain on a socialist economy, they are
a net drain on a capitalist economy also. I don't believe either.  The
Soviet space program gives every sign of being more pragmatically
oriented and much cheaper to run than anything we've accomplished.

    Perhaps Soviet space spending is military dominated, you say?  What
of it? So is ours.

>See Von Mises' _The Anti-Capitalist Mentality_ for a proof that a
>socialist economy wall always grind to a halt unless it has a free
>market economy to track.

    I will have to look this up just to see his conception of ``proof''
in the wonderful quantitative predictive science of economics.

    I believe that if we ever get NASA out of the way, or if NASA is
given the same level of support that Soviet space activities have, we
will catch up in not more than a decade or so; the semi-free market we
have does seem to work more efficiently than the more centralized Soviet
economy. But operating less efficiently still leaves room for profit.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  7 Jul 87 23:44:02 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: SSC in California?
To: gwyn@BRL-SMOKE.ARPA
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

I had already talked about the funding of the SSC on this list.

It is clear from context that the gubernator was not objecting to the
SSC on objectivist grounds, but on no-growth grounds.  That, and his
speaking for others without their consent, was what I was criticizing.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 08 July 87 15:53 EDT
From: GPWJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: starfish?

In SPACE Digest V7 #268, ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu writes:
     
>   ....There are still significant numbers of
>   fission electrons in the inner belt from the Starfish prime
>   explosion over twenty years ago, and they play hell with
>   electronics (not to mention damaging unshielded people).
     
Could someone post a quick note about what was the Starfish prime
explosion? Thanx!
     
Art Samplaski
     
BITNET:   UUAJ@CORNELLA
Internet: UUAJ%CORNELLA.BITNET @ CU-ARPA.CS.CORNELL.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 87 00:06:21 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Nielsen Ratings


    From the July 8th LA Times listing of weekly Nielsen ratings:

    Place   Program		Rating
    1	    The Cosby Show	20.0
    2	    Family Ties		19.5
    ...
>>> 61	    "Space", Part 1	4.1
    62	    West 57th		4.1

    Conclusions, if any, I leave to the fertile imaginations of
netlanders.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group

------------------------------

Date:     Thu,  9 Jul 87  14:58:29 EDT
From: nutto%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Andy Steinberg)
Subject:  just one question

Does anyone know how I could find copies of/subscribe to the
journal of the British Interplanetary Society?
                                                -andy-

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 87 19:12:47 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: private space companies

> Boeing Company
> 	...
> 	Has 4.3 billion in cash and short term investments
> 	...
> 	Has stated goal of someday being in space what it is
> 	in commercial airplanes.

Sigh.  Dani, on the whole I have a great deal of respect for Boeing, but
you forgot to add:

	Has had this stated goal for twenty years; visible progress
	toward it has been minimal.
-- 
Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 6 Jul 87 13:50:24 GMT
From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: not a engineering problem (much)

Interstellar travel isn't a physics problem, isn't much an engineering
problem, is just a bit of a political problem.

What it is is a biological problem.  All these other "problems" are
caused by not being able to solve the biology.

To wit: People don't live very long, and insist on things like
breathing, eating, maintaining surrounding pressure,....  Solve these,
and the rest become trivial.  Why FTL? Ans: People have to go places in
a hurry or die.  Solution: Keep people from stopping so easy.

Check "Between the Wings of Night"

James W. Meritt

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 87 01:22:31 GMT
From: pt!speech2.cs.cmu.edu!yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Re: not a engineering problem (much)

In article <692@aplvax.UUCP>, jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
> Interstellar travel isn't a physics problem, isn't much an engineering
> problem, is just a bit of a political problem.

> What it is is a biological problem.  All these other "problems" are
> caused by not being able to solve the biology.

> Why FTL? Ans:  People have to go places in a hurry or die.

Actually, this is not the problem.  According to special relativity,
subjective time slows down as your speed approaches the speed of light.
So, even if you don't have FTL, you can travel an arbitrarily large
distance in an arbitrarily small amount of (subjective) time -- given a
ship that can travel close enough to c.

Brian Yamauchi                      ARPANET:    yamauchi@speech2.cs.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  7 Jul 87 01:09:24 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Overpopulation?
To: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)

> Realistically, unless interstellar travel is much easier than scientists
> now think it is, shipping your excess population off to nearby stars is
> impractical.

We don't have to worry about the stars for a while.  The solar system
can support a population of about ten to the twentieth, billions of
times the current world population.

Most people will live in self contained colonies in hollow asteroids.
Eventually, some such colonies will travel to the stars.  What a way
to travel - take your home, family, and friends with you.  The only
things they will be leaving beind are sunlight - so they use fusion -
a source of spare matter - so they bring plenty along - and trade with
the rest of mankind - so they will be self sufficient.  And there is no
reason why they can't remain in communication with the rest of mankind
during their journey.  Since it will be much slower than light, enormous
amounts of energy, reaction mass, and sheilding will not be needed.

Nobody will be shipping their "excess population" anywhere.  People will
ship themselves where they want to go.  If any place is generally
considered too crowded, people will tend to leave it.  But most people
tend to seek out crowded places (cities) rather than distributing
themselves evenly over the countryside.  I expect it will be the same in
space.

Overpopulation is a myth, anyway.  Unless people are rewarded for having
children (as in a welfare state) or punished for not, people will have
no more children than they can support, and population will not continue
to increase exponentially, or at all, once it reaches the highest
comfortable level.

> I can think of three cheaper alternatives:

> (1) Warfare.  This method has been successfully used on Terra
>     many times.

Let's don't.  I hope you aren't serious.

> (2) Restrict breeding.  Why assume population growth _has_ to
>     be exponential?

Let's don't.  Who has a right to, anyway?  And why assume population
growth is exponential in the absense of coercion?  It isn't, in any
industrialized western country.

> (3) Build space habitats rather than ships.  Much less expensive
>     because no motors, no fuel, no structural requirement to
>     withstand acceleration, ...

That's more like it.  But there is no reason a hollow astesoid can't
be propelled at perhaps 1/1000 G.  You can get anywhere at that
acceleration if you are patient enough.  And you don't need much
structural support, reaction mass, energy, or sheilding.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 87 04:53:29 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Starships will be slow

In article <1046@speech2.cs.cmu.edu> yamauchi@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Brian Yamauchi) writes:
>In article <692@aplvax.UUCP>, jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt) writes:
>> Why FTL? Ans:  People have to go places in a hurry or die.
>
>Actually, this is not the problem.  According to special relativity,
>subjective time slows down as your speed approaches the speed of light.
>So, even if you don't have FTL, you can travel an arbitrarily large
>distance in an arbitrarily small amount of (subjective) time -- given a
>ship that can travel close enough to c.

    Travel time is not arbitrarily small - you must factor in time to
accelerate up near c and back down again, which is several years
subjective at 1 G.

    The problem then becomes getting enough energy to boost a starship
to high relativistic velocities, and carrying enough shielding to
survive.  The only way to do this is obtain fuel & energy source
externally, as in the Bussard ramjet - which is probably impractical due
to low density of the interstellar medium and the difficulty of getting
net energy out of hydrogen through which you are traveling at such high
velocity.

    Life extension or suspended animation are likely to come along a lot
sooner than fast (.99c gets you only 7:1 dilation) starships. None of
which addresses the complementary problem of coming back to Earth and
finding decades (centuries...) have passed since you left.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 87 18:20:53 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Starships will be slow

In article <3161@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes:
> Life extension or suspended animation are likely to come along a lot
> sooner than fast (.99c gets you only 7:1 dilation) starships. None of
> which addresses the complementary problem of coming back to Earth and
> finding decades (centuries...) have passed since you left.

Either of these biological breakthroughs will solve the problem:  

Life extension will allow the people who said goodbye when you left to
say hello when you return, assuming that you lived long enough to
complete the trip.  Trip might get boring, though.

Suspended animation will allow the same thing as long as the folks back
home suspend for the same period.  Maybe, if we ever get the technology
to do it and a sufficiently compelling desire to have an interstellar
society, we will simply have everyone on the planets sleep 99 out of
every 100 years, and all wake up for the same one year, when all the
starships arrive (yes, I know there will be synchronization problems).

While either of these biological solutions is still closer to science
fiction that reality, I think they're both closer to reality than FTL.
We at least can see objects in the observable universe with offer
examples of very long lifespans (trees over 1000 years old) and the
ability to suspend life processes for long periods without detrimental
effect (primarily microorganisms).  I see no objects in the observable
universe which seem to act like they're traveling faster than light.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 5 Jul 87 19:58:48
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA
Subject: satellite repairs in batches

<EM> Date: Wed, 1 Jul 87 10:13:43 pdt
<EM> From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
<EM> Subject: Re: Wait... I've written that (max G&selection)

<EM> I would rather improve the reliability of satellites rather than service
<EM> them in space.  Murphy's law holds: the part you will need will
<EM> doubtless be on the ground ;-). There would be more money for electronics
<EM> and computer science.

Murphy's law also says no matter how perfect you try to make them,
something will still go wrong (and you'll then need to fix it).  Sure
the part you want is on the ground. So you have a robot craft with ion
rocket dock with the satellite, tug it to LEO, attach it to the space
station (which needn't be manned, just a standard place to attach things
to, with lots and lots of docking frobs, like a hitching post for
horses) to wait until the next launch of the repair crew. After several
satellites have been docked and all the needed parts have been assembled
on the ground, the launch occurs, and most of the sattelites are
repaired. A few need additional parts, and must wait until the next
repair mission. Robot tugs then return the satellites to proper orbits,
or if they were refueled during repair they can return themselves.

What's wrong with that? (Other than political questions of gettin
funding)

>We could have a space station flying almost immediately, if NASA would get
>off its behind and start using existing hardware, instead of frittering away
>another decade and another ten billion dollars by reinventing everything.

<EM> We can launch cans, with O2 cylinders, batteries, and extension cords.
<EM> Needless to say, Mr. Spencer over simplifies.

Not into orbit! I challenge you to launch a can into stable Earth-orbit
with those methods. (I.e. why are you giving him a flip reply?)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 87 16:52:03 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: satellite repairs in batches

> >We could have a space station flying almost immediately, if NASA would get
> >off its behind and start using existing hardware...
> 
> <EM> We can launch cans, with O2 cylinders, batteries, and extension cords.

Speak up, all those potential space-station users who would prefer a
gleaming technological showpiece available in 1995 (1996? 1998? 2000?)
over an oxygenated tin can in orbit today.

Quiet, isn't it?

Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #281
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Jul 87 19:42:01 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05347; Mon, 13 Jul 87 04:07:06 PDT
	id AA05347; Mon, 13 Jul 87 04:07:06 PDT
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 87 04:07:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707131107.AA05347@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #282

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 282

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Betelguese and Supernova
	 Betelguese and Supernova, very-distant early warning
			      Supernovas
		    New Orbiter from Enterprise???
  Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle?
		  Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise???
		       Mercury splashdown sites
		     Re: Mercury splashdown sites
		   Re: High G and playing with life
		      Re: Stock Missile Footage
		      Re: Stock Missile Footage
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 87 19:57:12 GMT
From: amdcad!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MacLeod)
Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova

In article <551836099.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

>Not only is Betelguese big enough to go supernova, it is thought by
>some to be in the last gasp of life. It is currently going through
>intense mass loss by way of a solar wind.  Supernova should(?) occur
>within a few thousand years according to some articles I've read.

Oh, no, Mr. Humanity! *Frying sounds*

Seriously, I had no idea that they could pinpoint it that closely.  And
on a cosmic time scale, a few thousand years is miniscule; the variation
could go either way by far more than that.  It's more like "within the
next half hour", cosmically.

Looks like real estate values are going down, folks.  Time to boogie.  
And we don't need a hyperdrive?  We're going to have to beat the wavefront...

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 8 Jul 87 12:58:15
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: "ota%galileo.s1.gov"@mordor.s1.gov,
        nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu
Subject: Betelguese and Supernova, very-distant early warning

<OTA> Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 09:37:03 PDT
<OTA> From: ota@galileo.s1.gov
<OTA> Subject: Betelguese and Supernova

<OTA> It may indeed be that checking out nearby supernova candidates
<OTA> will be the first application that requires an interstellar trip.
<OTA> Remote probes at the nearest half dozen likely supernovas could
<OTA> relay early warning of an impending explosion.  This might be the
<OTA> highest leverage scientific program ever undertaken, at least in
<OTA> terms of lives saved.  At the very least is would be a colossally
<OTA> interesting project.

You have a point there. I propose we put this on our list of long-term
objectives. It sure beats setting up a random colony on Mars, since it
is directly related to our survival beyond mere number of baskets or
eggs are in. We should certainly spread our eggs around, but specific
very-distant early warning stations are important too, so we can build
shields against radiation blast, predict exact timing to avoid having to
stay shielded for long periods, etc. By the way, SN1978A was a blue
giant, not yet a red supergiant, so we have to watch Rigel and Deneb
too.  (Sirius is probably too small to go supernova, can somebody
confirm?)

One question: It's easy to know what stars to watch out for that might
suffer supernova by core-collapse, i.e. supermassive stars. But it's not
so easy to know what stars to watch out for that might suffer supernova
by thermonuclear detonation of hydrogen sucked from a small main
sequence or red giant star to collect on surface of tiny neutron star,
since some of those are really dim until they go supernova, and the
supernova is much brighter than a core-collapse type so we have to watch
for them over a larger region of space. Can somebody assure me we know
about *all* the dwarf pairs that might go supernova close enough to
cause major ecological damage on Earth?

Also, regarding extinction of dinosaurs, could the Iridium have come
from a supernova directly, i.e. the radiation blast kills off life, then
a few thousand years later the shell of thermonuclear byproducts
including iridium arrives over a period of a few hundred years so we get
a sediment layer of it, and in the fossil record the two proximate
events look coincident?

<CAW> Date: 29 Jun 87 21:30:53 GMT
<CAW> From: nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
<CAW> Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova

<CAW> In article <8706291637.AA03371@galileo.s1.gov> ota@GALILEO.S1.GOV writes:
>It may indeed be that checking out nearby supernova candidates will be
>the first application that requires an interstellar trip. ...

<CAW> Now excuse me for nit picking, but would this give us any early
<CAW> warning?  It seems to me that by the time indications of an
<CAW> impending SN got to the probe, and the warning message from the
<CAW> probe got back to earth, the same conditions that triggered the
<CAW> warning in the probe would be detectable here.  Am I missing
<CAW> something, or was this an oversight?

You're missing the fact that many orders of magnitude better
Signal/Noise ratio and resolution can be achieved by on-site inspection
compared to distant telescopy. Witness Pioneer 10&11 and Voyager 1&2
images of Jupiter et al, which were "infinitely" better than
ground-based info.

Subtle instabilities that are totally undetectable at interstellar
distance would be "obvious" to a nearby device, which could then report
warning back to Earth before the instabilities become severe enough to
be detected directly from Earth.

It's analagous to having seisometers and stress-measuring devices on Mt.
St. Helens compared to in Berkeley or Denver.

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  7 Jul 87 00:27:00 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Supernovas
To: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

>  From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)

> The Star Betelgeuse is large enough to explode as a Supernova and
> being only 300 Light Years away will produce enough Xrays to blow off
> the Ozone layer and fry us.

Very unlikely.  Supernovas are very rare.  The recent one in the SMG
was 160,000 light years away.  It was the closest one since the one in
the 1880s in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2,200,000 light years away.  There
hasn't been one in this galaxy of ten to the eleventh stars since 1604.
One might expect a supernova within 300 light years only once or twice
in each billion years.

The references I can find say that Betelgeuse is 520 or 650 light years
away, not 300.

> Great maybe this explains the Fermi Paradox... All intelligent life
> gets blasted away with SuperNova radiation before they can start
> moving out into the stars.

If we lost our ozone layer, things could get unpleasant, but it wouldn't
cause mankind to go extinct or anything like that.

We really don't know what is out there.  Supernovas are noticable
because they give off so much light, but the important things, and
perhaps the really deadly things, are likely to be more subtle.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Cc: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa
From: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa
Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov
Date: 6 Jul 87 15:29:00 EST
Subject: New Orbiter from Enterprise???
Reply-To: <bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa>

I just saw a rerun of SPACE on PBS, and it reminded me how wonderful I
thought the Shuttle was, when it was flying. There has been a lot of
talk about replacing Challenger with a new orbiter to get our "fleet"
back up to where it was.

Coincidentally, I just flew into Dulles airport and saw a SHUTTLE parked
out near there. This is the Enterprise, which is parked in the branch of
the Air & Space Museum where they keep things that are too big to fit in
the bldg.  downtown.

Has anyone considered that the Enterprise could be outfitted to fly for
a cost that is very small compared to construction of a new orbiter from
scratch? I hate to deprive the A&S musuem of such an exhibit, but hey,
we NEED another orbiter. Anyone (Eugene Miya?) out there in a position
to comment on this in a more informed way than I can??????

[This has been discussed before and the answer always seems to be that
there is so much that would need to be added to Enterprise that saving
the cost of the airframe is no help.  -Ed]

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 87 17:04:02 GMT
From: rlgvax!russ@seismo.css.gov  (Russ Olsen)
Subject: Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle?

In article <557@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>, dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) writes:

> A friend and I were wondering the other day: NASA has a destruct
> mechanism built into their unmanned launches in case they go out of
> control.  What about manned launches, particularly the space shuttle?

If I remember properly from the Rogers(?) Commission Report, there are
charges in the solid rocket boosters which can be fired from the ground.
There may also be charges in the external tank, but I couldnt swear to
that one.  In any case, the charges were originally ment to be used in a
situation where the booster (or perhaps the external tank) was flying
out of control and endangering life or property.  The report goes on to
say that no one wants to think about what would happen if the shuttle,
boosters and tank still attached were to go out of control and become a
danger.  I guess some poor soul would have to push the button on the
shuttle crew.

Russ Olsen, CCI Reston, VA
russ@rlgvax

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 87 05:38:37 GMT
From: ucsdhub!jack!man!sdiris1!res@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Robert Sanders)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise???

In article <558@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>, dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) writes:
> In article <8707070046.AA07245@galileo.s1.gov>, bouldin@CEEE-SED.ARPA writes:
> > Has anyone considered that the Enterprise could be outfitted to fly
> > for a cost that is very small compared to construction of a new
> > orbiter from
> heard something on the news about the Enterprise never being able to
> make it into space.  If I remember right, the problem was not just the
> refit, but the fact that the Enterprise was no longer structurally
> sound due to extensive testing (vibration testing?).

That is correct... Enterprise was used to test metal fatigue from
vibration TO FAILURE... it is not in usable shape, would be necessary to
completely rebuild, and it is not the new, lighter design anyway.  (Also
was never the same design as any of the flying orbiters, never being
intended to go into space... purely an aerodynamic test bed.)

Skip Sanders :  sdcsvax!ucsdhub!jack!man!sdiris1!res
Phone : 619-273-8725 (evenings)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 17:31:39 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Mercury splashdown sites

Does anyone have handy the location of where each of the manned Mercury
flights splashed down?  All I need is the ocean.  Shepard, Grissom, and
Glenn all came down in the Atlantic.  What about "the other four"?

	John

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 87 16:22:57 GMT
From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: Mercury splashdown sites

> Does anyone have handy the location of where each
> of the manned Mercury flights splashed down?  All
> I need is the ocean.  Shepard, Grissom, and Glenn
> all came down in the Atlantic.  What about "the
> other four"?
 
Scott Carpenter came down in the Atlantic 250 miles from the planned
impact site--he wasn't located for 18 minutes after landing or
sited for 40 minutes.  I remember watching this cliffhanger ending to a
successful flight during a band lesson in elementary school.
The landing error was due to a yaw error during retrofire.

Wally Schirra landed 5 miles from his planned impact site 275 miles
northeast of Midway Island in the Pacific Ocean.

Gordo Cooper landed near Midway only 7000 yards from the recovery
carrier Kearsage, 2000 yards closer than Schirra, flying through
re-entry manually due to a failure of manual systems 30 minutes
before retrofire.

The sources of this information were the TRW Space Logs for December
1962 and June 1963.  By the way, I just got the 1986 edition which
has articles on Voyager, the Chinese space program and Comet Halley
with great bibliographies on each subject, as well as a table of
every satellite launched last year and comparison with the last 29
years.  It is available to "professional personnel in the aerospace
industry, the military and other government agencies" by writing
on letterhead to:  Editor, TRW Space Log, TRW Space & Technology
Group, One Space Park, Mail Station 135/1477, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.

			Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer and space buff
			mink@cfa.harvard.edu
			{seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 29 Jun 87 10:02 EDT
From: Chris Jones <clj@sapsucker.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: Re: High G and playing with life
To: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>, Space@angband.s1.gov

    Date: Wed, 24 Jun 87 12:26:23 PDT
    From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>

                                                    A shuttle re-entry
    inflicts about +1.7 Gz over a period of ?20 minutes, which ain't no
    problem at all - unless you've been weightless for a week.

    Acceleration from front to back (+Gx) can be tolerated to a much
    higher degree.  Ham the chimp took +17 Gx during the launch of his
    Mercury-Redstone flight and -14 Gx during re-entry.  (The
    description in The Right Stuff is a joy!)  Apollo re-entries gave
    the astronauts -7 Gx ("eyeballs out") or so.

None of Mercury, Gemini, or Apollo inflicted "eyeballs out" G forces on
their occupants.  Recall, when accelerating they were facing forward,
and while decelerating they were facing backward.  Think of what happens
in a car when you are in these postures--in both cases you are pushed
into your seat.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Jul 87 15:17:21 GMT
From: ncsuvx!ncspm!jay@mcnc.org  (Jay Smith)
Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage

I'm cross-posting this to sci.space, since someone reading that 
might be able to help.

In article <7347@mimsy.UUCP> mangoe@mimsy.UUCP (Charley Wingate) writes:
>Mark McDermott writes:
>
>>By the same token, most shows involving space travel by rocket have
>>used an apparently limited supply of Saturn V footage.  How many times
>>have you seen a second stage detach and fall to Earth?

>What's interesting is that the whole cut is quite a bit longer, and
>most of the time the only part you get to see is the interstage falling
>away.  One "Spaceflight" (the PBS series whose name I may be
>misremembering) they showed the whole cut, which starts before the
>previous stage (which is the first and not the second stage, I believe)
>separates at all, and ends at some point after engine ignition.

>Trivia question: does anyone know which flight it was?

I believe it was Apollo 9, which was the earth orbit test of the lunar
module (with the command/service module, too, of course).  The film was
recovered during a spacewalk, which I think was the only earth orbit
spacewalk during the Apollo program.

I think that the stage we see separating in the clip is the second
stage, since the second stage does fall away from the Saturn V and burn
up, making recovery of film from it a bit difficult.  And I'm pretty
sure it wasn't a Saturn IB (you can't fit a LM in there, can you?).

I just remembered that this clip was in the Star Trek episode
"Assignment: Earth", which was the final show of the second season
(right?).  Would this have pre-dated Apollo 9?  Oops......

Jay Smith

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 87 16:54:28 GMT
From: bloom-beacon!gatech!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay@think.com  (Jay Smith)
Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage


In article <333@ncspm.ncsu.edu> I wrote:
>I believe it was Apollo 9, which was the earth orbit test of the lunar module
>(with the command/service module, too, of course).  The film was recovered
>during a spacewalk, which I think was the only earth orbit spacewalk during
>the Apollo program.
>
>I just remembered that this clip was in the Star Trek episode "Assignment:
>Earth", which was the final show of the second season (right?).  Would this
>have pre-dated Apollo 9?  Oops......

Through my own research I have discovered that Apollo 9 was launched in
March 1969, while the Star Trek episode was aired March 1968, which predates
Apollo 7, so this footage must have been from an unmanned Saturn launch.

How was this film recovered?








Newsgroups: rec.arts.tv,rec.arts.movies,sci.space
Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <459@home.CSNET> <1181@bgsuvax.UUCP> <7347@mimsy.UUCP> <333@ncspm.ncsu.edu>
Sender: 
Reply-To: jay@ncspm.UUCP (Jay Smith)
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Crop Science Dept., North Carolina State University
Keywords: 




-- 

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Smith                     uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain:	jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu    internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #282
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Jul 87 08:00:41 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07692; Tue, 14 Jul 87 03:17:30 PDT
	id AA07692; Tue, 14 Jul 87 03:17:30 PDT
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 87 03:17:30 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707141017.AA07692@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #283

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 283

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Stock Missile Footage
		    NASA Queries (mailer problems)
		      Re: Stock Missile Footage
			       Re: POGO
		      Re: You Were Born Too Soon
			   Living in Space
			 Re: Living in Space
			     Re: Colonies
			     Re: Colonies
	Re: space news from May 11 AW&ST, and short editorial
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 87 17:24:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage

<this is concerning the stock footage of Saturn V staging>

The footage you discuss, with the interstage ring falling away, is
clearly shot from the second stage.  There is no separable ring between
the second and third stage to fall away and tumble so gracefully;
besides, there are two engine nozzles clearly visible in the foreground
of the picture.  The S-IVB third stage had only a single nozzle.  My
guess about which flight (and this is conjecture) is that this footage
was shot on one of the two unmanned test flights to see whether the
staging process worked as planned (remember, S-IC/S-II separation was a
pretty tricky business with rather tight tolerances).  As for how the
film was recovered, it probably was ejected in a re-entry capsule
similar to that used for spysat film (the technology for recovering film
from orbit has existed since about '59--when did the "Discoverer"
satellites start flying?).

The footage at the beginning of the "Spaceflight" show depicts an S-IVB
stage separation and ignition as seen from either an S-II or S-IB stage;
because of fish-eye lens distortion (and the presence of a large DuPont
logo) I can't tell.

Another interesting bit of stage-separation footage shown in that series
is staging on a Titan II as viewed from the second stage.  The first
stage drops back about 50 feet or so, then the second stage engine
ignites and literally blows the top of the first stage apart, with
shrapnel flying in all directions.  Quite a show!

While the Saturn V footage is used a lot, my nominee for the single most
over-used piece of stock rocket footage is that hapless Juno II that
went straight up for about 100 feet, did a right-angle turn and was
actually nose-down by the time it was blown up.  This unfortunate piece
of film seems to have become the industry-standard "rocket explosion"
shot.  (Trivia question: In what movie was the Hollywood missile
depicted as a Saturn V at liftoff and as that Juno II at the end of its
flight?)

(And what did that movie have in common with Star Wars?)

Dan Starr

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 7 Jul 87 12:36:16 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: NASA Queries (mailer problems)


I have received quite a few pieces of mail which I am unable to reply
to.  No domain is free from guilt: UUCP, BITNET, even the ARPAnet
and others.  If you expect me to reply to the queries you send me,
please include a return address as part of the signature (regardless
of domain).
>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 16:55:58 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Stock Missile Footage

> This sounds plausible, until you realize that there are two engines
> visible on the stage containing the camera.  Additionally, the stage
> falling away is of the same diameter as the stage with the camera, and
> the interstage is not tapered.  This is clearly a sequence of the 1st
> stage falling away as seen from the 2nd stage.  Consequently, the film
> was not retrieved in a spacewalk.  At any rate, the Apollo 9 SIVB was
> cast off before the spacewalk.
> 				David Smith

The NASA publication "Stages to Saturn" (excellent reading) makes
reference to these movie sequences.  During the testing of unmanned
Staurn V's a host of instrumentation and cameras was carried.  The SIVB
(3rd stage) had TV cameras looking through windows into the tanks to
observe the LOX and LH2 sloshing around the baffles.

Some 16mm color cameras were fitted in detachable pods to the lower end
of the SII second stage to record the stage separation.  When out of
film the camera pods blew off the side of the SII and splashed down into
the ocean under their own parachutes.  They were fitted with beacons for
easy recovery.

There's the story of a pod on one of the tests that had its beacon fail.
The recovery crew couldn't locate it and gave up.  Some months later the
pod was found washed up on a beach.  The film was OK and successfully
processed.

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 17:07:04 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: POGO

> The Saturn V pogo was caused by a resonance in the oxygen system,
> which coincided with that of the larger structure.  The oxygen
> oscillation caused thrust oscillation, which fed the structure
> oscillation, which fed the oxygen oscillation.  The problem was fixed
> by making some lines flexible, and by introducing helium to damp (and
> I presume change the frequency of) the oxygen system.
> 
> I don't know what caused pogo in the Titan.
> 		David Smith


I've read accounts of the POGO being so bad that on one flight a panel
on the Spacecraft/LM adapter fairing became detached and fell away from
the launch vehicle.

This caused some consternation to some Grumman engineers who were
observing telemetry from a mockup of the lunar module.  They were
watching the atmospheric pressure around the mockup DEcreasing as the
vehicle gained altitude.  They were suprised to note that the pressure
drop turned around and began INcreasing!  The NASA publication "Stages
to Saturn" concluded that the LM mockup had fallen out the hole and was
in freefall - although I find it hard to believe that it would fit
through a hole the size of a single panel.  Perhaps the adapter
environment telemetry unit was attached to the panel itself.

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 08 Jul 87 13:42 PDT
From: Frank Mayhar <Frank-Mayhar%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
Really-To: space
Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon

>Dale Amon said:
>> In 1995 the space station will have the best tested people that can be
>> found. This is proper.
>> In 2005 it had damn well better have anyone who wants to go. This too
>> is proper.

Hear hear!!

>Proper, perhaps, but very unrealistic.  [...]

>I don't want to flame, but I get very exasperated reading about people
>who want to personally move out into space. You're living in
>fantasyland! The cost is going to be outrageous until well into the
>next century, by which time you'll be too old, or dead.

>I also am exasperated by people who sneer at the annual US pizza (or
>beer, or bubble gum, or whatever) consumption, then blithely propose to
>blow several years or decades of income on frivolous orbital
>sightseeing. A bit of a double standard, no?

>Paul Dietz
>dietz@slb-doll.csnet

No!

What exasperates me is listening to those people who want to take my
dream away.  Since I was in the second grade, I've dreamed about going
into space.  Like most of the readers of this newsgroup, I remember
watching Neil Armstrong make that last little hop to the Moon, and
wishing it was me.  By all signs, we could have been there now, if the
original plans hadn't been scrapped by self-serving politicians and
bureaucrats.  Instead, here we all are, watching the Soviets pass us,
realizing that the only chance we had of getting there in our lifetimes
was thrown away by self-serving fools whose only desire is for more
personal power, regardless of the consequences.  Or by those other
fools, who only care about the next paycheck, and whether their wife has
found out about their mistress or not.

If I sound disillusioned, I am.  But at least let me keep my
"unrealistic" dreams!  They are all I have left, and maybe, just maybe,
they aren't so unrealistic after all.

Frank Mayhar
Frank-Mayhar%ladc@HI-Multics.ARPA

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 08 Jul 87 17:47:22 GMT
From: Michael J. Hammel <SNHAM%TTUVM1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Living in Space

Paul Dietz : you state that living in space for the common man in the
early part of the next century is a fantasyland dream (not your exact
words, but the message is the same). It shouldn't be. Since the the
great push to reach the moon, what have we as a country been pushing for
as far as achievements in space are concerned? The shuttle program
obviously was a major concern, but I think the general populace felt,
after visiting the moon umpteen times, that it was time to sit back and
relax. That kind of attitude is exactly the reason we cannot now live in
space in the beginning of the next century. If we had felt that going to
the moon was only a stepping stone into what we were capable of, then we
would be living in space, possibly even before the end of this century.
Ok, I admit I don't know all the details of costs, which are one the
biggest concerns we have now, but had we kept pushing, we could have, as
a country, found the means necessary to achieve such a goal. In my eyes
the fault lies with management. The management of resources, both human
and material. We should've made it. But we didn't. I hope my kids will.

Michael J. Hammel
SNHAM @ TTUVM1   EAMIK @ TTUVM1
RELAY Nick: Sarek

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 9 Jul 87 09:31:35 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Living in Space
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Paul Dietz :
>the message is the same). It shouldn't be. Since the the great push to
>reach the moon, what have we as a country been pushing for as far as
>achievements in space are concerned?  Michael J. Hammel

This Country has mostly been concern with pushing military space:
surveilence (electronic and optical), weather (military), communication
(military), SDI, and so on.  Anyone care to do a survey of military
space?  Some might be surprised by their budget.  P.S. the same goes for
the Soviets, their military program is much larger than their civilian
program (but their tend to blurr their boundaries a little more).

I tend to agree with Paul on this one (geez, what's the world coming
to?).  I agree with this poster sentiments (i.e., I.*e.), but the rest
of the world does not see things our way.

--eugene miya
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 87 22:31:17 GMT
From: jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (John Unekis)
Subject: Re: Colonies

In article <224288.870706.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>> From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
>
>> Where is the [Soviet's] ``enormous loss''?
>
>Nobody in the west knows what percent of their GNP goes into their
>space program, but it is clearly more than in the US.  This could have
>gone to produce food or consumer goods or industrial infrastructure.
>That is the loss.

An observation:

The U.S. has been engaged in a renewed arms race with the Soviet Union
lately. Both sides have been amassing enormous numbers of megatons in
Nuclear warheads, Plus vast arrays of sophisticated conventional
weapons. What use is any of this stuff? In a world at peace, none what
so ever. The whole thing is more or less a game of chicken, except that
if one side falls behind, it may suffer more than embarassment, it may
find itself hit with a preemptive strike that would cripple it and then
find itself conquered by the other side.

We have been playing this game with varying levels of fervor for decades
now, and no one has 'pulled ahead' to win yet. Why then do we keep it
up? I think because here in the U.S. we beleive that our more efficient
Capitalistic economy will support a bigger military buildup for a longer
period of time, and in the long run we will emerge on top by spending
the Russians into economic collapse.

Question:

If this is the case, could we not do the same thing in space
exploration? It can be easily demonstrated that a Lunar Colony would
give either side an overwhelming advantage in any shooting war.  I
realize that this would involve the military in space exploration, but
we seem to take the military along in any human endeavor where we take
along our gonads(excuse the profanity). At least if we spent all that
money on military Space exploration the human race would have something
to show for all the money and time it spent, aside from mothballed
warships and obsolete aircraft.

seismo!cbosgd!ihnp4!wlbr!etn-rad!jru

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 07:10:08 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Colonies

In article <215@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes:
>      we keep it up? I think because here in the U.S. we beleive that
>      our more efficient Capitalistic economy will support a bigger
>      military buildup	for a longer period of time, and in the
>      long run we will emerge on top by spending the Russians into
>      economic collapse.

    The real beneficiaries of the US/USSR military spending race are the
Japanese, who are applying the money and human talent they save from our
defense subsidy to building better, cheaper commercial products.

>      If this is the case, could we not do the same thing in space
>      exploration? It can be easily demonstrated that a Lunar Colony
>      would give either side an overwhelming advantage in any shooting
>      war.

    I doubt this. It makes little difference whether one is killed by
nuclear weapons shot from Siberia or Lunar orbit; further, the delay of
(at best) several hours to send weapons from lunar orbit to Earth
surface means that war would be long over before they arived.

>      I realize that this would involve the military in space
>      exploration, but we seem to take the military along in any human
>      endeavor where we take along our gonads(excuse the profanity). At
>      least if we spent all that money on military Space exploration
>      the human race would have something to show for all the money and
>      time it spent, aside from mothballed warships and obsolete
>      aircraft.

    An aircraft carrier is a marvelous technical achievment that does
nothing to serve our economy. The same would hold true of active
military space systems. What we would have to show for all the money and
time is useless hardware that would make space just as dangerous as
Earth. I would just as soon this didn't happen as I hope to run away and
leave the madmen and their weaponry behind on Earth.  The asteroid belt
might be far enough, for a few decades...

    Although many people do not realize it, military spending on space
in fact far exceeds (by at least x2) NASA spending. This appears to be a
relatively recent phenomenon (oddly coinciding with the tenure of Mr.
Reagan...) For example, the Air Force has a stranglehold on new launcher
development in the US (Delta II, Titan 4, ALV, Aerospace Plane, and no
doubt several black programs). This is understandable given the failure
of NASA to meet DOD launch requirements but the trend needs to be
reversed; if we are to regain a competitive position in potentially
profitable space activities, we cannot let military requirements drive
the entire industry.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 16:31:37 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: space news from May 11 AW&ST, and short editorial

In article <8211@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Growing support for a lunar base as the next major US space goal.
>[...]  Mars.  Plans would call for a Lunar Polar Orbiter in 1994, an
>unmanned sample return/rover mission in 1996, more complex unmanned
>missions in the late 90s, two manned missions per year starting in 2000
>as preliminaries, a lunar oxygen plant in 2005, and then about four
>manned missions per year until 2010 when the base would be complete.
>The manned missions would be launched from the space station using a
>pair of orbital transfer vehicles each.

On this sort of time scale NASA would find it much cheaper to buy
tickets on the soviet (or Japanese, chinese or possibly even European
flights there.)

The Russians are planning to go there as a stepping stone to mars in the
early 1990s.

The Chinese are planning a manned flight on one of their own long march
launchers.

The Japanese have just trippled their space research budget and are
investigating building their own design of HOTOL.

HERMES will be flying in the 1990s and there are already mutterings
about what the next major European goal should be.

If the research report on HOTOL is favourable (it is due in August) and
we can wake up the Goverment ( They still haven't replied to the British
space agency's proposals after 18 months), then there will be a much
greater British involvement in space.

The US is not the only country thinking about going to the moon these
days.

>Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

	Bob.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #283
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Jul 87 06:21:00 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09653; Wed, 15 Jul 87 03:18:10 PDT
	id AA09653; Wed, 15 Jul 87 03:18:10 PDT
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 87 03:18:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707151018.AA09653@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #284

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 284

Today's Topics:
		    space news from June 15 AW&ST
	Mariner Venus Used Light Pressure for Attitude control
				 SPOT
			       Re: SPOT
			       Re: SPOT
			SPOT and other things
			       Re: SPOT
			       Re: SPOT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 00:30:54 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 15 AW&ST

[This is a big fat issue on the Paris Air Show, lots of ads.]

Ad Of The Year: On the first full-page spread of the issue is a United
Technologies ad which consists simply of an Apollo photograph --
astronaut, US flag, and lunar module on the Moon -- and the caption
"It's time we raised our sights again."

Hughes is putting together Magellan's radar.

Rockwell tells NASA that moving orbiter construction from Rockwell
Palmdale to Vandenberg AFB would add $158M to costs.

USAF Astronautics Lab testing proof-of-concept prototype solar-powered
rocket aimed at cheaper transfer between low orbit and Clarke orbit,
hauling about 37000 lbs up over 15-20 days.

Space station negotiations convene in Paris, with a convenient five-day
recess for the Paris air show.

Pictures of Hotol model on show at Paris.  Notable features are that the
intake is bigger and projects further forward than before, and the
nozzle array at the rear is curious: four big ones (probably rockets)
set high, a couple of small ones (probably orbital-maneuvering rockets)
tucked into corners, and, down where the air-breathing nozzles would be
expected to be, two round nozzles flanking two *square* ones.  [Weird.
Two different kinds of air-breathing engines??  -- HS]

Also on show at Paris: full-size mockup of Soyuz/Mir/Kvant/Progress,
full-scale model of Soviet Mars/Phobos probe, full-scale model of
Hermes, and model (full-scale?) of ESA's Columbus man-tended space
station.

China announces completion of third space-launch site, believed located
south of Beijing for launch to polar orbit.  China is again studying a
manned space program, including a small space station.

New Japanese space-policy recommendation pushes early work on a Japanese
spaceplane and an all-Japanese space station.

Three small NASA rockets -- an Orion sounding rocket and a pair of radar
test rockets -- fire inadvertently after lightning strike at Wallops
Island.  Freak accident.  Pad had been clear and launches postponed due
to nearby thunderstorm activity.  Investigation underway; the losses are
unimportant in themselves but NASA wants to understand just how it
happened.

Picture of Enterprise with its wings swathed in netting during Dulles
tests of the new emergency arresting system for the shuttle.  Tests
successful.

Solar System Exploration Committee says US will be a second-class power
in planetary exploration for at least fifteen years unless it gets
moving.  SSEC specifically urges start for CRAF (Comet Rendezvous /
Asteroid Flyby) in FY1989.  SSEC says planetary exploration is in worse
shape now than when SSEC was formed in 1980, with budgets less than 25%
of what they were in the early 70s and the last US planetary launch
nearly a decade past (1978, Pioneer Venus).  David Morrison, SSEC
chairman: "NASA no longer leads the world in planetary exploration.
Worse, we even run the risk of not being viewed as a reliable
international partner in joint ventures."  [*"Risk"?* NASA is *not*
viewed as a reliable partner, period!  -- HS] Planetary exploration
funding actually *drops* next year, one of the few NASA areas that got
no increase.

NASA names 15 new astronaut candidates, including the first black
female.

NASA preparing to shift much responsibility for commercial microgravity
work to space science program.  Long-term intent appears to be to
convert the Commercial Programs division to a coordination-only office.

Tentative Ariane manifest for next 3.5 years, assuming next launch in
August (Australian and European comsats) as scheduled.

US predicts it will have launch rate of 25-30 per year within five
years, over half of it military.  Prediction is that only one of the
current big US expendable companies will be in commercial launch
business by 1995, due to limited market.

Soviet launch rate in the near future will probably stabilize at about
95 flights per year.

Hughes and Great Wall Industries are discussing selling a package deal
of a Hughes HS-393 comsat plus a launch on a Long March 2-4L, total cost
to be lower than all competitors.

McDonnell-Douglas and Mitsubishi are talking about using the Japanese
LE-5 oxyhydrogen upper stage from the H-1 on the Delta.  This could
boost Delta payload 25% or more, significant because of forecast demand
for larger payloads than Delta can now handle.

[Interesting rumor about Hermes from other sources: ESA has apparently
talked to the Soviet Union about launching Hermes on Proton, just in
case Ariane 5 is not ready.  -- HS]

Considerable detail on current criticism of the US space station from
the space-science community, notably lack of long-term planning and
planning for user needs.  Some thought that NASA has not really got its
act together on running such a complex long-term multi-participant
project.

NASA space-station operations task force recommends that operational
control be split among four NASA centers: Johnson for manned base,
Marshall for user operations in labs, Kennedy for logistics and
engineering support, and Goddard for US unmanned platforms, with overall
supervision from NASA HQ.  Europeans and Japanese expected to protest
that they prefer to run their own lab operations.  Possible DoD
operations are an uncertain area, current plans give them the same level
of support as commercial customers.  One major change from shuttle
operations: experiment integration into payload racks to be done in
experimenters' labs rather than at the launch site.  Task force
recommends training of a dedicated group of space-station astronauts,
sharing only some basic training with shuttle astronauts.

[Split among *four* centers, eh?  Plus HQ, of course.  Why do I smell
the pork barrel here?  This is a stupid idea.  NASA should pick one,
Johnson being the obvious choice.  -- HS]

Interesting ad for "Orbital Express": $1M buys 2 cubic feet and 50 lbs
of payload in LEO, Amroc providing launch and Globesat Inc. providing a
small dedicated satellite bus.

Letter from Robin J. Miller:

	"...objections to space-manufacturing aboard the space station
	[by Sagan and Murray among others] are merely new variants of
	the tired, zero-sum-game arguments of the
	`let's-make-space-safe-for-robots' crowd.  Rather than fighting
	for a bigger pie, these individuals resort to complaining about
	the size of their slice, and engage in actions that are
	detrimental to a vigorous national space effort.  They hope
	their pet projects will be restored by derailing or delaying
	other space projects, rather than arguing the merits of their
	proposals.  One result of this divisive behavior is
	congressional unwillingness to fund anything significant, or
	halfway measures, as illustrated by post-Apollo budgets...

	"...It is in the interest of all Americans to diversify space
	activities from `things done for their own sake' and limited
	budgets to services, manufacturing, and primary resource
	extraction.  There will be a greater economic imperative to
	support basic space science as it supports further economic
	expansion into, and benefits from, the space frontier."

A distinctly disturbing letter from Louis Friedman of the Planetary
Society, advocating wholehearted focus on a manned Mars mission:

	"Much more knowledge needs to be gained from further lunar
	activities, but the simple initial exploration of the planet is
	behind us.  Humans have been to the Moon six times...  It is not
	a place crying out for further exploration..."

[There is no indication that he's joking.  I think he's serious.  Lordy.
See my latest signature.  I'll have more to say about this.  -- HS]

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 10 Jul 87 10:52:50 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Mariner Venus Used Light Pressure for Attitude control
To:           PFD@BROWNVM

I don't know about Mariner Mars, but Mariner Venus/Mercury definitely
*did* use light pressure on the vanes for attitude control, and it
worked very well.
    As you all recall, this is the mission where after the launch,
somebody (wish I could remember the name!) said, why not go for Mercury
after the Venus encounter, and pointed out that a gravity slingshot
would easily make Mercury, and that furthermore, once at Mercury, a
resonant orbit could be established which repeated encounters with
Mercury (I think in 3:2 synch, which would be every ca. 160 days)
    This was, by the way, the first probe in which such a gravity
slingshot maneuver was used.
     Since the probe was not designed with attitude control fuel for
much past the original Venus encounter, light pressure was used to
supplement the attitude thrusters.  After about three Mercury
encounters, the fuel gave out for good.  As an experiment, they tried
holding attitude on light pressure alone, but this turned out to be too
hard.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 87 19:58:29 GMT
From: lll-winken!uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@lll-lcc.arpa  (Mike Trout)
Subject: SPOT

The evening of 7 July, ABC News broadcast a news special about the
Persian Gulf.  Included were photographic images of the gulf, which ABC
claims were supplied under contract from the French SPOT satellite.

The images displayed were absolutely ASTONISHING.  I've never seen
anything like them outside of the most extravagant special effects in
high-budget sci-fi movies.  They appeared as sharp as a 35mm print, as
brilliantly colored as VG-R film, and more useable than any satellite
photos I've ever seen before.  It even seemed like the images (the
satellite?) could be panned, rotated, and zoomed, while maintaining
their eye-popping quality.

I've read a little about this satellite, but not much.  Sci.space
sometimes has references.  I understand that it's very easy and cheap to
contract with SPOT for photos of any location on earth, with delivery
within a very short time.

Would someone (Harry?) please post some details on SPOT?  Is it really
as advanced as it seems?  Is the USA incapable of producing such a
satellite, or do ours only work for our military megamachine?  Does NASA
give a flying hoot about how incompetent this makes them look?

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 08:01:26 GMT
From: khayo@locus.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: SPOT

In article <1372@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
>The evening of 7 July, ABC News broadcast a news special about the
>Persian Gulf.  Included were photographic images of the gulf, which ABC
>claims were supplied under contract from the French SPOT satellite.
>
>The images displayed were absolutely ASTONISHING.  I've never seen
>anything like them outside of the most extravagant special effects in
>high-budget sci-fi movies.  They appeared as sharp as a 35mm print, as
>brilliantly colored as VG-R film, and more useable than any satellite
>photos I've ever seen before.  It even seemed like the images (the
>satellite?) could be panned, rotated, and

It's funny how different impressions can be; I thought that those
pictures were second-rate, especially after seeing some photographs
taken with a Hasselblad from the Skylab. I'm sure that SPOT is able to
produce images much more detailed than those shown, which were almost
certainly digitized photographs of n-th generation (rotation & scaling -
come on, even an IBM PC can do it :-)). I'm not trying to sound ironic
or anything like that, it's just that I've seen the same program on a
Sony monitor on a day when our cable operator seemed to be very sober,
for a change, and I really have a totally different memory of these
pictures. I'd be curious to hear other opinions.

>Would someone (Harry?) please post some details on SPOT?  Is it really
>as advanced as it seems?  Is the USA incapable of producing such a
>satellite, or do ours only work for our military megamachine?  Does
>NASA give a flying hoot about how incompetent this makes them look?

As far as I know, there's a big issue made of this by DoD & Co.; the
folks down there would like to claim their exclusive rights on high
quality space pictures, and I can (to some degree) understand this
position. But I also seem to recall reading that US military (or "spy")
satellites of the current generation (Keyhole ?) have resolution higher
by an order of magnitude than the commercial ones, like SPOT. This,
coupled with tricky image processing that even JPL may not have heard
about, would give pictures that Koppel and Jennings could give their
tongues for. Let's hear from the experts!
                                   Eric

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 15:41:03 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: SPOT

The SPOT satellite is not wildly different from Landsat.  The things
which were impressing you were all added by computer, given the original
SPOT image.

There is a great JPL film which gives a tour of L.A. as seen from the
air at low altitude which is derived from data from an imaging radar
satellite.  Radar has the advantage for that purpose that you can tell
the elevations of objects.  SPOT photos don't have that capability
(unless they use stereo pairs) but elevations may be entered by hand.  I
am not sure, but it looked to me as if the ABC animation just ignored
elevations and simply applied perspective.

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 87 17:17:41 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: SPOT and other things

SPOT: description on News, etc.

You can learn more about SPOT by contacting the French Space Agency.
(Exercise for the reader).  I was in grad school during the planning
phase and the US military was very upset on the decisions of resolution.
Dave Palmer mentioned the radar images of LA, this was a project I
worked on, and we were asked by the Navy to decrease the resolution
(Landsat is about 75 m per side pixels and SEATSAT was 25 m, and SPOT is
less).  Everybody has heard of military satellites with "fantastic"
resolution.  There is a book entitled Deep Black regarding the
accidental de-classification of a 1 ft resolution image in AW&ST.  1 ft
resolution is not impressive, but there are certain things in the image
which to a trained photointerpreter are very impressive.  Note: all of
this is in black and white, SPOT and Landsat are it regarding color
resolution.  You can take classes all over the country in satellite
image processing, intepretation, (also for aerial photos, etc.).  You
learn there are tradeoffs (better resolution does not necessarily mean
better images, especially with very long wavelength phenomena [which is
why the oceanographic satellite was launched]).  It would take too long
to discuss these tradeoffs.  There are some impressive photo
interpreters out there.  You can show them an image, and they know where
it is on earth based on various cues.  There are also many political
problems like the non-violation of "airspace."  Geez, this seems like de
jevu to me....

On another note: I have just received an 18 MB tape from Ted Anderson,
and I will scan it for the composition of the proposed "network memory"
project I had in mind.  (I have to read all that? ;-) Thank god for
grep!

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames
  (Maybe we should discuss the advantages of dissolving NASA in favor of
   military space [which I was just reading a book about another
   suggestion like this])

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 13 Jul 87 18:10:15 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: SPOT
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Radar has the advantage for that purpose that you can tell the
> elevations of objects.  SPOT photos don't have that capability (unless
> they use stereo pairs)...

I forgot about this.  Oh, really?  How ambiguity resolving techniques
are you refering to?  Can you get all azimuth AND range ambiguities?
Let's get some of that classified military info out into the open!

Henry mentions stereo pairs.  Landsat can do a degree of this too, but
in neither case are the systems optimized to do stereo.  They are both
kludges.  There is a proposed Stereo-Sat on the boards.  It depends on
what you wish to use stereo for.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center		eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 18:40:33 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPOT

> Radar has the advantage for that purpose that you can tell the elevations
> of objects.  SPOT photos don't have that capability (unless they use stereo
> pairs)...

Spot can and does do stereo pairs.
-- 
Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #284
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Jul 87 06:21:11 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01611; Thu, 16 Jul 87 03:18:23 PDT
	id AA01611; Thu, 16 Jul 87 03:18:23 PDT
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 03:18:23 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707161018.AA01611@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #285

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 285

Today's Topics:
			       Re: SPOT
			 Re: Opinions wanted
			       Re: SPOT
			    getting places
			  Re: Profit & Space
			 Re: Overpopulation?
			 Re: Overpopulation?
			  Interstellar Dust
		     Escape modules for shuttle?
  Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle?
   Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttl
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 18:50:22 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SPOT

> ... seemed like the images (the satellite?) could be panned, rotated,
> and zoomed, while maintaining their eye-popping quality.

This will be just postprocessing.  Spot images, like Landsat images, are
effectively photographs, not real-time video.

> Would someone (Harry?) please post some details on SPOT?  Is it really
> as advanced as it seems? ...

Spot is basically just Landsat done better, with somewhat higher
resolution and some other useful flourishes like being able to "tilt the
camera" a bit to look at things that aren't directly under the satellite
(this also lets you view the same scene from different angles, for 3-D
imaging).  Spot's technology is a bit better than Landsat's, but not
sensationally so.  The US could have done the same thing if there had
been money and bureaucratic approval.  The latter is not to be taken for
granted -- the US government and the US military in particular have had
such capabilities for quite a while, and would very much prefer to
retain a monopoly on them.  From the the viewpoint of some Spot users,
much the most useful thing about Spot is that it is not under US
government control.

> ... Does NASA give a flying hoot about how incompetent this makes them
> look?

NASA is pretty much out of the remote-sensing business except for
experimental work on new technologies.  This is as it should be, but the
US has really been botching the handling of operational use of the old
technologies.

Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 17:43:53 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted

In article <870629-144954-3045@Xerox>, "Leeanna_Dibrell.OsbuSouth"@XEROX.COM writes:

> Dream Segment 2

> Quick shift: I was taken to observe a tornado.  I was told that the way
> to "diffuse" this terrible and destructive storm was the "run the energy
> around in reverse" down the center.  Then I was shown this and it did.

> Question:  Would such a thing be possible, if so, how?

Back in my undergrad days, I was involved in some tornado research
studies, and at that time (1973-74) assembled the most complete listing
of all tornado incidents in Oklahoma history.

The tornado is one of nature's greatest mysteries.  What causes
tornadoes, or even what they are, are issues hotly debated by the
world's leading meteorological scientists.  Most agree, however, that
tornadoes are a result of extreme instability in the atmosphere
associated with abnormally violent thunderstorms.  When you see a
tornado you are seeing only a tiny fraction of the mammoth forces that
are driving it.  It would seem that in order to do something about a
tornado, you would need to deal with the energy of a thunderstorm.  Most
mega-thunderstorms have energy levels that exceed even that of a nuclear
blast; the idea of somehow coping with that amount of energy sounds
rather difficult to me.

Please note that my information is dated.  Although I've subscribed to
NOAA's _Storm_Data_ since then, I haven't been keeping up with the
latest research.  It's possible that some major conclusions have been
reached.  I know that Dr.  Theodore Fujita of the University of Chicago
(probably the world's leading tornado expert and the inventor of the
Fujita Scale for measuring tornado intensity) has been working
tirelessly on the subject for many years.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 22:40:17 GMT
From: jplgodo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Ted Sweetser x44989 301/167)
Subject: Re: SPOT

In article <3192@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes:
> There is a great JPL film which gives a tour of L.A. as seen from the
> air at low altitude which is derived from data from an imaging radar
> satellite.  Radar has the advantage for that purpose that you can tell
> the elevations of objects.  SPOT photos don't have that capability
> (unless they use stereo pairs) but elevations may be entered by hand.
> I am not sure, but it looked to me as if the ABC animation just
> ignored elevations and simply applied perspective.

A relatively minor correction: the film actually used a color Landsat
photo combined in the computer with high resolution Air Force elevation
data for the L.A. basin.  It took five and a half days of computer
processing (Sun 2) to generate the two-minute videotape, recorded a
frame at a time.  It's a remarkable film.  SPOT photos have considerably
better resolution than Landsat.

	- Ted Sweetser (jplgodo!ted)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 13:53:05 GMT
From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: getting places

In article <224323.870707.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> you write:
>> (3) Build space habitats rather than ships.  Much less expensive
>>     because no motors, no fuel, no structural requirement to
>>     withstand acceleration, ...
>
>That's more like it.  But there is no reason a hollow astesoid can't
>be propelled at perhaps 1/1000 G.  You can get anywhere at that
>acceleration if you are patient enough.  And you don't need much
>structural support, reaction mass, energy, or sheilding.

perhaps, given that "anywhere" is changed to "anywhere you want" Next
question: Why go anywhere?  At 1/1000G, most people involved will not
see anything they can't here, and generations will see nothing.  To put
in the effort to physically stabilize the fragile shell, & to provide
the effort of propulsion, you better come up with a reason to leave, not
a reason to get somewhere, since the folks concerned will _NOT_ get
somewhere.

(You will need structural support.  Rock may be strong, but you are
talking megatons mass, and kilotons weight (at 1/1000G.  You will need
lots of reaction mass & energy.  At any instant, no.  But just a little
of a few thousand years mounts up.  Shielding, however, should be no
problem at all....)
 
...unless they live a LLLOOOOOOOONNNNNNNGGGGGGGGG time :^) 

James W. Meritt

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 18:10:44 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: Profit & Space

In article <317@louie.udel.EDU>, farber@udel.EDU (Dave Farber) writes:

> Dont be too sure about a executive being sent packing when he makes such
> a big error . Historically in American business that just does not
> work that way. Look at Xerox and SDS. Did the Xerox President get
> fired no sir!!. He stayed on till retirement. 

And don't forget that even when idiot managers do get the ax, the ax is
made of marshmallow.  Severance packages containing more money than you
and I will ever see in a lifetime, stock ownership deals, recommendation
letters that have no mention of the manager's incompetence, etc., etc...
For nearly ten years I worked for a company that started out brillantly
but mismanaged itself into near-bankruptcy.  The last few years I was
there, the company was operated by a group of morons that defied
description.  I wish I was joking, but I'm not when I say that a
batallion of baboons would have done a better job.  And not one of the
microcephalous slime molds that wrecked the company ever suffered for
his idiodicies.  They would each work for about a year before being
fired and replaced by the next fool, but each firing was accompanied by
a gigantic severance check that could have saved the company if it had
been spent on capital improvements, more employees, better procedures,
etc.  The only people that ever suffered were the poor workers who were
laid off in hundreds or who had to work under unbearable conditions if
they survived the massive layoffs.  One of the managers took his
severance check and started a software house in California, but was
found floating in San Francisco Bay with a bullet in his head after he
started fooling around with his married secretary.

Hey, what's this doing in sci.space?

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 11 Jul 87 12:20:37 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Overpopulation?
To: LOCAL.arpa!jwm@aplvax.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: ucbcad!ames!gatech!oddjob!mimsy!aplcen!aplvax!LOCAL.arpa!jwm@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Meritt)
>
> Next question:  Why go anywhere?  At 1/1000G, most people involved
> will not see anything they can't here, and generations will see nothing.

1) If the solar system becomes overcrowded, they may wish to go to
   another one.

2) Curiosity, adventure, fame.

3) Habitats may trade valuable information with eachother.  Even today,
   much that is paid for is information rather than goods or services.
   Going to another solar system, or even to the far outer portions of
   this one, will allow them to collect very valuable information that 
   is useful for trading.  And there should be no major problem in
   communicating over interstellar distances.  Existing radio telescopes
   can communicate with a similar device thousands of light years away.

4) If they have everything they need with them - family, friends, energy,
   matter - moving to another solar system should be less of a disruption
   than moving across the country.  So why not?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 15:01:31 GMT
From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
Subject: Re: Overpopulation?

Sorry about posting an answer here, but my mailer is fubbed duck:

From: ucbcad!ames!gatech!oddjob!mimsy!aplcen!aplvax!LOCAL.arpa!jwm@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU (Jim Meritt)
> Next question: Why go anywhere?  At 1/1000G, most people involved will
> not see anything they can't here, and generations will see nothing.

>1) If the solar system becomes overcrowded, they may wish to go to
>   another one.

>2) Curiosity, adventure, fame.

>3) Habitats may trade valuable information with eachother.  Even today,
>   much that is paid for is information rather than goods or services.
>   Going to another solar system, or even to the far outer portions of
>   this one, will allow them to collect very valuable information that 
>   is useful for trading.  And there should be no major problem in
>   communicating over interstellar distances.  Existing radio telescopes
>   can communicate with a similar device thousands of light years away.

>4) If they have everything they need with them - family, friends, energy,
>   matter - moving to another solar system should be less of a disruption
>   than moving across the country.  So why not?
>								...Keith

Answers:

1) "If overcrowded" Given that they live in a habitat, you are talking
about the volume of the solar system ...  too much room available for
"overcrowding"

2) "curiosity, adventure, fame" in "generation ships" most of the people
will see nothing but empty space, or anyone but their own neighbors.
Fame to who?

3) "information trade" This one isn't bad, but will take some real
long-range planners, of which we have a shortage.

4) "why not?"  It would take a lot of work & energy to modify one of
these monsters for travel and go with it.  Paid by people who will not
see any return at all.

I think that 5), which you missed, would be a better reason.  It is,
after all, the primary reason that the current colonies were made: To
get away from something (generally political) you don't like.  Not
crowding, just don't get along with your neighbors.  Stuff like wrong
religion, prejudice, hate, and poor environmental conditions (nuclear
missles).

...Jim

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 18:22:06 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Interstellar Dust

Some time ago there was a discussion of the possible limits to fast
interstellar travel set by collisions with solid particles. This posting
is a summary of our current knowledge of such particles.

Present data on interstellar particles come from three sources: 1)
Observations of dimming, reddening, and polarization of light of distant
stars.  These observations are primarily in visible light but include
ultraviolet and some infrared data.  Dust has its strongest effect on
light with a wavelength equal to the circumference of the dust particle,
so these observations tell us directly about dust grains with radii of
order 0.1 micron or or mass ~1E-14 grams.  2) Knowledge of "heavy
element" abundances from a wide variety of spectroscopic observations.
(Astronomers call everything but hydrogen and helium a "heavy element"
or sometimes a "metal", as in "metal abundance.")  Heavy elements make
up about 3% of the mass of most stars in our region of the Milky Way and
about the same fraction of the parts of the interstellar medium we can
examine. Hydrogen and helium don't form solid particles (at least in
interstellar space), so 3% is an upper limit on the fraction of dust.  A
completely naive first guess might be that half of the heavy elements
are in the form of dust.  Astonishingly enough, this guess appears to be
pretty good in most parts of the interstellar medium.  3) Depletion of
heavy elements from the gas phase.  One can measure the abundance of
many gas-phase elements along the line of sight to a few bright stars.
(Many of the best measurements were made by the now-defunct Copernicus
satellite.)  One finds that certain elements are consistently below the
abundance expected, and the amounts of depletion correlate with the
amount of absorption of starlight by dust.  The natural conclusion is
that the missing elements have been incorporated into the dust grains.

In spite of the varieties of information, almost nothing is directly
known about dust grains larger than a couple of microns (~1E-10 g) or
so.  The best that can be done is to combine the limit from item 2 above
with estimates of gas density.  These estimates come from radio
observations of neutral and ionized hydrogen, radio observations of
carbon monoxide and other molecules, and optical and ultraviolet
observations of many elements and some molecules mentioned in 3) above.
The results are that the interstellar medium is very clumpy, ranging
from densities of 1E-2 H atoms per cm^3 inside the shell of supernova
remnants to 1E5 in the densest molecular clouds.  However, a typical
density in regions near the Sun is about 1 atom per cm^3.  Thus a
typical density of solid particles is 2E-26 g cm^-3.

How might this affect interstellar travel?  Consider a journey of 1
parsec (=~3.3 light years or 3E18 cm; alpha Centauri is about 1.3 pc
away).  Assume a ship with a cross section area of 100 m^2 = 1E6 cm^2.
The volume swept out will be 3E24 cm^3, and about 0.1 g of material will
be encountered.  Most of the hits will be by very small particles, but
one could expect a few particles in the milligram range.  Hits by
gram-size particles appear unlikely, but depending on the (currently
unknown) particle size distribution, but they may be sufficiently
probable to warrant design consideration.

Note that the estimate of particle density above is an average; values
for flights to specific stars might differ by an order of magnitude.
And no doubt much better data will be available by the time we are ready
to consider an interstellar flight seriously.

Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 00:34:08 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA  (MacLeod)
Subject: Escape modules for shuttle?

A friend of mine who has worked with NASA says that the problem with escape
devices is the very, very hot plume of aluminum oxide particles from the
solid-stage boosters.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Jul 87 01:18:27 GMT
From: nysernic!itsgw!cieunix!philhowr@rutgers.rutgers.edu  (Bob Philhower)
Subject: Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle?

In article <557@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>, dleigh@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Darren Leigh) writes:
> A friend and I were wondering the other day:  NASA has a destruct
> mechanism built into their unmanned launches in case they go out of
> control.  What about manned launches, particularly the space shuttle?

I remember reading that all manned launches also had the destruct 
mechanism with the exception of the LEM.  Because the LEM only launched
from the lunar surface, the destruct mechanism would be of questionable
value and could have resulted in disaster.


					bob

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 04:45:02 GMT
From: imagen!atari!portal!cup.portal.com!Charlie_Alan_Bounds@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttl

Darren Leigh writes:
> A friend and I were wondering the other day: NASA has a destruct
> mechanism built into their unmanned launches in case they go out of
> control.  What about manned launches, particularly the space shuttle?

You bet!!  When the Challenger blew, her boosters survived and took off
on their own.  When one of them threatened to come inland mission
control destroyed it.  I don't know about the main vehicle but blowing
an attached booster is bound to finish the entire shuttle launch system.
If I was in mission control I'd hate to have that button on my console.

Charlie Bounds     Charlie@cup.portal.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #285
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Jul 87 06:19:25 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03590; Fri, 17 Jul 87 03:16:44 PDT
	id AA03590; Fri, 17 Jul 87 03:16:44 PDT
Date: Fri, 17 Jul 87 03:16:44 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707171016.AA03590@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #286

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 286

Today's Topics:
     Official press release (really corrected one) Atlas Centaur
		       shuttle destruct systems
		  Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise???
		  Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise???
		      Re: free enterprise space
	     Mobile receivers for audio satellite signals
			free enterprise space
			      bandwidth
			 Re: free enterprise
			   Space Economics
		      What is going on here????
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 87 17:58:04 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Official press release (really corrected one) Atlas Centaur

  Four dead?

This was what was officially released by Hugh Harris at KSC to the NASA
internal network.  (Actually the second of two due to a typo.)  Some of
you might recognize the name as the voice you hear during most launches.

--eugene
=====================================================================

Subject: Re: AC-68 UPDATE CORRECTIONS

THIS IS A CORRECTION TO THIS REPORT:

THE HYDROGEN TANK PRESSURE DIFFERENTIAL ALLUDED TO IN THE SECOND
PARAGRAPH IS 5 PSI, NOT 12 PSI.  IT IS THE OXYGEN TANK IN WHICH THERE IS
A 12 PSI DIFFERENTIAL.
 
___________________________

THIS IS A FOLLOW-ON TO THE PRESS ADVISORY ISSUED EARLIER TODAY ON AN
INCIDENT AT ATLAS CENTAUR LAUNCH COMPLEX 36.

     At 11 a.m. EDT today, while removing a service platform in
preparation for lifting the Centaur stage to troubleshoot a liquid
oxygen leak, a workstand contacted the surface of the stage and caused a
rupture of the hydrogen tank of the centaur.
     The tank is a very thin-walled structure (.014 of an inch thick
stainless steel) that is maintained at 12 pounds per square inches above
ambient pressure to provide structural strength.  Extensive hydrogen
tank damage resulted from pressure release of the tank.  The remainder
of the stage appears undamaged at this time.
     There were minor injuries to four General Dynamics Space Division
technicians as they made a quick departure of the area.

	# # # # #

Note:  All four GD techs were treated at the area and released.
     There were no propellants aboard the Centaur stage.

THE UNDERLINE SHOULD READ KSC PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICE 1P.M. EDT
MONDAY, JULY 13, 1987.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Jul 87 18:48:24 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: shuttle destruct systems

> A friend and I were wondering the other day: NASA has a destruct
> mechanism built into their unmanned launches in case they go out of
> control.  What about manned launches, particularly the space shuttle?

There are destruct systems on *every* substantial rocket launched in the
US -- range-safety rules demand it.  This includes all manned flights.

The shuttle has destruct systems in the SRBs and the tank; there is none
in the orbiter (I believe NASA had to argue with the USAF range-safety
people about this).  Each SRB has a linear shaped charge in its
fore-and-aft wiring duct, which operates by splitting the SRB casing
open.  I forget just where the External Tank charges are, but they are
designed to rupture the tanks.  The Rogers commission expressed some
doubts that the ET charges are really necessary, as I recall, although I
don't think NASA plans any immediate changes.

The above is from memory; I might have a detail or two wrong.

Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 12 Jul 87 01:22:01 GMT
From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@eddie.mit.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise???

> That is correct... Enterprise was used to test metal fatigue from
> vibration TO FAILURE...

References please, I don't remember Enterprise being used for anything
like that.

> (Also was never the same design as any of the flying orbiters, never
>  being intended to go into space... purely an aerodynamic test bed.)

Sorry, WRONG, unless NASA was lying to the public at the time.  It was
stated, openly and repeatedly, that Enterprise would be rebuilt into a
functional orbiter that would fly into space.  This was supposed to
happen a year or two after Columbia first flew.  Eventually, people
realized that Enterprise was too far overweight and below spec for this
to work.  The response was to ease up on the structural tests so that
the test airframe would be in flyable condition afterwards, and use it
as the basis for Challenger.  References on request.

Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 13:26:33 GMT
From: cca!mirror!hpwalf!boba@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bob Alexander)
Subject: Re: New Orbiter from Enterprise???

In article <8287@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Sorry, WRONG, unless NASA was lying to the public at the time.  It was
>stated, openly and repeatedly, that Enterprise would be rebuilt into a
>functional orbiter that would fly into space.  This was supposed to
>happen a year or two after Columbia first flew.

I still have newspaper clippings stating that the Enterprise would be
the first shuttle launched into space.  NASA has done a great PR job in
getting everyone to forget that.  In my book, NASA has a very poor
record of telling the truth ever since they predicted the shuttle would
be an inexpensive launcher.

Bob Alexander   Hewlett-Packard   Waltham, MA   ...hplabs!hpwala!boba

------------------------------

Date: 7 Jul 87 22:57:52 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@lll-lcc.arpa  (Peter DaSilva)
Subject: Re: free enterprise space

> 2.  There are plenty of industries which are doing very well despite
> government taxation and regulation.  I just read that Microsoft's
> founder just became the country's youngest billionaire.  The
> automobile industry is one of the most regulated industries in history
> and yet Ford recently announced record earnings.  The airline industry
> is also heavily taxed and regulated but Frank Lorenzo seems to be
> doing OK.
>  
>   I think this is all a smokescreen.

Damn right it's a smokescreen... none of these industries are as heavily
regulated as the private launch vehicle industry (such as it is). The
common dictum is that when the weight of the paperwork reaches the
weight of the vehicle, it's time to launch. The airline and auto
industries were started at a time of minimal regulation, and the startup
costs of a computer house are minimal compared to those of StarStruck.
Or are you saying that the capital required to start a space company is
of the same magnitude as that required to start Apple, Microsoft, or
even Apollo? Finally, which of these industries is forced to compete
with a heavily subsidised monopoly like NASA?

Peter da Silva

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 12 Jul 87 21:18 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Mobile receivers for audio satellite signals

Thinking about space and profit, I asked myself if radio broadcasts from
space to cheap mobile receivers would be feasible.  Audio signals would
need a lot less bandwidth than TV signals, so the receivers could have
smaller antennas.  Geostar terminals are pretty small, I recall, and
nondirectional, too.  What is the bandwidth of that system?

Since mobile receivers would have to be nondirectional or be able to
track the beam, stationkeeping would not be as vital as with current
comsats.  It might make sense to place the satellites below
geostationary orbit, to get a smaller beam spotsize, and save on kick
motor mass.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@slb-doll.csnet

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 13:52:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: free enterprise space

> Or are you saying that the capital required to start a space company
> is of the same magnitude as that required to start Apple, Microsoft,
> or even Apollo?

  Just an aside... Apple is quite a bit bigger than Apollo.
 
> Finally, which of these industries is forced to compete with a heavily
> subsidised monopoly like NASA?

  In the package delivery service there are plenty of companies
  competing with the U.S. Postal Service and doing well at it.  Also,
  everyone keeps telling us how bureaucratized NASA is, so a private
  enterprise space delivery service ought to be able to operate much
  more efficiently, making up for the subsidies.  Also Boeing and
  McDonnel Douglas compete with the heavily subsidized Airbus Industries
  and Boeing, at least, looks like it will do all right.  Of course,
  some people consider both companies to be 'subsidized' in the sense
  that they get other business from the government.  So what?  Space
  companies could do the same.  Finally, bottom line: since Challenger,
  NASA hasn't been able to offer much service at *any* price.  If a
  commercial launch service existed now they could be cleaning up.
 
  My point is that the 'private enterprise in space' advocates are a lot
  of talk but most of that talk is excuses.  There are a lot of
  self-styled capitalists and free enterprise advocates and Libertarians
  here and elsewhere on the net who talk about how great things would be
  if we had a true free market economy.  But they always have a ready
  list of excuses when anyone asks why their theories don't become
  practice.  They want the government to just abdicate its role in
  various matters without their having to provide an alternative until
  *after* the fact.  I'm saying that if you are so sure you are right
  then show me a working free-enterprise alternative to government
  *first*, then we know we can dismantle the government program.

                                             --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 15:42:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Subject: bandwidth

>Thinking about space and profit, I asked myself if radio broadcasts
>from space to cheap mobile receivers would be feasible.  Audio signals
>would need a lot less bandwidth than TV signals, so the receivers could
>have smaller antennas.  Geostar terminals are pretty small, I recall,
>and nondirectional, too.  What is the bandwidth of that system?

   The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely
   related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration.  It has
   nothing to do with the bandwidth.
                                                 --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 14:42:30 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: free enterprise

In article <35e61d1d.44e6@apollo.uucp>, nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes:

> >Your understanding of the airline industry seems a bit off, since you
> >claim that it is an example of a regulated industry that is doing
> >well just because one man (Lorenzo) and one firm (Texas Air Corp) are
> >doing well. The industry is in the middle of DE-regulation, and Texas
> >Air is one of the few that is doing relativly well at the moment. The
> >rest of the industry is having massive problems due to the decline in
> >prices, and thus the decline in service quality.  I would suggest
> >that you research it before you use it as an example.

>   The main thing that was 'de-regulated' about the airline industry
>   was domestic fares.  International fares are still set by (usually
>   the foreign) government.  All other reporting, accounting, labor,
>   advertising, tax, employee training and certification, and safety
>   regulations are still in effect (as they should be).  Actually,
>   there are several airlines that are doing well.  No doubt, once the
>   shakeout is finished and the survivors get used to a more
>   competitive environment, the industry will be stronger.

I don't buy this AT ALL.  Route structures and scheduling were also
de-regulated, and this is one of the primary reasons for the chaotic
conditions at major airports (along with explosive industry growth and
air traffic controller shortages).  The "hub-and-spoke" scheduling
system, while helping airline equipment utilization, leads to incredible
traffic jams at hub airports and was one of the contributing factors in
the Delta Tristar crash at DFW.

The whole airline industry is a tottering house of cards.  The only
airlines that are making money are 1) ultra-low-cost (Continental,
Southwest) and 2) normal-cost lines that are keeping afloat by
subsidizing their losses through extremely high fares for business
travel (American).  The two-tier wage idea is dead; there are too many
new employees for it to be acceptable anymore.  The ultra-low-cost lines
are facing disaster within the next few years because their employees
have had enough of ridiculous wages and horrendous working conditions.
Strong, militant unions are inevitable.  And it won't be long before US
corporations begin waking up to the fact that they are paying way too
much for airfares.  How many times will Mr. Executive put up with paying
$690 for a seat while the guy sitting next to him paid $69?  After all
the layoffs and mergers, the next cost-cutting step for US corporations
will be their ridiculous travel expenses.  If you count total dollar
amount paid for tickets, airfares have gone UP, not down.  This trend
will continue as airlines scramble to do something about their
staggering debts and employee wage increase demands.  But at some point,
the irresistible force will meet the immovable object.

Everything is being cut to the bone.  Safety is rapidly approaching a
borderline area.  Newly hired pilots have only 10% of the experience
that new hires had ten years ago.  Pilots are now allowed to wear
corrective lenses.  Most airlines are adopting the "explosive growth"
strategy, putting themselves into massive debt by purchasing mammoth
fleets of aircraft with which to bury the competition, not to mention
buying up every other airline in sight.  This is causing a pilot
shortage of incredible proportions that will hit with full force in a
few years.  Already some flights on United have been cancelled when
fully loaded and fueled planes sat for hours while United scrambled to
find crews.  The pilot shortage will destroy the ultra-low-cost airlines
and demolish United and other lines' attempts to keep aircrew wages
down.  You all know that service has gone to hell.  Employees don't care
anymore.  The old ones don't have pride anymore since 1) their airlines
have been gobbled up by mergers or 2) their airlines are so massive they
feel like nothing more than a number.  Enormous numbers of new
employees, most in their teens or early twenties, are keeping their jobs
for a year or two and then going into better lines of work.  It's like
McDonald's of the air and it's getting worse.

Any federal regulations that still exist are not being adequately
enforced.  Uncle Ronnie laid off two-thirds of FAA inspectors and
politicized the rest.  The NTSB is on the verge of open revolt due to
their parent agency's politics.

De-regulation is a good idea, but it was done too rapidly.  It should
have been phased in slowly, step by step, with careful monitoring of all
events.  If current trends continue, by the year 2000 there will be two
airlines in the United States--United and American.  Fares will be
monopolized, service and safety will be terrible, and the government
will step in with some heavy-handed tactics that will start the whole
ridiculous cycle all over again.

Hey, what's this doing in sci.space?

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 87 14:55:19 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Space Economics

Just read an excellent article, "Economics on The Space Frontier: Can We
Afford it?" by Gordon R. Woodcock. This article was presented at the
annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, but I'm reading it in the May/June issue of "The High Frontier
Newsletter", the publication of the Space Studies Institute.

I highly recommend it as essential reading for anyone interested in the
subject.


					Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 21:19:26 GMT
From: uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: What is going on here????

	Look, something is really wrong here.  We've been saying all
along that NASA has grown fat in many areas and has all but lost its
effectiveness in most, but can this really be the cause of all these
accidents???  I just heard this morning that another Atlas (I'm pretty
sure it was an Atlas) blew up on the pad, killing 4 people (I think).
I'm not the kind of person to yell scandal but this is really getting
ridiculous, and I'm just about ready to believe anything, including
sabotage.  I'm telling myself that I just pay more attention now and
that the failure rate has always been this high but I just never noticed
it...  Is this true?  has the failure rate for NASA really gone way up
recently???

Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #286
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Jul 87 06:19:48 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05237; Sat, 18 Jul 87 03:17:09 PDT
	id AA05237; Sat, 18 Jul 87 03:17:09 PDT
Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 03:17:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707181017.AA05237@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #287

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 287

Today's Topics:
		 Long-awaited Chicago NCOS symposium
		      Re: You Were Born Too Soon
		       Brainstorm - Commitment
		     Re:  May 11 short editorial
		 Re: Aircars and Futures of the Past
		      Re: You Were Born Too Soon
			   solar sail race
		      Re: You Were Born Too Soon
      Manned vs. Unmanned space a letter from J. Pierce, Science
			 Re: solar sail race
			       Idea...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 14-JUL-1987 16:49 CDT
From: <HIGGINS%FNALB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  Long-awaited Chicago NCOS symposium

Chicago is at last holding a public symposium on the National Commission
on Space report.  The National Space Society organized a series of
symposia last fall in various cities, with grants provided by various
aerospace companies.  Despite the fact that Chicago is the third most
populous city in the nation, it wasn't included because no big aerospace
company is based here.  So we've had to finance it from the local NSS
chapter budget, and charge a small admission.  But it's coming together
at last; I proudly present the press release below.
                                Bill Higgins
                                Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
===========================================================================
                        Chicago Space Frontier Society
                                     and
                      Chicago Society for Space Studies
                                   present:

                        PIONEERING THE SPACE FRONTIER

Chicagoans will get a chance to hear nationally recognized space experts
discuss the prospects for a vigorous American space program on Saturday,
July 25, 1987.  The symposium "Pioneering the Space Frontier" will be
held from 10 A.M. to 1 P.M. in the Simpson Auditorium at the Field
Museum of Natural History in Chicago, and will highlight the recent
recommendations of the National Commission on Space. Admission is $4 per
person.

The presentation will feature Dr. David Webb, Chairman of Space Studies
at the University of North Dakota and a member of the National
Commission on Space.  Dr. Webb will discuss the Commission's report
regarding a bold program of civilian space efforts through the year
2035, which could include space stations, aerospace planes, outposts on
the Moon, and exploration of Mars, the asteroids, and other planets. The
report, PIONEERING THE SPACE FRONTIER, has been published by Bantam
Books.

Also on the panel is John Soldner, Deputy Project Manager for Advanced
Studies at Science Applications International in Schaumburg, Illinois.
Mr. Soldner will present studies his company has made on missions to
Mars.  Other featured speakers are Dr. Mel Ulmer, an X-ray astronomer at
Northwestern University in Evanston, and Frederik Pohl, an award-winning
science fiction novelist, editor, and futurist. Speakers will answer
questions from the audience.

Tickets for the symposium may be purchased at the door.  The Simpson
Auditorium's doors are on the west side of the Museum. This event is
part of a nationwide celebration of Spaceweek, July 19th through 25th--
the 18th anniversary of the first Apollo landing on the Moon. The
symposium is co-sponsored by Chicago Space Frontier and the Chicago
Society for Space Studies, two local groups which have for many years
promoted interest in space development. For more information, write
Chicago Space Frontier, Box 64397, Chicago, IL 60602-0397, or call
(312)373-0349.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 16:59:29 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!myers@csvax.caltech.edu  (Bob Myers)
Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon

In article <870708.13490113.014343@L66B.CP6> Frank-Mayhar%LADC@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Frank Mayhar) writes:
>What exasperates me is listening to those people who want to take my
>dream away.  Since I was in the second grade, I've dreamed about going
>into space.  Like most of the readers of this newsgroup, I remember
>watching Neil Armstrong make that last little hop to the Moon, and
>wishing it was me.  By all signs, we could have been there now, if the
>original plans hadn't been scrapped by self-serving politicians and
>bureaucrats.  Instead, here we all are, watching the Soviets pass us,
>realizing that the only chance we had of getting there in our lifetimes
>was thrown away by self-serving fools whose only desire is for more
>personal power, regardless of the consequences.

You want the taxpayers to pay for the development of space just so you
can go out there, and you call the bureaucrats self-serving?

Try not to be so hypocritical.

Listen, I'm highly sympathetic to your dream. I didn't know anybody more
into space then I was when I was growing up. It goes back as far as I
can remember, before second grade. I'm not asking you to give up your
dreams.

But I hardly think you have the moral authority to criticize someone
else's actions as self-serving.

Bob Myers                                         myers@tybalt.caltech.edu
					...seismo!tybalt.caltech.edu!myers

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 14:33:03 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Brainstorm - Commitment

There is a lot of debate going on in the space community about where we
should go from here, back to the Moon or to Mars. (My personal
preference would be to concentrate on LOW COST to LEO and worry about
heading out later.) The debate is healthy. It is all right for
intelligent people of integrity to have differing views.  What is
important, however, is that a commitment to a program that expands our
ability to live, work, grow, and develop in space is made.

It is very likely that we will be going nowhere (perhaps a more accurate
statement would be that we will continue building up a military presents
in space no real civilian program) unless that commitment is made. I
have read hundreds of ideas on this net from dozens of people on what we
should be doing. Lets get a brainstorming session on HOW DO WE GET THE
COMMITMENT?

RULES FOR BRAINSTORMING.

	1. No idea is too stupid.
	
	2. No one is premitted to criticize any idea.
	   (I know this is hard on the net, but if anybody flames you
	    and you had the the word Brainstorm in your subject line
	    just flush them to /dev/null)
	
	3. No negatives. ( I don't want to hear, "It can't be done because
	 ..... What I want to hear is how it might be done.)
	
Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 18:39:38 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re:  May 11 short editorial

> ... We don't have time to build an
> infrastructure first, not if we're going to get beyond a Clarke orbit in
> the next 25 years...

We must build an infrastructure first, if we are going to *stay* beyond
Clarke orbit once we go.  The cutbacks after the Mars expedition will be
bigger and nastier than the ones after Apollo.

Mars must wait -- we have un-         Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
finished business on the Moon.     {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 13 Jul 87 17:08:20 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: Aircars and Futures of the Past

In article <8706280928.AA05597@angband.s1.gov>, HIGGINS@FNALC.BITNET writes:

> predicted.  Recently I prepared an hour-long slide lecture on flying
> cars-- "Doorman, Call Me an Aircar!"-- and I've delivered it at a
> couple of science fiction conventions.

Hey, Bill, sounds like fun!  How about posting a schedule of where/when
you may be giving this lecture in the future?

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 14:58:40 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon

in article <870708.13490113.014343@L66B.CP6>, Frank-Mayhar%LADC@HI-MULTICS.ARPA (Frank Mayhar) says:
-- If I sound disillusioned, I am.  But at least let me keep my "unrealistic"

The nicest thing you can do for your dream is to make it come true. What
are you personally doing to make your dream reality?  Who do you vote
for?  What organizations do you actively support?  To misquote without
Reference

	"If you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem."

I admit that I don't do that much, but I do consider the attitude toward
space people I vote for, I am actively involved in space related
activities through the AIAA, I have taken vacation time to help high
school students with space related educational projects. I do what I can
and feel guilty that I don't do more.

Having a dream is easy, making sure the dream out lives the dreamer,
that takes work.

Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 87 13:15:07 GMT
From: rlgvax!golds@seismo.css.gov  (Rich Goldschmidt)
Subject: solar sail race

One way to capture public attention and enthusiasm for space might be a
sports event in space.  A solar sail race to the moon might be just the
thing.  The cost to support an entry would be about the same order of
magnitude as an entry in the America's Cup race.  The sails would be
visible from earth (and individually identifiable with binoculars - see
that Rockwell logo).  There would be a large educational component to
the commentary, since the sport is relatively new and is a bit trickier
than a day on the bay.  The sails would be operated by remote control
from the ground.  I can imagine quite a few companies getting lots of PR
and product recognition through supporting an entry.  One of the big
questions is whether the America's Cup elimination formula is the right
form of preliminary.  I would like to see some good competition,
including competitors from different nations, and I would expect at
least a few government sponsored teams.  I think it will take a few
years and a bit more excess launch capacity.  And I think it has a real
potential to get ordinary people involved, providing entertainment,
education, and advertising, as well as technical experience in one
method of space travel.  This is not a novel suggestion either.  I first
read a similar suggestion quite a few years ago in an IEEE newsletter.
The recent comments on solar sails reminded me of this idea, and getting
average people enthusiastic about space is important.

Rich Goldschmidt
seismo!rlgvax!golds

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 87 16:04:10 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!itsgw!nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@seismo.css.gov  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon

In article <395@esunix.UUCP> bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
>
>Having a dream is easy, making sure the dream out lives the dreamer,
>that takes work.

	This is so true.  I certainly hope that all the people in this
group who beleive that the space program needs help is doign all they
can.  This means writing your congrescritters, joining some space
group.  Get heard.  I know I sat idle for a while unitl Dale Amon
pointed out that I could get involved by starting a local chapter of
the NSS.  This I am doing.  Everyone should do something like this.
Join the local chapter of some space group in your area.  If there
isn't one, START ONE!  You'd be surprised how mnany people you can get
interested just by pushing them a little.  A lot of people think the
space program is important.  If you share the dream then you should be
doing something!!!!!!!  

Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 87 09:56:31 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Manned vs. Unmanned space a letter from J. Pierce, Science 

By way of background John Pierce is the Director of the Center for
Computer Research in Music at Stanford.  He is acknowledged
by some as the father of computer generated music.  Prior to that he was
a Professor of Electrical Engineering at the California Institute of
Technology and was the Chief Engineer at the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory/Caltech.  He was one of the Directors at Bell Laboratories.
He holds over 20 patents including satellite communications and the
travelling wave tube.  He has written numerous books on acoustics and
electronics.  The quote which stands in my mind [not that I agree
with it] "Funding artificial intelligence is stupidity" got me working
on the use of computing in aerospace.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames

Reproduced with permission
Science, v236, n4806, 5 June 1987, pp. 1161

Letter by John Pierce

Man's Role in Space

   Peter M. Banks and David C. Black (Perspective, 17 Apr., p 244) write
optimistically and philosophically about what might be gained through
manned research facilities in space.  James A. Van Allen has already
written factually (1) about what has been gained through unmanned
spacecraft and what further surely could be gained.  One might add that
that work (in which I participated some three decades ago)(2) led to new
and largely unforeseen technological applications of unmanned spacecraft
as communications satellites.  Since then earth observation satellites
of various sorts and navigation satellites have assumed great importance.

   Our present humiliating position is that exaggerated emphasis on
man-in-space has left us, temporarily, we hope, without any domestic
means for launching either scientific or technological spacecraft.

   Man-in-space is an old dream which I exploited in science fiction
(3) at a time when no one had thought of the new capabilities we have
seen in unmanned spacecraft.  The old dream of man-in-space,
magnificently realized in Apollo, has been extended in the Shuttle,
with an emphasis that has had disasterous consequences for our
exploration and exploitation of space.

Surely, the exploration of man's role in space is worthy of continued
and intense investigation.  The survivability of man-in-space, to which
Banks and Black give no emphasis, calls for continued and intense
investigation, but not at the cost of scientific and technological
benefits which we could attain through unmanned spacecraft -- if we had
the resouces to construct and launch them.

John R. Pierce
Center for Computer Research in Music and Acoustics and Dept. of Music
Stanford University
Stanford, CA 94305

References
(1) J. A. Van Allen, Science, 232, 1075 (1986).
(2) J. R. Pierce, The Beginnings of Satellite Communiations (San
Francisco Press, San Francisco, CA 1968).
(3) _______.  "Relics of the earth," Sci. Wonderstories, March 1930, p. 894.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 13:27:05 GMT
From: ihnp4!ho95e!slr@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Shelley.L.Rosenbaum)
Subject: Re: solar sail race

In article <550@rlgvax.UUCP>, golds@rlgvax.UUCP (Rich Goldschmidt) writes:
> 
> One way to capture public attention and enthusiasm for space might be a 
> sports event in space.  A solar sail race to the moon might be just the
> thing.

Many years ago, Arthur C. Clarke wrote a story on this premise,
called, "The Wind From the Sun."

> [...]  The sails would be operated by remote control from
> the ground.

This is the only difference from the story--in it, the sails
were personned.  (Hey, I'm not about to say, "manned.")

-- 
Shelley Rosenbaum; AT&T Bell Labs; (201) 949-3615
{ihnp4, allegra, cbosgd}!ho95c!slr

"Don't use your hands, son!  Use your entrenching tool."

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 17:22:25 GMT
From: uwmcsd1!leah!itsgw!nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Idea...


	I had an interesting idea of one way to possibly nudge our
government into realizing what truly bad shape we're in space-wise.
I think if they keep hearing from enough places eventually they'll get
the message.  They're not all as stupid as we color them, although
some are.  

	Put together a newsletter of space activities around the
world.  Put it out, say, once a week.  The point of this would be that
the soviets would probably dominate the newlestter, maybe a few pages
on what they've done each month, and maybe a paragraph on what we've
done, the amount of coverage being proportional to the amount being
done.  This newsletter would of course be prefaceds with something to
indicate that the purpose of it is not Soviet cheerleading or
propaganda but to stress the point that we are in trouble, especially
with respect to the Soviets.

	This is bnased on the belief that national prestige and a sort
of natural fear (? for lack of a better phrase) of the Soviet
"machine" is a prime motivator of these elected officials...

	Well, anyone have any comments on this?  Good/bad/maybe some
additions?  Anyone think it will work?


Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #287
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Jul 87 06:20:00 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06504; Sun, 19 Jul 87 03:16:42 PDT
	id AA06504; Sun, 19 Jul 87 03:16:42 PDT
Date: Sun, 19 Jul 87 03:16:42 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707191016.AA06504@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #288

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 288

Today's Topics:
	    Bargain rates for SDC; Case for Mars coming up
	Mariner Venus Used Light Pressure for Attitude control
			  Re: basic rocketry
			 Re: Opinions wanted
				 SPOT
			       Re: SPOT
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
			      Arms race
			    Several things
			     UK in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date:  Tue, 14-JUL-1987 17:23 CDT
From: <HIGGINS%FNALB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  Bargain rates for SDC; Case for Mars coming up

The special combined rate for joining the 1988 *and* 1989 Space Development
Conferences has been extended to 1 September 1987:

           $80 for members of sponsoring organizations, including the
	       National Space Society, the Space Studies Institute,
	       American Space Foundation, and many others
           $110 for nonmembers

Memberships WILL get higher after that!  This is a saving of at least
$15 below current membership rates and a small fortune below the
expensive at-the-door rates. Make checks payable to 1988 INT'L SPACE
DEVELOPMENT CONFERENCE.

The 1988 SDC will be held in Denver on Memorial Day weekend, 27-30 May,
1988.  The theme is "SPACE: The Next Renaissance," and the conference
will include tracks of technical, space education, activist, and
"socioeconomic" programming. There will also be a professional Space
Business Symposium, a design contest for using the External Tank, and an
art show.

Send checks or requests for information to:

1988 International Space Development Conference
P.O. Box 300572
Denver, Colorado 80218
(303)692-6788


The Chicago SDC will be held 26-29 May, 1989-- the twentieth summer
since Apollo 11-- at the Hyatt Regency O'Hare.  We will be looking back
at the past and forward to new developments (think the Shuttle will be
flying by then?).  For more information:

1989 Space Development Conference
P.O. Box 64397
Chicago, Illinois 60664-0397
(312)446-8343 evenings

Or send e-mail to HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET.
##############################################################################

I will be attending the Case for Mars conference in Boulder next week,
and I'd like to meet fellow netlanders.  Leave a message for me on the
conference's message board.  Please don't send e-mail; I'll have left
for Colorado by the time you read this.
                               Bill Higgins
                               Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                               HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 15 Jul 87 09:14 EDT
From: Chris Jones <clj@sapsucker.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: Mariner Venus Used Light Pressure for Attitude control
To: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

    Date:         Fri, 10 Jul 87 10:52:50 EDT
    From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

    I don't know about Mariner Mars, but Mariner Venus/Mercury definitely
    *did* use light pressure on the vanes for attitude control, and it
    worked very well.
True.
	As you all recall, this is the mission where after the launch,
    somebody (wish I could remember the name!) said, why not go for
    Mercury after the Venus encounter, and pointed out that a gravity
    slingshot would easily make Mercury, and that furthermore, once at
    Mercury, a resonant orbit could be established which repeated
    encounters with Mercury (I think in 3:2 synch, which would be every
    ca. 160 days)

No, they knew before launch what they were doing.  The probe was
designed from the beginning to go to Mercury.  The serendipitous part
was the realization that it would be possible to put the Mariner (10, by
the way) into an orbit with a period of 176 days, or 2 Mercury years, so
when Mariner reached perhelion again, Mercury would be there too.  In
this way, 3 fly-bys were achieved.  The last orbit was accomplished with
(I think) something like 3 oz. of fuel for manuevering, and solar
pressure was used extensively for attitude control.  This was possible
because the solar panels on Mariner were able to be twisted quite a bit,
such flexibility was useful since they had to provide power at distances
from the sun ranging from Earth's orbit to Mercury's orbit.  One
unfortunate aspect of the 2-1 ratio in Mercury orbits to Mariner orbits
is that Mercury has the curious property that 3 Mercury days are 2
Mercury years, so when Mariner showed up, it always got to see the same
half of the planet in sunlight.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 23:31:00 GMT
From: wsmith@m.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: basic rocketry

>What causes pogo?
>
>--JoSH

A more basic question:

	What is pogo?

Bill Smith
ihnp4!uiucdcs!wsmith
wsmith@a.cs.uiuc.edu
(please email your reply too, I don't read sci.space often enough to not miss 
it.  Thanks.)

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 87 06:26:16 GMT
From: hobbes!root@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (John Plocher)
Subject: Re: Opinions wanted

+---- Mike Trout writes the following in article <1388@brspyr1.BRS.Com> ----
| Leeanna Dibrell writes about her Dream:
| > Quick shift: I was taken to observe a tornado.  <how to diffuse it...>
| 
| Please note that my information is dated.
+----

The June 1987 National Geographic (Vol 171 No.6) has a very interesting
article on tornadoes (p. 690ff).  The pictures are worth the effort of
finding this issue!  They feature the NSSL in Norman, OK, the TOTO
observatory, intercept teams, etc.  Much more exciting than Clint
Eastwood reruns! :-)

John Plocher uwvax!geowhiz!uwspan!plocher  plocher%uwspan.UUCP@uwvax.CS.WISC.EDU

------------------------------

Date:  Wed, 15-JUL-1987 16:52 EDT
From: MICHAEL R. WADE ( GIPSY MANAGER ) <WADE%VTCS1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <space@angband.s1.gov>
Subject: SPOT

   I deal with SPOT image's on a daily basis at the Spatial Data
Analysis Laboratory at Virginia Tech.  Here's a little information on
the resolution obtained by the SPOT satellite.

    For PANCHROMATIC mode :

      Resolution :   6000 scanlines for 60 Km
                     At a 0 degree of incidence angle  10 meter resolution
                     At extreme off-nadir about 13.6 meter resolution.
                     ( For those who may not know, this is primarily due
		       to the curvature of the earth, although the
		       changing speed of the mirror sweeping back and
		       forth causes some differences as well ).

    For Multispectral mode :

      Resolution :   3000 scanlines for 60 Km.
                     20 meter resolution at 0 degree of incidence angle
                     27.2 at extreme off-nadir.

The images in both modes are resampled to provide even resolution across
the image.  I have been working with a picture of New York that is
phenomenal. All of the bridges are clearly visible as well as the Statue
of Liberty ( No details of course, but you can tell where it is ).  You
can request that certain area's be photographed at certain off-nadir
angles.  This is a big help for doing stereo work.  I also believe the
images are always at 9 am in the morning so that shadows should always
be consistent.  If you want more information about SPOT, there address
and number is as follows :

                        SPOT Image Corporation
                        1897 Preston White Drive
                        Reston, Virginia 22091-4326
                        ( 703 ) 620 - 2200

Michael Wade
Spatial Data Analysis Lab.
Virginia Polytechnical Institute & State University

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 20:20:00 GMT
From: m2c!frog!john@bu-cs.bu.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: SPOT

In article <8295@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Spot is basically just Landsat done better, with somewhat higher
>resolution The US could have done the same thing if there [were] money
>and bureaucratic approval.  The latter is not to be taken for granted
>-- the US government and the US military in particular have had such
>capabilities for quite a while, and would very much prefer to retain a
>monopoly on them.

There was an article in this week's Science News on the topic of news
media use of satellite images, which had some interesting points:

o The possibility exists for the news media to cause international
  incidents -- the favorite example was roughly, "What would have
  happened if Kennedy had not been able to mull the Cuban Missile Crisis
  over for 6 days because it had appeared on the Nightly News?"  Also,
  it is difficult to interpret satellite photos, especially if beating
  the Other News Organization is more important than being right.

o The cost of maintaining a news media only satellite is probably going
  to remain prohibitive for some time (high maintenance cost and rare
  use).

o The US DOD would really prefer that there were no imaging satellites
  not under their control, although more and more countries are getting
  to the point where they can launch their own; they could easily rent
  time to the media.

I can just see it -- the first operational test of SDI will not be
against the Soviets but against UPI...

John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

Doktor of the Forbidden Sciences

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 87 01:55:17 GMT
From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu  (Lawrence Crowl)
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

In article <1397@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
>In article <722@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>, kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml) writes:
>> Also, whatever happened to the big push for metric that we were
>> hearing back in the 70's?.
>As I recall, there is a law on the books, passed by Congress sometime
>in the mid-70s, committing the US to adopting the Metric System.  The
>law, however, contains no timetable nor enforcement provisions.

The US has been a metric country since the late 1800's.  The metric
system is the sole legal means of measurement in the US.  The English
units we all know and love are defined in terms of metric units and
serve as a convienent abbreviations.  (Just thought you ought to know
that the 10 yard line was just an abbreviation for the 9.144 meter
line!)  (Oops, for our European friends, the 9,144 meter line.  Or
should that be 9,144 metre line.  These things are never consistent!)

  Lawrence Crowl		716-275-8479	University of Rochester
		     crowl@cs.rochester.arpa	Computer Science Department
 ...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl	Rochester, New York,  14627

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 15:30:40 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

In article <722@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>, kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml) writes:

> Also, whatever happened to the big push for metric that we were
> hearing back in the 70's?.

As I recall, there is a law on the books, passed by Congress sometime in
the mid-70s, committing the US to adopting the Metric System.  The law,
however, contains no timetable nor enforcement provisions.

Carter set up a Metrification Board to begin the task of conversion.  A
few highway signs and such were changed, but the public opposition was
severe.  The board backed off, stating they would just do things like
issue press releases and give lectures, waiting until the public was
more receptive to the idea (no one knew when that might be).  I would
imagine that Uncle Ronnie has disbanded the board.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 00:22:16 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Arms race
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu

Sorry to send this to the whole list, but once again someone writes
with a bad address.

To:jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov

If you can think of a way to end the arms race, I would like to hear
it.  So would a lot of other people.

The way has to be agreed to by the Soviet government, and has to NOT
involve trusting the Soviets to keep their word.

It doesn't make any sense to suggest we compete in space exploration
instead of arms buildup.  Space exploration may gain us prestige, but
that is not the point in arms buildup.  In fact arms give us negative
prestige.  Prestige is nice, but not if it means sacrificing our
freedom.  There are no pacifist countries on Earth.  If there ever
were any, they have long since been overrun by less scrupulous neigbors.

I don't see any military use for a base on the moon.  It's too far from
the action.  Low Earth orbit has plenty of military uses, all of which
are denounced by most space advocates for reasons that aren't clear to
me.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 09:17:16 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Several things

Gee, I'm getting sucked back into the net.

Antenna: do you want the formula for the radar equation?  It's in
Sloknick, Introduction to Radar, 2nd. ed. (still old).  Do you need me
to mail to you?  I won't post it.

SPOT: Ralph Bernstein at IBM Palo Alto Scientific Center has a good old
story (which other friends will neither confirm nor deny).  During the
1960s down in Arizona where they ax up old bombers.  A sign with some
big lettering was pointed facing up into the sky with: IF YOU CAN READ
THIS (I wish I could embed a page break for all systems) YOU ARE WHERE
WE WERE TEN YEARS AGO.

Sail Races: Sounds neat, I'll crew.  We could do some simulation here
and at LLNL before hand (both used during Americas cup).


On other issues: No comment.

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 87 14:28:31 GMT
From: eagle!icdoc!aw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Weeks)
Subject: UK in space

>From Michael Trout:

>> I would include Black Knight and Blue streak here too,
>> even although they flew before being scrapped. (anyone
>> else remember them?)
>
>No, I don't.  Please post details.

Black Knight became Black Arrow. It launched a single satellite,
"Prospero", in 1971 from Woomera (?) in Australia. After that the
program was scrapped.

Blue Streak was used on the first stage of Europa 1, the first European
launch attempt, also from Woomera. Blue Streak worked flawlessly, but a
later stage failed. After this the British Government pulled out of
ELDO, leaving it all to the French, consistently the most enthusiastic
European space nation.

Since this Britain's main space interest has been the Skynet series of
military communications satellites, launched by US boosters, and some
ESA scientific programs like Giotto.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #288
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Jul 87 06:21:23 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07886; Mon, 20 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT
	id AA07886; Mon, 20 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707201017.AA07886@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #289

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 289

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
		     ... *seem* to travel FTL ...
		Subjective FTL & Conservation of Mass
		   Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ...
		    re:not an engineering problem.
		      Re: Starships will be slow
		     Why leave the solar system?
			     Re: Colonies
		      satellite sighting dilemma
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 17 Jul 87 09:23:31 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

>In article <2766@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>>	Does anybody else find it a bit sad that in this supposed age of
>>metricization, NASA still quotes payload capacity in pounds?

Regretable, but true as noted in IEEE Spectrum and one of the weekly
mags like Newsweek or Time.  If you want to effect change put pressure
on those forces like Steward Brand and others who want to keep the
English system.  Their arguments `make sense' to a large number of
people out there: "based on human proportions," "tradition,"
"distinction" from the rest of the world ;-).

It is also more than sad its economic.  When I moved to the Bay Area, I
rented a (Ryder) truck and noticed I was going slowly compared to the
traffic when starting on the freeway.  The speedometer on the truck (A
Ford) was in KM/H, so I was driving (say) 60 KM.  So the 400 miles from
LA to SF was about 700 KM on the odometer which they were reading as
miles and duly charged me as such.  It took two months to get a refund,
now that truck is still out there in Ryderland.  This move was
reimbursed by NASA, so that makes it a space story.......  Let's move
on.

--eugene

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 14 Jul 87 13:19:01 EDT
From: Steve Abrams <EXT768%UKCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      ... *seem* to travel FTL ...

On 8 Jul 87 18:20:53 GMT, <ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkely.edu> (D.Starr)
posts:
 > While either of these biological solutions (note: longevity &
 > suspended animation) is still closer to science fiction that reality,
 > i think they're both closer to reality than FTL.  We at least can see
 > objects in the observable universe with offer examples of very long
 > lifespans (trees over 1000 years old) and the ability to suspend life
 > processes for long periods without detrimental effect (primarily
 > microorganisms).  I see no objects in the observable universe which
 > seem to act like they're traveling faster than light.

    Go "look" (facetiously said) at a "superluminal" quasar for an object that
 "*seem(s)* to act like (it's) traveling faster than light."

    From the October 18, 1986 issue of "Science News," p. 245:

"Quasars have repeatedly provided surprises ... detailed inspection,
 using ...  radio interferometry, shows that quasars tend to consist of
 a number of blobs, lobes, and jets of matter apparently shot out of
 some central source.  In a few cases, some of the blobs seem to be
 moving faster than light."  ...  "now, a single series of observations
 doubles their (note: the "superluminals") number from seven to 14 and
 may soon triple it."  ...  " '(s)uperluminals' can no longer be
 regarded as rarities.  They become a class of astrophysical objects
 that needs a consistent and believable theoretical explanation."

    Now, before everyone rushes to explain away these phenomena as
 relativistic optical illusions (read the aforementioned article; see
 also "Science," 10 Oct 86, p. 157 -- subsection entitled "Relativistic
 Beaming ..."), please note that the original posting said, "*seem* to
 act like they're traveling faster than light."  Just because they can
 be explained away doesn't mean that they don't *seem* to be traveling
 FTL and, as is usual in many physical explanations, there could be an
 unexplained problem.  Extrapolation of the explanation (depending on
 the eventual number of these superluminals), which depends on the
 superluminal blobs moving directly towards us, leads to the conclusion
 that the earth occupies a preferred position in the Universe (an
 un-aesthetic idea that has been in disfavour since Copernicus' theories
 became widely accepted).  As the Science News article says, should the
 number of observed superluminals continue to increase, "(i)t will be
 more and more difficult to believe that so many of the most energetic
 and violent objects in the universe point themselves right at us."

    --> "Live Long                             Steve Abrams
    -->    and Perspire"                       <ext768!ukcc@wiscvm.wisc.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 87 23:03:25 GMT
From: pt!speech2.cs.cmu.edu!yamauchi@cs.rochester.edu  (Brian Yamauchi)
Subject: Subjective FTL & Conservation of Mass

I have two questions for the physics experts on the net:

1) Through time dilation, it is theoretically possible to travel X light
years in less than X years of subjective time.  How does the energy
required travel to do this compare to the energy that would be required
if the universe was not subject to relativity (and the lightspeed
limit).

For example: Suppose you want to travel to Alpha Centauri (about 4 light
years) in 2 years, under constant acceleration to the midpoint and
constant deceleration from the midpoint to the end.  Then, if I remember
correctly from Physics I, if the journey were non-relativistic:
                                    ----------------

For each half of the journey:

s = 1/2at^2 --> a = 2s/t^2

s = 2 light years
t = 1 year

a = 4 light years/year/year

F = ma = mass of starship * 4 light years/year/year

So for the entire journey, the amount of force required would be twice
this value.  How does this compare to the amount of force required to
travel the same distance at relativistic speeds in 1 year of subjective
time?

2) How does relativistic mass increase conform to conservation of
mass/energy in the universe?  Is the energy expended for acceleration
being converted directly into the additional mass?

If energy is being converted to matter then consider the following
situation: suppose you accelerate to .9999c relative to Earth and then
stop accelerating.  Then, from your point of view, the mass of the Earth
will have increased while your (subjective) mass has remained the same.
Does this mean that the energy you have expended has been converted to
mass on the Earth?

This seems *wrong* but I can't think of a better explanation.

Brian Yamauchi                      ARPANET:    yamauchi@speech2.cs.cmu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 87 16:39:10 GMT
From: aplcen!osiris!jdia@mimsy.umd.edu  (Josh Diamond)
Subject: Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ...

In article <8707150210.AA08860@angband.s1.gov>, EXT768@UKCC.BITNET (Steve Abrams) writes:

[deleted talk about speed of superluminal quasars]

>  that the original posting said, "*seem* to act like they're traveling faster
>  than light."  Just because they can be explained away doesn't mean that they
>  don't *seem* to be traveling FTL ...

There is some work being done at University of Rochester's Physics
Department (by Emil Wolf - one of my ex-professors) that indicates the
existance of a NON-ASTRONOMICAL red shift, which could explain the
"appears to be moving faster that light" problems.

I'm not sure whether this has been published yet, and I know very little
about it, as I am no longer a physics major ( I switched to CS :-).  If
you want more info, try getting in touch with someone in the Physics
Department there.

                             Steve Abrams
                       <ext768!ukcc@wiscvm.wisc.edu>

------------------------------

Date:         Tue, 14 Jul 87 10:06:56 GMT
From: "Michael J. Hammel" <SNHAM%TTUVM1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      re:not an engineering problem.

James W. Merrit writes:
>>Interstellar travel isn't a physics problem, isn't much an engineering
>>problem, is just a bit of a political probem.

>>What it is is a biological problem.

Possibly. But wait, theres more, from Brian Yamauchi:

>Actually, that is not the problem.  According to special relativity,
>subjective time slows down as your speed approaches the speed of light.

Well then, its not a question of how long it takes to get there.  In
fact, traveling at FTL speeds or even close to them would allow any
traveller to reach his/her destination in his/her own lifetime.

But, there is the problem of the travellers mass expanding as the reach
ever increasing speeds, if Einstein was right, that is.  It wouldn't do
the traveller much good to get there in 20 minutes if his mass covered
most the known galaxy.

The solution? If Columbus cant go to America, bring America to Columbus.
Bent space.  Warped space.  Whatever its called.  Move space, which is
relatively empty (isn't it?) at high speeds to the traveller.  Or simply
displace it enough so the traveller wouldn't have to go so far.

So, at least to this amatuers eyes (and extremely amateur he is, too) it
really is a physics problem.

Michael J. Hammel

SNHAM @ TTUVM1

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 87 02:20:03 GMT
From: decvax!ima!haddock!karl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Karl Heuer)
Subject: Re: Starships will be slow

In article <3161@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes:
>Travel time is not arbitrarily small - you must factor in time to accelerate
>up near c and back down again, which is several years subjective at 1 G.

It is arbitrarily small if the acceleration is arbitrarily high.  This is
feasible if (a) whatever force causes the acceleration acts on all of the
particles in question, including the crew; (b) a counterforce leaves the crew
at a comfortable 1G (the McAndrew drive); or (c) you have teleportation
(lightspeed, not instantaneous) instead of actual "motion".

By the time we send humans to another star, we will probably not be using
rockets to do so.

>Life extension or suspended animation are likely to come along a lot sooner
>than fast (.99c gets you only 7:1 dilation) starships.  None of which
>addresses the complementary problem of coming back to Earth and finding
>decades (centuries...) have passed since you left.

Why is that a problem?  Given life extension and sufficient patience, the
loved ones will still be there.  You can catch up on local history during the
trip.

Karl W. Z. Heuer (ima!haddock!karl or karl@haddock.isc.com), The Walking Lint

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 22:42:15 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Why leave the solar system?
To: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)

> Sorry about posting an answer here, but my mailer is fubbed duck:

Just as well.  You were replying to the wrong person.  The message
you quote is mine.

> 1) "If overcrowded" Given that they live in a habitat, you are talking
> about the volume of the solar system ...  too much room available for
> "overcrowding"

Sorry, what I meant was, exhaustion of available energy and material
resources.  This will happen long before the volume of the solar system
is fully occupied.  I estimate this will happen when the solar system
population reaches about ten to the twentieth, billions of times the
Earth's present population.  If population grows at 2% anually, this
will take about 1200 years.

> 2) "curiosity, adventure, fame" in "generation ships" most of the
> people will see nothing but empty space, or anyone but their own
> neighbors.  Fame to who?

Fame to the first group to leave the solar system.  And it wouldn't
necessarily be a generation ship, unless you assume that life spans will
never get much longer than today.  As for seeing nothing but empty space
or one's own neighbors, isn't the same thing true on Earth?  Granted,
Earth is a big neighborhood.  But a ten kilometer asteroid, hollowed
out, can support a far greater population than Earth's, given fusion or
some other ample source of energy.  The main constraint, as far as I can
see, is air conditioning!  Yes, they will be stuck with their neighbors
for centuries.  But at the end of their trip, they either get a whole
new solar system to explore and colonize, or an alien race to befriend
and trade with.  The Earth's only trip is around the Sun, and it's
getting boring.

> 3) "information trade" This one isn't bad, but will take some real
> long-range planners, of which we have a shortage.

Long range planners?  The Wright brothers didn't plan for hundreds of
major airports and thousands of flights daily.  Alan Turing didn't plan
for millions of desktop computers.  Gutenberg didn't plan for billions
of paperback books.  Benjamin Franklin didn't plan for the electric
power grid.  Marconi didn't plan for thousands of radio broadcasting
stations, communications satellites, or signals from probes in the outer
solar system.  But these things happened anyway.  Perhaps nobody will
ever set out to leave the solar system, but will start by visiting the
Oort (cometary) cloud, and gradually work their way outwards over the
millenia.

> 4) "why not?"  It would take a lot of work & energy to modify one of
> these monsters for travel and go with it.  Paid by people who will not
> see any return at all.

I hope that there will be much more wealth.  That one can simply have a
troop of fusion powered robots make the necessary modifications.  And I
don't agree that there is no gain.  Perhaps it will be done as an
advertising stunt?  Insurance companies would probably pay for the
privilege of insuring them.  More likely the inhabitants will be the
ones to pay.

> I think that 5), which you missed, would be a better reason.  It is,
> after all, the primary reason that the current colonies were made: To
> get away from something (generally political) you don't like.  Not
> crowding, just don't get along with your neighbors.  Stuff like wrong
> religion, prejudice, hate, and poor environmental conditions (nuclear
> missles).

I hope that that will no longer be a motive.  That nobody will flee
persecution because there will be no persecution.  In a society ruled by
tyrants with no respect for private property and individual rights, I
strongly doubt we could ever get to the stage where we would be able to
travel to other solar systems.  If I was religious I would suggest that
this might be some sort of cosmic quarantine, to keep failed races from
interfering with others.
							...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 15:11:29 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: Colonies

In article <224288.870706.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:

> It is conceivable that they [the Soviets] could imitate
> us if we have a space colony, but it is not possible that they can
> do it first, except at a loss, which is not a real colony.

I guess when we visit Zhukov Station III on vacation in 2013 we'll have
to tell our hosts that they're not running a real colony.  Maybe they'll
send us home and not let us rent their Weightless Honeymoon Suite, and
we'll have to spend our vacation watching NASA's annual satellite
launch.

> They may or may not be independent of Earth in practice, but they are
> not true colonies if they couldn't survive prolonged lack of all contact
> with Earth if they needed to.

Most European colonies of the seventeenth through twentieth centuries
don't meet your definition of "true colonies" either.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 17 July 87 14:34 EDT
From: UUAJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu
Subject: satellite sighting dilemma

Here's an odd phenomenon I can't figure out; perhaps someone out there
can explain it for me:
     
on a number of occasions I have observed what appear to be satellites in
polar orbit: unblinking lights moving from south to north, becoming
invisible below elevations of ca. 40 degrees above the horizon,
brightness maybe 3d?  magnitude (dimmer but not by much than the stars
in the Big Dipper). The problem is that I've observed these things
within one half-hour of midnight local time. Assuming that these are
objects in LEO, then from where I am (I don't have exact latitude
figures, Ithaca is around 40+-2 deg. N), then these things should be in
the earth's shadow as far as I can figure out.
     
Any suggestions on what might be involved here? I have no info on what
the phase of the moon was at the time, hadn't thought about it until
much later; I have not been watching lately, both due to having other
things to do and poor viewing conditions the past month. I do know that
I've seen these objects during the winter as well as summer. Send
replies directly and I'll post a summary. Thanx!
     
Artie Samplaski
Cornell Lab of Nuc. Studies
     
BITNET: UUAJ@CORNELLA
Internet: UUAJ%CORNELLA.BITNET@CU-ARPA.CS.CORNELL.EDU

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #289
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Jul 87 06:21:46 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15121; Tue, 21 Jul 87 03:19:03 PDT
	id AA15121; Tue, 21 Jul 87 03:19:03 PDT
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 87 03:19:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707211019.AA15121@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #290

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 290

Today's Topics:
			     anniversary
		   Re: Non-profit commie colonies?
			      ``Colony''
		       Betelguese and Supernova
		       Betelguese and Supernova
		     Re: Betelguese and Supernova
			      Bandwidth
			    Re: Carl Sagan
		Re: The Space Shuttle Operators Manual
		      Shuttle distruct mechanism
		      Re: free enterprise space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 18:46:15 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: anniversary

Just to remind everyone that this Monday is July 20th.

Any true space cadet who doesn't know why July 20th is special should
quietly go shoot himself.

For those who want greater precision, touchdown was at 1617 EDT and
"one small step..." was at 2256 EDT.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 87 10:47:29 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Non-profit commie colonies?

And now a defense:

>     ii) Space colonies will be both profitable and independent
> 	of Earth (by definition).
> 
> These are at best questionable, and accepting either as gospel could

If it's not independent of Earth, it's not a colony... it's a base. If
it is independent, then it's going to be profitable. Maybe not very much
at first, but it will be. Colonies that shrink don't tend to last very
long.

Peter da Silva

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 87 02:13:57 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: ``Colony''

In article <401@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>Summary: Look up the definition of "colony".
>And now a defense:
>
>>     ii) Space colonies will be both profitable and independent
>>	of Earth (by definition).
>>
>> These are at best questionable, and accepting either as gospel could
>
>If it's not independent of Earth, it's not a colony... it's a base. If
>it is independent, then it's going to be profitable. Maybe not very much
>at first, but it will be. Colonies that shrink don't tend to last very long.

|$ def base
|   ...
|5  c) n, the locality or the installations on which a military force
|      relies for supplies or from which it initiates operations

    This was the only definition even vaguely related to your usage of
the word. The `base' of a space settlement may be on the moon or in the
asteroid belt eventually - but initially it's going to be right on
Earth.

|$ def colony
|   ...
|1) a) n, a body of people living in a new territory but retaining ties
|      with the parent state
|   b) n, the territory inhabited by such a body
|...
|4) a) n, a group of individuals with common characteristics or
|      interests situated in close association
|   b) n, the section occupied by such a group

You will note no mention of profit or independence in the definition
(from Webster's 7th); somewhat the opposite, in fact. As for
independence -> profitable, there are numerous small nations today which
are dependent on outside foreign aid - many of the former US Pacific
trust territories, for example (not analogy, so don't respond to it as
such).

    Rather than digress into the REAL meaning of the words `profit' and
`independent', I propose we drop the subject. Playing word games is
tiresome (quick everyone - what's an `infrastructure'? :-)

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 23:51:28
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Betelguese and Supernova

<M> Date: 7 Jul 87 19:57:12 GMT
<M> From: amdcad!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (MacLeod)
<M> Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova

In article <551836099.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>Not only is Betelguese big enough to go supernova, ... intense mass
>loss by way of a solar wind.  Supernova should(?) occur within a few
>thousand years ...

<M> Seriously, I had no idea that they could pinpoint it that closely.  And
<M> on a cosmic time scale, a few thousand years is miniscule; the variation
<M> could go either way by far more than that.  It's more like "within the
<M> next half hour", cosmically.

You misunderstand. They aren't estimating how long it has been burning
from the start (a few million years), subtracting that from the
expected lifetime for a star of that mass (a few million years), and
coming up with "any minute now, plus or minus a few million years".
They are observing that not only has it finished burning its hydrogen
so that now it is a red supergiant instead of merely a main-sequence
blue giant, but it is also pulsating and throwing off mass like mad,
things that we think happen "just before death". Basically we say "it
is dying *now*, plus or minus a couple thousand years, obviously it
hasn't gone supernova yet, so it's now plus up to a couple thousand years.

But then a blue giant star in the Magenellic clouds went supernova
without ever going red super-giant first, which is really surprizing,
so maybe this red super-giant Betelguese will surprise us too by *not*
going supernova at all, just throwing off 90% of its mass via stellar
wind, then quietly collapsing into a nice peaceful white dwarf, no
neutron star or anything fancy.

(I just noticed a typo in an earlier message of mine on this topic:
<REM> By the way, SN1978A was a blue giant, not yet a red supergiant, so we
<REM> have to watch Rigel and Deneb too.
 That should read SN1987A. Sorry if anyone was confused.)


<KFL> Date: Tue,  7 Jul 87 00:27:00 EDT
<KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
<KFL> Subject: Supernovas

>  From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
> The Star Betelgeuse is large enough to explode as a Supernova and
> being only 300 Light Years away will produce enough Xrays to blow off
> the Ozone layer and fry us.

<KFL> Very unlikely.  Supernovas are very rare.  The recent one in the SMG
<KFL> was 160,000 light years away.  It was the closest one since the one in
<KFL> the 1880s in the Andromeda Galaxy, 2,200,000 light years away.  There
<KFL> hasn't been one in this galaxy of ten to the eleventh stars since 1604.
<KFL> One might expect a supernova within 300 light years only once or twice
<KFL> in each billion years.

Given average distribution, no special knowledge, you are correct. But
we have special knowledge that Betelguese is dying and is likely to
go supernova soon, so we must add the probability of Betelguese going
supernova to the normal probability of all the other stars on the
average going supernova. As we learn more about supernovas we may
decide Betelguese is really about to go, so the probability increases
to emergency values, or we may decide Betelguese is indeed dying but
still has 10,000 years to go, making its probability of going
supernova near zero in the short term. Until then, I'll go with the
current estimates that it has only a few thousand years at most, and
perhaps only a few hundred or even less.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 16:15:28 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Betelguese and Supernova
To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, amdcad!amdahl!drivax!macleod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>

>> One might expect a supernova within 300 light years only once or twice
>> in each billion years.

> Given average distribution, no special knowledge, you are correct. But
> we have special knowledge that Betelguese is dying and is likely to
> go supernova soon, ...

Your reasoning is faulty.  To show this, I will replace stars with
people, years with seconds, and lightyears with meters.

About once a year, somewhere in the state, someone goes crazy and kills
his neigbors.  This happened in another state very recently, and the
person who did it was not the personality type who is believed to do it,
though this was the first time that we knew who did it, so who knows
what personality type is really most likely?

You have been observing your next door neighbor for the last two
minutes.  He is of the (very common) personality type who is believed to
sometimes go crazy and kill his neighbors.  He appears to be acting
strangely, not that you have ever observed him, or anyone else, for more
than a few minutes.

Do you conclude that he is going to go crazy and kill his neighbors
within the next ten minutes?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 87 02:31:09 GMT
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Wanna C. DeSupernova)
Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova

> Your reasoning is faulty.  To show this, I will replace stars with
> people, years with seconds, and lightyears with meters.

And this, of course, is the faultiest reasoning of them all. You can't
replace stars with people!!! For one thing, stars do not murder each
other. Secondly, none is known to have AIDS. Stars are much easier to
model *successfully* than people. This does not rule out the reverse
option, however: Some people do become stars...:-)

Yaron Sheffer

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 12:26:11 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Bandwidth
To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net, apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu

> The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely
> related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration.  It has
> nothing to do with the bandwidth.

Not quite true.  Antenna size buys you signal strength and rejection of
signals from a different direction.  There is no lower limit on the size
of an antenna if your signal to noise ratio is high enough.

One reason why antennas that point at geostationary satellites are so
large is that the same frequencies are usually shared by other
geostationary satellites.  Also, noise on the same frequencies from
natural sources comes from many parts of the sky.

If the bandwidth was low enough, you could dedicate that tiny slice of
frequencies to each one user.  The same frequencies would not be used
on any other satellite.  Of course you would need a lot of power on
board the satellite to send reasonable amounts of power in every
frequency slice.  Also, the satellite WOULD have to be geostationary,
otherwise you run into severe problems with doppler shift, not to
mention the satellite being below the horizon half the time.

I have often wondered if the aliens are transmitting an extremely
narrow bandwidth signal to us.  Such a signal would stand out above
the background noise of space, but only if we look for such a narrow
bandwidth.  And it would require relatively little power to send.
The amount of information transmitted ber hour would be small.  But
perhaps they are very patient.  Or perhaps it tells us where to look
for a high bandwidth signal.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 87 19:58:31 GMT
From: nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan

In article <418@uop.UUCP> robert@uop.UUCP (Robert  McCaul) writes:
>i believe i should also note that the east coasters have been
>favorable toward Carl, and the west coasters don't seem to like him.
>
>this infers perhaps the continuation of the long standing differences
>between the east and the west coast on many issues.

	I would agree that there are a lot of things that east-coasters
disagree with west-coasters on, for various reasons, but as someone from
the east coast I should point out that I know very few people who like
CS (my mother does...) and many who don't (all of these being
scientists/engineers).  In fact, I have quite a few friends at Cornell,
where Carl lives and works, and from what they tell me he is not well
liked in general there, either.


Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 1987 15:52-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: enea!sics.sics.se!pd@uunet.uu.net (Per Danielsson)
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: The Space Shuttle Operators Manual

I'm posting this reply to Per Danielsson because the return address
does not look hopeful and I haven't got time to track it down right
now:

The Space Shuttle Operators Manual is published by Berkely books.
Possibly available in B. Dalton and such. I picked up my copy in the
National Air and Space Museum. It is also available through the
National Space Society mail order 'Space Shop'.

------------------------------

Return-Path: <hildum@iris>
Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 09:08:42 pdt
From: ucdavis!iris!hildum@ucbvax.berkeley.edu (Eric Hildum)
Subject: Shuttle distruct mechanism

The propellant tank of the shuttle has a destruct charge in addition to
the ones on the SRBs.  Early on in the investigation of the Challenger
accident, there was some question as to whether or not that charge had
gone off - it had not.

As I recall, the charge is about 30 feet long, going from the top of
the tank and down one side. I believe that it can be seen in
photographs as a "pipe" going down the side of the tank.  Apparently,
it is designed to rip open the tank, the contents will presumably do
the rest...

					Eric

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 16:54:24 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: free enterprise space

In article <373@sugar.UUCP>, peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter DaSilva) writes:

> > [discussion about government regulation of private space industries;
     includes claim that heavily regulated airlines are doing well]

> [claim that private space industries can't really get started due to
   govenment regulations and NASA subsidies]

> The airline and auto industries were started at a time of minimal
  regulation,

WRONG.  I'm not an expert on space (see my naive posting about SPOT) but
I DO know something about the airline business and its history.

The startup of the airline industry was quite unusual for American
history.  In the early days, all airlines were totally dependent upon
government subsidy.  The only way that money could be made was by
carrying mail, and the government set the mail rates and routes.
Various payment methods were tried (by the pound, by the letter, etc.)
and the government pretty much decided which airlines would live and
which airlines would die.  When the airmail route system was formalized
by the Postmaster General, only one airline was allowed to carry mail
between any two cities.  Any other airlines on the route went bankrupt.
And when long-distance transcon routes were set up, the government
decreed that there would be only three routes and only three airlines
operating them (UAT [became United] in the north, Transcontinental &
Western [became TWA] in the center, and AVCO [became American] in the
south).

During all these manueverings, over a span of a couple of decades, the
federal government basically created airlines by forcing mergers between
smaller operators.  Anybody the government favored would be awarded a
mail contract or a route; anybody else was expected to merge with the
others or die quietly.  As you might expect, politics played a heavy
role.  For many years, the Postmaster General molded and shaped our
airline system as he saw fit, ignoring roars of protest from ignored
airlines that ended up bankrupt.  The slightest burp in the federal mail
subsidy program would cause dozens of airlines to fold.  The federal
government also paid the bill to establish the airline infrastructure,
paying for airports, terminal buildings, land acquisition, weather
services, radio nets, beacons, navigational aids, lighting, maps, etc.
Even with the subsidies, none of the airlines was able to afford much
more than a handful of rickety biplanes.  It was not ususual for even
the better airlines to show a net loss year after year after year.  In
return for government subsidies and protection, airlines had to operate
under government-dictated operating procedures and could not compete
with each other on the routes they had been awarded.

There was not a single airline, either then or a survivor today, that
would have made it without heavy government subsidies and direction.
This is as it should have been; before the government stepped in the
airline industry in the US was in total chaos and your chance of being
killed every time you stepped into an airliner was over 10%.
[micro-editorial -- the way our airline system will be again in the year
2000?]

It wasn't until C.R. Smith of American Airlines (and some others) began
to get the idea that an airline might be able to survive without
government mail subsidies that things changed.  Smith persuaded a
reluctant Donald Douglas to develop the DC-3--the first plane that could
make money without carrying mail.  Smith mortgaged his company's future
on the plane, taking an all-or-nothing risk that would have bankrupted
American if the DC-3 failed (as United predicted).  Smith was right, and
the rest is history.  And even after the DC-3 changed the face of the
airline business, the government still was there.  During the late 30s
and 40s, Juan Trippe and his Pan American Airways was little more than
an independent federal agency, conducting world diplomacy with the full
consent and assistance of the State Department.  FDR was able to use
Trippe as an ersatz Secretary of State and mold US diplomacy through Pan
Am's desires (which seemed compatible with FDR's).  Trippe became so
knowledgeable and powerful that he essentially dictated US foreign
relations worldwide.  Again, this is as it should have been; without Pan
Am isolationism would have reduced the United States to an impotent
third-rate country on the eve of World War II.

Now, what's THIS doing in sci.space?

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #290
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Jul 87 06:22:11 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17578; Wed, 22 Jul 87 03:19:21 PDT
	id AA17578; Wed, 22 Jul 87 03:19:21 PDT
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 87 03:19:21 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707221019.AA17578@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #291

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 291

Today's Topics:
		     Brief window of opportunity
     space news from June 22 AW&ST, and (sort of) guest editorial
			    Re: bandwidth
			    Re: bandwidth
			    Re: bandwidth
			  Re: Profit & Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 87 15:55:55 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Brief window of opportunity

Here I sit egrep-ping, sed-ding, awk'ing, and other editing of 18.1
Macho Bytes of past hot air (truly impressive).  I have already used
over 2 hours of VAX time to acquire some information and have come close
to crashing this machine once while filling /tmp.  Fortunately, I can
justify this survey as part of work.  I have collected a few interesting
statistics: most frequent subjects (would you believe the Fermi
paradox), most frequent authors (probably REM), vocabulary of people,
etc.  There were about 10,800 subject lines (in about 12,500 messages),
the average message was not quite 40 lines long.  I had to remove
certain lines which offered no information about message contents, so
these are lower bounds.  The reality of the length in that it's almost
close to a bimodal distribution in length.

While I have SPACE data sitting on my machine, I would be open to any
and all interesting questions which I can obtain by simple searching,
counting, etc.  You have a 24 hour window to ask questions.  I wish I
had more time, but SIGGRAPH goes near, and I also have a book chapter
due for work.  If you have an interesting question, and I receive it by
3 PM Tuesday July 21 (is that right?), I'll see what I can do.  Sorry
USENET readers.  Perhaps, some of this will go to NASA HQ.  (Oh, NASA
was the subject only about 250 times).  Other topics of interest to me
were how many messages were SDI or near SDI related (a few), or fuel
tank related, and how many were a little bit innane (like zillions and
zillions of does of Pu) [Don't start these again....].  It will all be
summarized shortly.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  I'll summarize."
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ can you read?
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 23:30:18 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 22 AW&ST, and (sort of) guest editorial

Space Industries Inc. suspects that its Industrial Space Facility will
get a lot of military business, a particular strong point being the
ability to attach payloads to the outside.

Commerce Dept's attempt to buy launch services commercially for the next
generation of GOES Clarke-orbit metsats is in trouble.  Senator Hollings
is trying to transfer management of the buy to NASA on the grounds that
DoC has no authority to do this.  Hollings aide says lack of technical
expertise in DoC and the Landsat-privatization mess are also factors.
NASA and OMB jointly inform Hollings that NASA does not want the job.

NRC team reviewing NASA space station says that NASA internal estimates
of space-station price tag were more like $20G than $14G.

Picture of full-scale Mir mockup at Paris airshow.  Soviet Union is now
offering commercial space processing and experiment capacity on Mir, at
a basic price of $15k/kg.  Certain restrictions, negotiable.  Existing
Soviet hardware aboard Mir is available for third-party use, at a price.

Picture of full-scale mockup of Soviet Phobos probe, also at Paris.

General Dynamics announces plans to use internal funds to begin
construction of 18 Atlas-Centaurs for commercial launch services; GD has
a few deposits but no firm contracts.  Price, under $60M, will include
guaranteed reflight in event of launch failure.

Mir cosmonauts perform two EVAs to install third solar array on Mir.
The hardware came up aboard Kvant.

House subcommittee cuts space-station facilities funding slightly, adds
money for user development.

Congressional fight to keep Mars Observer on track for 1990 launch will
probably be abandoned:  NASA has struck a deal, which will probably be
accepted by Congress as a whole, to confirm the two-year slip in MO in
return for stronger NASA commitment to continuing the Observer series.
House subcommittee adds $15M to MO budget for spares that could be used
for a Lunar Observer mission later.

[Micro-editorial:  This is a travesty.  There should be no bargaining;
NASA should be required to launch MO in 1990 *and* pursue further
Observer missions.					-- HS]

NASA decides to build the replacement orbiter at Rockwell Palmdale,
rejecting USAF idea of building it at Vandenberg, on grounds of cost and
time.

[Another micro-editorial:  The right decision.  The Vandenberg idea was
dumb from the beginning; NASA has enough funding problems without being
required to provide welfare for under-used USAF facilities.      -- HS]

Launch of eighth and final FltSatCom (military comsat) delayed due to
worries about payload shroud and possible oxygen leak in Atlas.

USAF Astronautics lab test-fires Titan SRB, finally.

Martin Marietta looking over European bids for a dual-satellite adapter
for commercial Titan.  Contraves (Switzerland) is already supplying
Ariane payload fairings for Titan, and both Aerospatiale (Ariane 1-3
dual adapters) and British Aerospace (Ariane 4 dual adapter) are bidding
for the adapter.  Hercules (Utah), Dornier (West Germany), and an MM
internal design are also on the list.  MM says that despite some initial
doubts, buying the Contraves fairing rather than developing a new one
was a fine idea.  MM is also talking to MBB/Erno (West Germany) about
its Ariane 4 strap-on boosters, with an eye on the next-generation
Titan.  Arianespace says that so long as its competitors are paying the
same prices it is, it has no objections.

Italy takes 14% share in France's Helios military spysat program, and
will get more involved in Helios successors.  The 14% will be in the
ground side of Helios because the deal was struck too late for much
involvement in the spacecraft; Italy hopes to change this for later
spacecraft.

Drawings of the various proposed Soviet unmanned-Mars-mission
spacecraft.  Soviets say their space exploration will focus on Mars and
small bodies.  Apart from the various Mars projects, they also plan a
double mission in 1994 to the asteroid belt.

NASA says a US Mars launch in 1996 would require immediate approval,
while 1998 would be more realistic.  The Soviets plan to have samples
back by around that time.  US scientists trying to plan a Mars rover are
annoyed by the Mars Observer schedule slip, which will make MO data
return too late to influence rover design.  Baseline rover design is
about a ton and a half.  Picture of proposed three-segment design, each
segment with two wheels.  The front segment has the science (including
arms and drill), the second has electronics (including a stereo camera
system on a mast), and the third is the isotope generator.

French/US research team, studying Viking Orbiter photos, finds crater
and debris left by Viking Lander 1's jettisoned heatshield, about 3/4 km
from the lander itself.

NASA and contractors prepare shopping list of new instrumentation
desired on shuttle during tanking test, readiness firing, and future
flights.  Total is 592 new measurements.  Yet to be sorted out is how
much of this will actually be done.

"Forum" article, essentially a guest editorial, from Raymond J. Erikson
(formerly designer of Harris's solar-dynamic collector for the space
station, until funds were cut), says Mars is premature.  "The mission
profiles currently proposed for Mars missions threaten to leave NASA
even more overextended than that organization was following the 'crash-
and-dash' missions to the Moon."  Favors more attention to the Moon now,
Mars later, preferably after nuclear propulsion is available.  "Six
short visits by a total of 12 men to isolated locales of Africa would
hardly have been considered an exhaustive exploration of the continent.
The Moon has as much surface area as Africa, is at least as interesting,
and has tremendous potential as a source of materials for [space
activity]..."

Details of the Starfind single-satellite navsat concept (patent
pending).  Thusly.  A stripe beam from a large inflatable antenna turns
over the Earth's surface, with the timing of reception from emitters
determining their angle from the beam's center of rotation.  The center
itself moves in a large circle more slowly, so it can triangulate the
position of an emitter based on successive "hits".  At 1.6 GHz with a
160-ft antenna, the stripe would be 120 miles wide.  A number of
precisely-positioned base emitters will be used to continuously measure
the precise position of the satellite and the effective beam center, and
the parabolic antenna dish will actually have 36 stripes rather than
just one, supposedly giving frequent updates and precision of circa 12
feet.  Starfind is trying to sell the US Army on the system.  The Army
has doubts about the claimed accuracy, but thinks the idea worthy of
further investigation.  Starfind wants FCC permission to launch a
prototype on the first Conestoga booster, and says it has a contract
with Space Services for five launches.

Space Services Inc. is negotiating with NASA for a Conestoga launch pad
at Wallops Island, and hopes to begin construction soon.

Letter criticising Weinberger's claim that Mir is "almost totally
dedicated to military purposes", noting Soviet openness about Mir
equipment and operations, addition of clearly scientific modules, and
next year's major visit of a French astronaut.

Letter grumbling about a previous pro-space letter lumping accountants
in with lawyers and politicians as the cause of the space program's
woes.  "...accountants are real people with real feelings, and should
not be associated with the actions of lawyers."

[Still no "Doing It Right, part 2" editorial; it takes time to write
those things, and time is scarce nowadays.  However, today we have some
comments of note from a Space World interview with Georg von
Tiesenhausen, recently retired, one of the last of Wernher von Braun's
rocket team.  von Tiesenhausen did, among other things, the first design
sketches for the lunar rover, the first "spent stage" space-station
design, the mechanical design of the Saturn launch complexes, the
(patented) design for the Saturn V hold-down system, and a long-term
planning effort on the uses of long tethers in space.  The excerpts here
seem particularly appropriate to the anniversary of Apollo 11, given the
major role that von Braun's team played in that success and the
conspicuous shortage of similar successes since.		-- HS]

SW: Why do you think most of the team was broken up when it was? [in the
 mid-1970s] What was the effect of forced retirement on individual
 members?
GvT: ...The productivity of course dropped way down... there was a
 complete lack of explanation.  The main reason given was that we didn't
 have any veteran preference.  We didn't believe that.  We were at the
 peak of our productivity.  Things that we did always worked.  The
 characteristics of that team were truly unique and nobody was given
 time to pass on all that.  The sudden departure of the German team had
 the effect that people afterwards, in many areas started from
 scratch... the ten years or so that most of these people would have had
 left of productive work could have been used to pass on all the tricks
 of the trade, all the intangibles, the experience that was never really
 passed on.  I think today we suffer from that lack.

SW: ...There were many others who lost their jobs.
GvT: Yes.  The main other loss that occurred at that time is our whole
 mechanical capabilities -- the shop capabilities -- that went out the
 window.  As a result, we were not capable -- and still are not -- of
 doing the simplest mechanical design and manufacturing.

SW:  But weren't there other forces at work also?
GvT: There was the other great influence... a general trend to turn
 everything over to industry...  The old arsenal concept was under
 attack.

SW: Especially from the Air Force, its contractors, and the aerospace
 press.  But the arsenal concept allowed you to accomplish many
 important feats, didn't it?
GvT: Which enabled us to build the first Saturn vehicle in-house, and
 this capability had to be discontinued...  The team was in the leading
 position.  It was the top layer of the organization.  Its removal had a
 much more drastic effect on the change of an organization than even the
 loss of our mechanical and manufacturing capability.  The whole
 atmosphere changed...  what was unique at Marshall was the stripping of
 the total upper management layer of the Center.

SW: Did any of you ever go back and discuss this... with Wernher von
 Braun?
GvT: No.  See, he was already out in 1970... if he would have been at
 Marshall at the time, I would have... since he was the only Center
 director who always had an open door.  I could give his secretary a
 call and say I'd like to have five or ten minutes with him and I always
 got it.  No problem.  So all of that changed [when] a new leadership
 took its place.  ...Accessibility was reduced... Communication was
 reduced.  We became very bureaucratic and structured.  [Formerly]
 without many words and memoranda and meetings we knew [what we needed
 to know], because we talked to each other...

SW: ...I suspect that the events leading to the Challenger tragedy would
 have been less likely to have occurred under the old leadership at
 Marshall.  What is your view?
GvT: It was unthinkable that a major package of information would not
 have been brought to the attention of top management.  You probably
 know the famous case where a Jupiter exploded and somebody went to von
 Braun admitting that he had slipped with his screwdriver.  He got a
 bottle of champagne.  So that was the management style: rewarding
 honesty and openness, you see...  The subsequent management... was very
 inaccessible, very rigid.  In general communication was hardly
 existing.  ...
GvT: ...to accomplish something I would say you need a leader.  We had a
 leader.  The leader has to have a goal and he has to have a team.  And
 we had those three things.



[Eighteen years ago today: 1617 EDT, "The Eagle has landed."  2256 EDT,
"One small step...".  For two years, men walked on another world.  And
then no more.  There are children, nearly adults now, who have never
seen "Live From The Moon" pictures, because they were born after man
abandoned the Moon.  Eight years after the first commitment, we got "one
giant leap".  Eighteen years later, the next is still nowhere to be
seen.	-- HS]

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 87 03:55:17 GMT
From: kodak!ornitz@cs.rochester.edu  (barry ornitz)
Subject: Re: bandwidth

In article <360e469a.44e6@apollo.uucp> nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes:
>>Thinking about space and profit, I asked myself if radio broadcasts
>>from space to cheap mobile receivers would be feasible.  Audio signals
>>would need a lot less bandwidth than TV signals, so the receivers
>>could have smaller antennas.  Geostar terminals are pretty small, I
>>recall, and nondirectional, too.  What is the bandwidth of that
>>system?
>
>   The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely
>   related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration.  It 
>   has nothing to do with the bandwidth.

Yes, but for a given transmitter power, the signal having the least
bandwidth will provide the highest signal plus noise to noise ratio.
All receivers have a minimum signal level below which an incoming signal
is lost in the noise.  At the microwave frequencies usually used with
satellite reception, size correlates with antenna gain.  A narrower
bandwidth will allow a receiver to detect the weaker signal provided by
a smaller antenna.  I think the Europeans were experimenting with direct
satellite broadcast radio at 12 GHz.  As for the benefits of narrow
bandwidths, I can hear several satellites using a hand-held
walkie-talkie with only its eight inch "rubber duck" antenna.

 Dr. Barry L. Ornitz   UUCP:...!rochester!kodak!ornitz

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 87 21:16:22 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: bandwidth

>    The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely
>    related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration.  It
>    has nothing to do with the bandwidth.

Wrong. Antenna area must grow proportionally to signal bandwidth in
order to maintain a constant signal-to-noise ratio, since the received
noise power is proportional to bandwidth.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 87 23:38:59 GMT
From: ubc-vision!fornax!jl@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (JL)
Subject: Re: bandwidth

     If the size of an antenna is a fuction of ONLY the wavelength, then
why do you think they design radio telescopes with such large areas.
The larger the better, in fact.

     Ditto for microwave recieving dishes for satellite reception!  (The
wavelength of a microwave is MUCH smaller than the physical dimensions
of the receiving dish.)

Jay-El

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 20:09:00 GMT
From: m2c!frog!john@bu-cs.bu.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: Profit & Space

In article <1390@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
> In article <317@louie.udel.EDU>, farber@udel.EDU (Dave Farber) writes:
> > Dont be too sure about a executive being sent packing when he makes such
> > a big error . Historically in American business that just does not
> > work that way.
>And don't forget that even when idiot managers do get the ax, the ax is made
>of marshmallow. ...no mention of the manager's incompetence, etc., etc...
>[semi-specific anecdotal evidence omitted]... the microcephalous slime molds
> ...each firing was accompanied by a gigantic severance check that could have
> saved the company if it had been spent on capital improvements...
> 
> Hey, what's this doing in sci.space?
> 
Because these are the "captains of industry" who, it is claimed, would be
involved in space if and only if it were profitable.  You can't get to
Mars in one fiscal quarter, though, so I guess that it will never happen...


--
John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

Doktor of the Forbidden Sciences

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #291
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Jul 87 06:22:20 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19827; Thu, 23 Jul 87 03:19:26 PDT
	id AA19827; Thu, 23 Jul 87 03:19:26 PDT
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 87 03:19:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707231019.AA19827@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #292

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 292

Today's Topics:
		  Re:what's this doing in sci.space?
			     RE: antennas
			   antennas, again
			 Government in space
		   Re: Non-profit commie colonies?
		      Re: You Were Born Too Soon
			   Re: Reply to REM
		    Re: What is going on here????
		    Re: What is going on here????
			 Re: Living in Space
			Apollo Command Module
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 1987 16:07-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re:what's this doing in sci.space?

I'm sure others will have responded at length by now, and I will say no
after this editorial as this is not terribly relevant to SpaceDigest.

Airline safety has not gone to hell. There was one statistically bad
year, but other than that it has not gotten more dangerous since
deregulation. Much of the quoted information on the 'increase' in near
collisions is due to changes in the way they are reported and due to
the ill concieved ARSA's.

Only two airlines by 2000? I seriously doubt it. USAir has been profitable
nearly every year of it's existance and has very good morale.

United has bad morale because no one wants to work for the over paid
senior pilots who have been trying to buy it out.

The hub and spoke arrangement would not be a problem if the FAA hadn't
done such a pathetic job on planning and implimenting the NASP
(National Air Space Plan). Congress has finally told them to allow
continued use of the ILS because they have not gotten MLS fielded as
planned. You want to talk about safety? They have failed to replace the
closed FSS's with automated stations which were promised, even though
many of the services they are supposedly developing are available from
on line data services. They failed to include such powerful methods as
positioning satellite technology and Loran-C as part of their planning,
and in fact have discouraged them. Instead they are trying to ram their
Collision Avoidance System (TCAS) down everyone's throat. But the
towers are already overloaded and will just filter transponders from
the VFR traffic off of their displays anyway (they do already). Besides
which, General Aviation aircraft won't be able to AFFORD the damn thing
anyway, so the altimeter info will not be there. Thus most of the
planes in the sky will not be included in the FAA system in a useful
way. Geostar is probably the only good bet for a useful CAS because it
doesn't rely on a handful of overworked controllers. It is instead an
electronic extension to the prime dictum for the Pilot in Command: SEE
AND AVOID.

The FAA has created ARSA's and caused no end of danger by funneling
heavy volumes of VFR traffic into limited channels. They are now
considering doing even worse things to airspace.

Many of the hub problems could be solved by selling landing slots in a
free market, and General Aviation users could be kept happy by reserving a
few slots per hour for them. High rents would make it profitable to
build more airports. We are instead losing small airports all over the
country at a frightening rate and subsidizing the big ones outrageously.

I will not say too much about safety except that the regulations are
stringent and there is a shortage of qualifed inspectors, but most
airlines go by even MORE stringent rules where safety really matters
because ACCIDENTS ARE VERY BAD FOR BUSINESS. FAA fines are nothing
compared to the losses in traffic that occur when an airline has a
major accident.  The engine loss over O'hare some years back was
estimated have cost revenue losses in excess of $100M to the carrier.
Do that a few times and you are history.

The fact that there is vicious competition among airlines is a good
thing to see. When the dust settles I expect to see a lean competitive
air travel system, not the bloated companies full of overpaid jerks
that are running sobbing to congress and who are stirring up phoney
media hype. They won't be around tomorrow. Tough.

And if the airlines aren't lean by then, I suspect Maglev will sound
their death knell. It probably will anyway.

Anyone who claims aviation is not still regulated into the ground in
this country has never laid hands on a throttle. Sad thing is, it's
even worse in Europe.

I recommend reading "The New Technology Edge" by Dr. Gerard O'Neill.
For general information on THE (sad) state of american aviation, read
"AOPA Pilot" magazine.

I've said my piece on the subject. Let's get back to space.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 20:26:00 GMT
From: m2c!ulowell!apollo!nelson_p@bu-cs.bu.edu
Subject: RE: antennas

>>    The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely
>>    related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration.  It
>>    has nothing to do with the bandwidth.
>
>Wrong. Antenna area must grow proportionally to signal bandwidth in
>order to maintain a constant signal-to-noise ratio, since the received
>noise power is proportional to bandwidth.

Wrong again; antenna *gain* must grow if you want to improve the ratio
of signal to the noise generated in your receiving system.

Most antenna designs are tuned to a specific wavelength (or function of
a wavelength, i.e., 1/4 wave, 1/2 wave, etc).  This determines the
frequency where the antenna will exhibit maximum gain.  Increasing the
size past this point would only *degrade* performance although,
depending on the design if you increased it by some integer multiple of
the wavelength you might hit another gain 'peak'.

                                            --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 20:44:00 GMT
From: apollo!nelson_p@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Subject: antennas, again

>     If the size of an antenna is a fuction of ONLY the wavelength,
>then why do you think they design radio telescopes with such large
>areas.  The larger the better, in fact.

>     Ditto for microwave recieving dishes for satellite reception!
>(The wavelength of a microwave is MUCH smaller than the physical
>dimensions of the receiving dish.)
  
I didn't say 'only'.  I said bandwidth wasn't what determined size.

Obviously GAIN is an important aspect of an antenna.  One thing a dish
antenna buys you is very high gain in a very specific direction, with
lots of rejection of signals that don't come from that direction.  Even
so, It's dimensions are very much a function of the wavelength of the
desired signal.  Nobody said it has to be the *size* of the wavelength
any more than the a telescope mirror has to be the *size* of a
wavelength of light.  But the curvature of the reflector element, the
distance to the driven element and the driven element itself are all
optimized for a specific wavelength.

*MY POINT* is that in designing the dimensions of an antenna, one does
not generally sit down and ask himself what is the bandwidth of the
signal he desires to receive.  Instead, he asks himself what center
frequency he wants to optimize for and decides what tradeoffs of gain,
directivity, SWR, size, etc. he wants to make.  If bandwidth is a factor
because he needs a better S/N ratio for, say, data than voice, or TV
than audio then this expresses itself as GAIN.  It is certainly true
that some antenna designs have wider bandwidth than others but...  1).
this is a function of many aspects of the antenna design, not just how
big it is... and 2) It would not normally be a factor except in
applications where *extremely* wide bandwidth is required. such as home
TV antennas.  And you'll notice that these antennas, for all their
supposed bandwidth, are not exactly huge.  My 2M Cushcraft, which is
optimized for 144-145 MHz (I only use it for SSB) is probably a lot
bigger than any TV antenna you've ever seen, even though a TV antenna
has to cover 10's of MHz.

                                              --Peter Nelson

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 13:23:45 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Government in space
To: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: apollo!nelson_p@eddie.mit.edu

> Finally, bottom line: since Challenger, NASA hasn't been able to offer
> much service at *any* price.  If a commercial launch service existed
> now they could be cleaning up.

Probably true.  But is it really surprising that a multi-billion dollar
industry hasn't come into existance in the past 1.5 years?  Government
launches are subsidized.  For every dollar the user pays to lanuch
something, the taxpayer pays between two and ten.  It is difficult for
any company to compete with this.  If one existed, they would probably
be doing pretty well now.  But what guarantee is there that government
subsidized launches won't resume in a year or two?  This is the same
reason you don't see many privately owned city bus systems.

> [Free market advocates] want the government to just abdicate its role in
> various matters without their having to provide an alternative until
> *after* the fact.

How can anyone, when large corporations are severely taxed, regulated,
and, if they are large enough, broken up?  And when government provides
the same service at a financial loss?

We WILL see, and ARE seeing, private non-subsidized companies begin to
market launch systems.  But not in this country, it seems.  In Japan,
France, and (ironically) the USSR (in this context, the USSR acts like
a corporation, albeit one whose employees are not allowed to resign - it
is not selling launch services at a loss).

Would you have said lets not abolish slavery until some plantation shows
how to make a profit without the use of slaves?  How could they have,
with slaves working for their competition?  And the prime question
wasn't whether the Southern economy could run without slaves, but
whether slavery was moral.  It wasn't.  And the situation today is
exactly parallel.  Those stately antebellum mansions were quite
beautiful.  So are the pictures from Apollo and Voyager.  But that
doesn't justify either slavery or taxation.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 87 10:43:25 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@AMES.ARPA  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Non-profit commie colonies?

> propaganda value and military value, but they aren't colonies by any
> stretch of the imagination, nor could they ever be.  If space colonies
                              ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> are ever established, it will be done by free men.
> 								...Keith

A pretty extreme statement.

Never is an awfully long time.
-- 
-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 87 11:01:11 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: You Were Born Too Soon

> Proper, perhaps, but very unrealistic. Ask yourself: how much will it
> cost to put a person in orbit in 2005?  Add in the cost of lifting
> food, air and water, plus amortization of on-orbit infrastructure.
> Are *you* willing to spend several hundred thousand dollars (an overly
> optimistic estimate) to spend several weeks in a space station?

Only overly optimistic if you accept the governments R&D agenda. Once
upon a time you could go from conceptual design to finished product in a
matter of 5 years... even on such a complex machine as the SR-71.
Bureacratisation has hit the government/aerospace industry badly since
then... but that doesn't mean you're completely justified in ruling out
results like these from private industry.

Peter da Silva

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 00:29:01 GMT
From: pyramid!bigbang!telesoft!roger@decwrl.dec.com  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: Reply to REM

> [..]
> Please stop these meta-meta-meta discussions in this group. If 
> you want a political debate there are plenty of other groups, so
> get out of this one.
> [..]
> 	Steve@ukc "Professor zoomhead"

While I can appreciate the frustration felt by those who find a favorite
newsgroup being "polluted" by inappropriate discussions, I think this
particular flame is out of order.  Certainly discretion is called for,
but I don't think you can divorce discussion of politics from discussion
of issues relevant to the space newsgroup.  A central fact of the space
program is that, like it or not, it is intimately bound up in politics.

In the 60's, things were relatively simple (or seemed to be): support
for the space program meant support for NASA, and only a few free
enterprise purists had any problem with that.  Lobby your senators and
representatives to appropriate more money to NASA, and you could feel
confident that you were doing the Right Thing for the Cause.  Now the
space program is a shambles, and it seems that we have made essentially
no progress at all in the last 20 years toward the goals that most of us
in the space movement thought we were working toward.  In fact, if you
compare the time and cost that NASA now estimates for various projects
to what comparable projects required in the 60's, it is evident that
we're far worse off.

Whether you agree with the view or not, there is at least an arguable
case that government control of the space program and the incompetence
of NASA's senior management are the greatest obstacles toward human
advancement in space.  If that's not a political issue, then I'm
Margaret Thatcher.

By all means, let's try to keep the political side of discussions here
limited to what is directly relevant to space.  There are other, more
appropriate places to discuss the abstract merits of free enterprise vs.
socialism, or whatever.  But I would welcome thoughtful debate on, say,
the consequences to the space movement of continuing its traditional
cheerleading role for NASA, vs. lobbing to get NASA out of the launch
business altogether.  Or discussion of other options.  Any takers?

- Roger Arnold			     ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: 15 Jul 87 14:58:12 GMT
From: anne@cvl.umd.edu  (Anne Becker)
Subject: Re: What is going on here????

In article <273@nysernic>, weltyc@b.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
> 
> accidents???   I just heard this morning that another Atlas (I'm
> pretty sure it was an Atlas) blew up on the pad, killing 4 people (I
> think).   I'm not the kind of person to yell scandal but this is
> really getting ridiculous, and I'm just aboutready to believe
> anything, including sabotage.  I'm telling myself that I just pay more
> Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
> weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

According to the Washington Post, a piece of scaffolding fell onto
suposedly the very last hydrogen tank for an Atlas/Centaur that NASA
has, puncturing the tank beyond any hope of repair. Nothing else was
reported to be damaged, and the people working in the area were safely
evacuated.  A spokesman was quoted as saying something to the effect
that if NASA can't find another Hydrogen tank, they'll have to build
another which will naturally postpone any launch......  Yay.(<-screaming
sarcasm) I don't recall any explanation as to why the scaffolding fell.
It just sort of struck me as par for the course.

I don't have the article with me for reference, but I'm pretty sure it
was from Tuesday July 14th's paper.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 15:06:31 GMT
From: smeagol!jplgodo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Ted Sweetser x44989 301/167)
Subject: Re: What is going on here????

In article <273@nysernic>, weltyc@b.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
> 
> I just heard this morning that another Atlas (I'm
> pretty sure it was an Atlas) blew up on the pad, killing 4 people (I
> think).   I'm not the kind of person to yell scandal [...]

but I guess you are the kind who doesn't always check his "facts".
The accident occurred when a pressurized but otherwise empty fuel tank
was punctured -- they are made of very thin steel.  Scratch one $4M
Centaur fuel tank.  Four workers received such minor injuries that their
names were not even released.

			Ted Sweetser (jplgodo!ted)

------------------------------

Date: 18 Jul 87 18:17:21 GMT
From: unc!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: Re: Living in Space

In article <8707091631.AA21481@ames-pioneer.arpa>, eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
> . . .  Anyone care to do a survey of military space?
> Some might be surprised by their budget. 

I've seen stuff before about how the military space budget is so much
bigger than NASA's. If they've got so much program of their own, why
do they have to mess around with the civilian program, jeopardizing
the space station (how great so you think it's going to be if we have
to do it on our own?) and driving many potential NASA engineers away? 

				Jim Symon

UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 17:44:22 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!hyper!harley@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Harley Grantham)
Subject: Apollo Command Module

I have a model of the Apollo Command module that I would like to paint
in the correct color(s).  Unfortuantely the painting instructions with
the model are wrong.  I have examined several photos of the old Apollo
spacecraft in orbit, and it seems to change color depending on which
mission it was.  Does someone out there have the complete story on this?

Thank you in advance for your assistance.
 
-- 
Harley H. Grantham, ihnp4!umn-cs!hyper!harley,  Network Systems Corporation

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #292
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Jul 87 06:22:38 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22227; Fri, 24 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT
	id AA22227; Fri, 24 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 87 03:17:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707241017.AA22227@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #293

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 293

Today's Topics:
		    Re: What is going on here????
Front page story on US vs USSR Space Programs: Washington Post 20 July
			   Re: anniversary
			   Re: anniversary
			    Re: Arms race
		    Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING
		      Help for a friend of mine.
			  My grouse with L5
			Re: My grouse with L5
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 19:04:14 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What is going on here????

> i have noticed that the averages seem to be running VERY high against
> NASA...

I would call it a combination of creeping incompetence and statistical
artifact.  Without diminishing the importance of the former, the latter
is significant:  if you only launch a few payloads a year, a few random
problems become a crippled space program, while if you launch a hundred
a year, a couple of Proton failures are a bothersome nuisance at most.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Subject: Front page story on US vs USSR Space Programs: Washington Post 20 July
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 87 11:27:18 EDT
From: LT Sheri Smith USN <ltsmith@mitre.arpa>

Smack in the middle of the top half of the front page of today's
Washington Post is a photo of the two Soviet cosmonauts currently
onboard Mir. The article occupies part of the front page, and ALL of
page A6. An artists conception-type drawing of Mir and one of the Soviet
space shuttle are also on page 6. The article does a pretty good
treatment of the huge gap between the Soviet space program and "ours"
(if you want to call what we have a space program, which I hesitate to
do). It quotes nifty figures like: in 1986 there were, worldwide, 103
space missions.  91 of them were Soviet, and that was a 6 year low for
them.

The article is much too long to go in here, but if anyone wants it and
hasn't access to a copy of the W P, email me and I can post or fax you a
copy.

This is exactly the kind of educational thing we have been needing.
Hiding it away in the Science column of section C means far less readers
notice it.  However, since so darn few folks read the papers, I'd like
to see a lot more of this on TV, hear it on the radio, see it in kids
science classes, cripes!  even on the cover of the National Enquirer!!
(the largest readership of any newspaper in the country, or some such
appalling figure..)

Anyone got any bright ideas on starting a grass-roots
educate-the-Americans back to caring program?? Where can I contribute
time and $$?!

Sheri
(frustrated: _I_ want to see Earth--from orbit!!)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 87 05:14:16 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!looking!brad@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: anniversary

In article <8314@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>Just to remind everyone that this Monday is July 20th.
>
>Any true space cadet who doesn't know why July 20th is special should
>quietly go shoot himself.
>-- 
>Support sustained spaceflight: fight    Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

For those of you still around Universities, such as Henry (why must we
fight him to support sustained spaceflight?) many of the incoming first
year students will not have been *born* on that day 18 years ago when
Armstrong set down his foot on distant dust.

Soon we'll have adults whose entire life has consisted of a time when no
man walked on another planet.
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 22:57:02 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC)
Subject: Re: anniversary

Henry Spencer writes:
>Just to remind everyone that this Monday is July 20th.
>
>Any true space cadet who doesn't know why July 20th is special should
>quietly go shoot himself.
>
>For those who want greater precision, touchdown was at 1617 EDT and
>"one small step..." was at 2256 EDT.

I like to think that what happened exactly 7 years later was almost as
special despite the lack of global television coverage.

Those of you who don't know what happened then can go look up Unmanned
Planetary Exploration: Mars.  You don't have to commit suicide, but
don't let it happen again. :-)

Dan Tilque
dant@tekla.tek.com

Anyone for the creation of a national space holiday?  If other minority
groups can have holidays, why not the space cadets?

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 87 19:49:00 GMT
From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Arms race


[KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU.UUCP ]
>I don't see any military use for a base on the moon. It's too far
>from the action. Low Earth orbit has plenty of military uses, all
>of which are denounced by most space advocates for  reasons  that
>aren't clear to me.

It would seem to me that bases far from the initial action  might
have  their  use  for  a  second-strike capability. Assuming some
technical advances, an aggressor nation could destroy the subs,
the planes, the surface bases, and the low-orbit satellites,
all at once.

But far-off targets in space could not be reached simultaneously;
and  if missiles were launched in advance to get them, that would
warn the targets closer at hand. In addition to that, bases in deep
space could perhaps be hid better than anything on Earth or in
low orbit.

There is yet another argument in favor of self-contained bases
*somewhere*: biological warfare. 

			Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 15:29:59 GMT
From: fluke!inc@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Gary Benson)
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING

I generally like the level of discussion in this newsgroup, particularly
the synopses of what is going on around the world in the area of space
exploration and the latest developments. Carl Sagan claims a miniscule
part of my attention. Who likes him - East Coast -vs- West Coast is of
very little interest to me.

However, since the topic has been brought up and since no one else seems
to have a problem discussing how well liked he is, I'll throw this in:

I like him. He may not be the world's greatest astrophysicist, or even
rank in the top ten. But he serves to popularize the same notions that
many people around this newsgroup have been discussing lately. People
are asking, "How can we get the US moving again in the space effort?"

Why not make use of Mr. Sagan's talents? Ask him to lead a public
information campaign or something? While his ideas may be simplistic to
"real scientists", he does have the reputation as a communicator and I
for one have enjoyed and learned a lot from his books and programs. So
much of the scientific community look down their noses at people like me
who can't keep up with the math that it is refreshing to have someone
like Mr. Sagan explain things in terms I can understand. Sure he says
"millions and millions" a lot, but come on, even you great
mathematicians have a hard time fathoming how really, really BIG space
is, don't you?

When Sagan walks across his astral calendar and on the 30th he talks
about the emergence of man, I for one get a much better feel for the
time spans involved when we speak of the cosmos. Just last week, I
performed a rather Saganesque demonstration for a friend of mine. We
were on a beach and I found a stone that I called Earth, then another
one that was about one-sixth the size. Together we calculated where to
put it so it could be the moon, then we figured out how big the sun
would be and that it would be about a half mile offshore. We wound up
doing most of the solar system - I must confess I couldn't remember the
size of most of the outer planets relative to Earth. She was delighted;
had never done anything like that, and thanked me because it helped her
understanding.

That's the value of Carl Sagan. He is a valuable spokesman for science,
and discussions about whether someone likes him or not strike me as
inappropriate to this newsgroup, and even a little offensive. When *my*
starship leaves, I'd much prefer that Carl Sagan be my fellow passenger
than some stuck up twit who wouldn't deign to speak with me unless I
could prove a passing mark in calculus.

Gary Benson
John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Jul 87 16:26:52 GMT
From: jvnca!rich@rutgers.edu  (Seth I. Rich)
Subject: Help for a friend of mine.

I have a friend who has been unsuccessfully attempting to reach the L5
Society.  He is interested in membership, and has asked me to post a
note here and ask for E-Mail help.  Can anyone help?

- Seth I. Rich

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 87 19:50:45 GMT
From: jade!tart14.berkeley.edu!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: My grouse with L5

In article <8707062056.AA18674@crash.CTS.COM> pnet01!jim@seismo.css.gov writes:
>Mr. Richter makes a side comment that L5 is cheerleading for NASA.
>First, L5 is no longer in existence -- it has merged with National
>Space Institute to form the National Space Society.

	Quite right.  I don't know what NSI has been up to in the past,
so consider my comments restricted to the L5 people.

>Second, the first formal award of the National Space Society was given
>to the four Morton Thiokol engineers who bucked NASA and their own
>management to try and stop the Challenger launch.  [...]

	It is a surprise to hear this, but not the sort of thing I was
hoping for.  When I was a member, I asked quite a few people if L5 had
ever taken a stand against any action, and nobody could recall.  Indeed,
the person who answered the phone at _L5 News_ said that L5 had never
done so.

	I'll explain in more detail why I left L5, and what I hope for
in a real pro-space organization.  _L5 News_ is indicative of my reasons
for leaving.  They live in a fantasy land, publishing articles that show
a fundamental lack of understanding of high-school physics (e.g.,
"Gnome, gnome on the range"), blind optimism about L5's political clout
(is Texas L5 really going to build a ring that strattles the earth,
rotating very quickly, touching ground in foreign countires?),
pseudo-science accepted as law (e.g., "memes"), and infantile treatment
of the membership (do I *have* to call myself a "pioneer?")

	I have a number of other examples in mind, but I'm already off
on a tangent.  Obviously, I could just ignore ignore the publication,
but it is just a symptom of the disease that affects L5.

		<<< L5 does nothing.  >>>

	Oh, sure, they talk about what great "Space pioneers" they are
and how they're all just ready to lay down and die for the cause, and
how they're going to get off they're butts and do something very big and
sacrifice it all, make a big splash.  And they do nothing.

	They hold meetings, send out press releases, hold conventions
where they celebrate the last n years in space.  Once in a blue moon
they might publish a "paper."  (e.g., the NASAese that was posted to the
net by NJ [?] L5.)  Oh yes, sometimes they give each other awards.
This, of course, is a big scoop for L5 News.

	L5 takes the most dedicated supporters of space and misleads
them into thinking that they are doing there part by attending
conventions and teaching model rocketry during the summer.  Thus,
nothing gets done.  They are a ground plane labelled "five volts."

>Currently, there is an open debate within the Society on whether NASA
>should be disbanded or not.

	Pleasantly surprised.  Though, my complaint would more
accurately be stated (had I thought about it a bit more) "L5 is _just_
NASA's cheerleaders."  (I.e., while the monotonous NASAeze is annonying,
it bothers me more that you don't do anything.)

	Tell me, how do you feel about Dale Amon's saying it would be
"appropriate" if everyone could eventually go to the little NASA space
station, implying "possible."

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Now for some constructive suggestions:

	1. Grab the spot-light.  March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING.
	   (e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?)

	2. Make score-cards.  Congressmen, NASA employees, etc.  Just
	   what they've done, not whether it's good or bad.  Score-cards
	   might not be the right term.  Maybe, "histories?"  Whaterver,
	   it is useful to know where officials stand on
	   manned/unmanned, capitalist/socialist, pro/anti SDI, etc.,
	   also how they stand on Space as a per se objective.

	3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real* space
	   newsletter.  If someone puts it on-line, and it is "just the
	   facts" (or at least labels editorials as such), I'll litter
	   Berkeley with it.

	4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and a good
	   way to start preaching to the non-converted, unlike a
	   convention.

I would like to see a *real* Space organization do things like this.

>Being a long time member of both SSI and L5/NSS, I can recommend both
>of these organizations to any individuals who want to influence our
>future in space.

>The address of the National Space Society is:

>National Space Society
>West Wing Suite 203
>600 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
>Washington, DC 20024
>Phone: 202/484-1111

>Space Studies Institute
>P.O. Box 82
>Princeton, New Jersey 08540

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 15:43:09 GMT
From: rutgers.rutgers.edu!nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@spam.istc.sri.com  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: My grouse with L5

In article <4397@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> adamj@lime.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter) writes:
>	1. Grab the spot-light.  March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING.
>		(e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?)

	You are right, we need to do something that can get us some
publicity and some national exposure.  "The people" need to made aware
of the plight of the space program...
	
>	2. Make score-cards.  Congressmen, NASA employees, etc.
>		Just what they've done, not whether it's good or
>		bad.  Score-cards might not be the right term.
>		Maybe, "histories?"  Whaterver, it is useful
>		to know where officials stand on manned/unmanned,
>		capitalist/socialist, pro/anti SDI, etc., also
>		how they stand on Space as a per se objective.

	AN excellent idea.  Really.  THis is something NSS should be doing.

>	3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real*
>		space newsletter.  If someone puts it
>		on-line, and it is "just the facts" (or at least
>		labels editorials as such), I'll litter Berkeley with it.
>
	I'm working on it, I'll post my progress later.

>	4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and
>		a good way to start preaching to the non-converted, unlike a
>		convention.

	Sure.  See, the only problem about all of this, for me, is I
don't know how to do it.  I've never marched on Washington, I don't know
how to find out what is going on in congress, what is being voted on,
who voted for/against what, etc.  I would tend to rely on NSS or some
other space group to get this sort of information.  Keep these ideas,
i'll post another message with more organization...


Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #293
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Jul 87 06:21:13 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23751; Sat, 25 Jul 87 03:18:24 PDT
	id AA23751; Sat, 25 Jul 87 03:18:24 PDT
Date: Sat, 25 Jul 87 03:18:24 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707251018.AA23751@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #294

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 294

Today's Topics:
			Re: My grouse with L5
		    Re: Help for a friend of mine.
			Re: My grouse with L5
			  Re: Profit & Space
	       Re: Light pressure for attitude control
			       Re: SPOT
			       Re: SPOT
			       Re: SPOT
			    Re: bandwidth
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 17:15:36 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: My grouse with L5

In article <4397@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> adamj@lime.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter) writes:
>	L5 takes the most dedicated supporters of space and misleads
>them into thinking that they are doing there part by attending
>conventions and teaching model rocketry during the summer.  Thus,
>nothing gets done.  They are a ground plane labelled "five volts."

    There's really not much else many ``dedicated supporters of
space'' can DO. Some are actively working in aerospace, planetary
science, or other fields directly related to their goals. Maybe a few
are investing enough cash in the startups to make a difference. The
rest of us are not in a position to do anything but cheerlead for
whoever is getting SOMETHING done (I will pass on the question of
whether NASA is in fact getting something done...) Cheerleading has
little significant effect, since NASA has no political constituency
save in a few districts in Florida and Texas. Probably the only
reason L5 phone tree campaigns have any effect at all is that there
is even less organized opposition to space!  The real drivers of
government space activities are of course the big aerospace companies.
I was amused by the ad in AW&ST depicting the station with logos of
various contractors replacing modules and beams - it's such an
accurate description of the pork-barrel nature of the station. Spread
out the contracts widely enough and it may become unkillable. Whether
the end product advances our non-existent goals in space is of no
relevance.

>	1. Grab the spot-light.  March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING.
>		(e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?)

    I like this idea, but what are we supposed to burn it for? Being
a good bureaucrat? It could be worse.  NASA might really be in danger
of being flushed down the loo if someone like Simon, Jackson, or
Schroeder gets elected (please flame my political opinions by private
mail, if you must).

>	2. Make score-cards.  Congressmen, NASA employees, etc.

    I believe SpacePAC does this for candidates (voting histories and
the like). The truth is that space is not important enough to
override party affiliation, etc. for most people even if they are
members of NSS or whatever. Look at the waffling SpacePAC had to do
in the last presidential election! First they support one candidate
from each party in the primaries. Then they have the dilemma of Reagan
vs. Mondale.  Are they going to alienate all the Democrats in L5? I
don't recall how this turned out as I voted for the Libertarian
candidate. Something similar happened with SDI at the San Francisco L5
Conference - Keith Henson conducted a quick poll during the open
Board meeting:

    "How many of you support SDI?" - 85-90% raise hands.
    "How many of you think L5 should support SDI?" - <5% raise hands
	(boy, was he surprised)

    Since support for space cuts across political lines, L-5 has
trouble taking a stand on many issues since they're likely to be
linked to one party or the other.

>	3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real*
>		space newsletter.

    I think Henry's AW&ST summaries serve this purpose admirably (thanks
Henry!) Space Calendar is another useful reference.

    People who disapprove of L5 have N other organizations to get
involved in. Planetary Society. SSI. BIS. WSF. (want some more
acronyms?) That is ALL they're going to be able to do unless they
spend years getting an education which will let them participate in
the real space world, or devote their life to politics. Both are
heartbreaking, thankless jobs and we're fortunate there are such
people willing to make SERIOUS committments to space. The real heroes
of the space age are not astronauts but the engineers, technicians,
and managers who are committing their lives to the task.

--
    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 14:46:55 GMT
From: jplgodo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Ted Sweetser x44989 301/167)
Subject: Re: Help for a friend of mine.

In article <146@jvnca.csc.org>, rich@jvnca.csc.org (Seth I. Rich) writes:
> I have a friend who has been unsuccessfully attempting to reach the L5 
> Society.

The L-5 Society and the National Space Institute recently merged to become
the National Space Society.  On June 1 this year the new Society moved
into new headquarters:

    National Space Society
    922 Pennsylvania Avenue, S.E. 
    Washington, D. C. 20003

Their phone number (also new) is (202) 543-1900.  They also run a recorded
space news Hotline at (202) 543-1995.

		- Ted Sweetser (jplgodo!ted)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 03:32:52 GMT
From: mtune!mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.edu  (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: My grouse with L5

In article <4397@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, adamj@tart14.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter) writes:
> 	They hold meetings, send out press releases, hold conventions
> where they celebrate the last n years in space.  Once in a blue moon
> they might publish a "paper."  (e.g., the NASAese that was posted to
> the net by NJ [?] L5.)  Oh yes, sometiimes they give each other
> awards.  This, of course, is a big scoop for L5 News.

Yes, it was the NJ [North Jersey] L5 who posted the papers.  But we did
something with them.  See below.

> Now for some constructive suggestions:
> 
> 	1. Grab the spot-light.  March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING.
> 		(e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?)

Sorry, I don't think "burning something" in Washington is going to get
us into space--unless it's the booster of a rocket.  But the North
Jersey L5 does go to Washington every year to visit the New Jersey
congresspersons and let them know that space is important to their
constituents.  The papers posted here were given to the congresspersons
this year as an example of the direction that *we* wanted to see the
United States--not NASA, necessarily--take to get us into space.

> 	2. Make score-cards.  Congressmen, NASA employees, etc.
>	   Just what they've done, not whether it's good or bad.

We do that.  Unfortunately, we can't mail them out, willy-nilly, to
everyone in the state.  So if you're not in the L5, you won't get them.

> 	3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real*
>	   space newsletter.  If someone puts it on-line, and it is
>	   "just the facts" (or at least labels editorials as such),
>	   I'll litter Berkeley with it.

You want a real space newsletter?  Get AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY.
It's on-line (at least Henry's summary).

> 	4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and
>	   a good way to start preaching to the non-converted, unlike a
>	   convention.

I won't even say what I think of this idea.  But the media would
certainly emphasize the "fun" part over the preaching part: "Today, a
bunch of space fans decided to take advantage of the lovely Florida
weather and sun themselves at Cape Canaveral...."

> I would like to see a *real* Space organization do things like this.

So form an NSS/L5 local chapter or anything else you want and do them!
If you think that sitting on the sidelines grumping about what we're
trying to do is going to help, you're even more deluded than we are.
The North Jersey L5 chapter is one of the more active chapters, but we
have maybe ten people who do most of the work.  Ten people, no matter
how hard they work, can't do everything they want done, let alone your
agenda too.

I have no patience with people who insist that *someone else* should do
all the work to get us into space, and even provide a worklist for them.
If you want to go into space, and you think these things are what need
to be done, then, by God, get out there and do them!  Whining to the
rest of us about how we're not doing what you want won't accomplish
anything.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Jul 87 01:50:53 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Profit & Space

> Because these are the "captains of industry" who, it is claimed, would
> be involved in space if and only if it were profitable.  You can't get
> to Mars in one fiscal quarter, though, so I guess that it will never
> happen...
> 
> John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
> ...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw%mit-ccc@MIT-XX.ARPA

Making a profit in three months is not the criterion used at my company,
at least.  It is maximum rate of return on capital employed.  Thus, if
the customer for a product (passenger trips to Mars?) supplies advance
payments equal to current costs, the company would not be using any of
its own capital.  Thus, as long as there is a profit at the end, time is
not a factor.  On the other hand, if the product takes years to bring to
market, and even more years to earn enough profit to repay the initial
investment (commercial aircraft, for example), the downstream return has
to be very large to make the rate of return high enough.  On commercial
aircraft, the large quantity of airplanes we sell at a profit justifies
the billions we invest to develop a new one.  If the board of directors
thinks it can earn a high enough rate of return, it will invest in
space.  Otherwise they will be serving their shareholders better by
putting the money in a bank certificate of deposit.

Dani Eder/Advanced Launch System Program/Boeing
(note change of organization)/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 14 Jul 87 17:13:03 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Light pressure for attitude control

> No, he's right, Mars.  There were light-pressure vanes on the ends of the
> solar panels on Mariner 4 (and presumably on its stillborn twin, Mariner 3).
> As I recall they haven't been seen since, which would suggest that they
> didn't really work very well.

Several people commented that Mariner 10 (Venus/Mercury) had used light
pressure for attitude control.  I didn't remember that.  So I did what any
good space cadet does in such a situation:  I went to my books and looked
it up.  (Any good space cadet has the books needed to look up something
like this. :-))  Turns out we're both right.

The light-pressure vanes on the Mariner 4 solar panels indeed have not been
seen since, not even on Mariner 10.

However, Mariner 10 did use light pressure for attitude control, just not
by original intent.  Three factors combined:  (1) M10 was operating close
to the Sun where light pressure is high, (2) M10 had tiltable solar panels
for temperature control, and (3) M10 had major problems with its gyros that
depleted its attitude-control gas supply badly.  The people running it kept
it going by making increasingly sophisticated use of light pressure and
other improvisations.  This wasn't enough to avoid using control gas entirely,
but it stretched the supply enough to complete a fairly full mission despite
really serious problems.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 13:09:23 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Re: SPOT

>>advanced as it seems?  Is the USA incapable of producing such a
>>satellite, or do ours only work for our military megamachine?  Does
>>NASA give a flying hoot about how incompetent this makes them look?

I believe there is a law which restricts the resolution ability of
non-government recon satellites, or at least satellites to which the
public has ready access. Weather, landsat, that sort of thing. I don't
know the details, maybe it's not a law, just a ruling but something of
that order does exist. SPOT is (as best I recall) French so that
restriction does not apply.

As to it's resolution. SPOT's OK, but far from wonderful. The DoD birds
are *supposed* to resolve 3 or 4 inches from several hundred miles. For
some real interesting reading, find a copy of _Deep_Black_ by Burrows.
He presents lots of history on the photo recon business starting from
the days when Napoleon's troops went up on big kites, up through the
latest KH series. I'm led to believe that his information is spotty in
accuracy, some correct, some not, but that's to be expected when dealing
with things that are still highly classified. As to photos, there is a
positively amazing KH-11 shot of a Russian Shipyard which he claims was
taken from about 500 miles. Makes the SPOT stuff look like a pinhole
camera.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Jul 87 17:36:03 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: SPOT
Newsgroups: sci.space

>I believe there is a law which restricts the resolution ability of 
>non-government recon satellites, or at least satellites to which the
>public has ready access.

There aren't any laws on the books in the legal sense, but there are a
couple of physical and mathematical laws, like increases of resolution
increase data by O(n^2) [I. Newton].  This goes with spectral as well as
spatial resolution.  Consider for a moment that your have 10 cm
resolution, hold at a single wavelength.  When how big an image do you
have, well, it's it 1024 pixels on a side not very big.  You also want
relief (to judge how big things are).  You need to subtract out
potential motion blur, and you have to mosaic images if you want
something larger than 300 feet on a side (lots of things are larger than
300 feet which are of interest). This is not cheap.  The point is that
remote sensing involves lots of tradeoffs in sensing geometry.  I've
also not mentioned anything on sensor technology.  A good basic
reference are the two volumes of the Manual of Remote Sensing (About $60
the last time I bothered to look, probably more now).

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 00:43:50 GMT
From: tikal!hplsla!deanp@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dean Payne)
Subject: Re: SPOT

>>I can just see it -- the first operational test of SDI will not be
>>against the Soviets but against UPI...
>
>Don't laugh.  A working scientific satellite lost its routine funding a
>few years ago--it ended up being target fodder for an ASAT test.  It
>was collecting data up to the last moment of its existence.  According
>to Caspar Weinberger, it was "burned-out".  Uh huh.

I believe that it was an Air Force satellite that had outlived its
military usefulness, but was still providing scientific information.

It had discovered several sun-grazing and sun-colliding comets.
Unfortunately, an ASAT target balloon failed at or near launch, so DOD
picked out a convenient "dead satellite" that they owned.  A week later,
the news media finally reported that some scientists were complaining
about the sudden loss of data from this "dead" satellite.

Dean Payne	HP Lake Stevens Instrument Division
		ihnp4!{hplabs|harpo}!hp-pcd!hplsla!deanp

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 14:57:04 GMT
From: smeagol!jplgodo!ted@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (Ted Sweetser x44989 301/167)
Subject: Re: bandwidth

In article <360e469a.44e6@apollo.uucp>, nelson_p@apollo.uucp writes:

>    The size of an antenna is a function of the wavelength (inversely
>    related to the frequency) of the signal under consideration.  It 
>    has nothing to do with the bandwidth.

Au contraire, as signals get weaker one must either reduce the data
rate or increase the antenna size (assuming you've already optimized
your amplifiers) because of signal-to-noise problems.  This is a problem
currently being faced in the Voyager space mission, where I believe
both alternatives are being taken.
 		Ted Sweetser (jplgodo!ted)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #294
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Jul 87 06:21:49 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25189; Sun, 26 Jul 87 03:19:04 PDT
	id AA25189; Sun, 26 Jul 87 03:19:04 PDT
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 87 03:19:04 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707261019.AA25189@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #295

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 295

Today's Topics:
		      Keep Space safe for Space?
			       Re: We?
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
			      Re: metric
		   News of Soviet Space Activities
		   Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ...
      Why live in interstellar space (moving somewhere or not)?
		     Re: Betelguese and Supernova
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #289
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 18 Jul 87 17:38:28 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Keep Space safe for Space?
To: eagle!sph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: eagle!sph@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (S.P.Holmes)

Why don't you lighten up a little.  Everyone agrees that 90% of what
is posted is junk, but no two people ever agree on WHICH 90%.

Everything that I post, and everything I have seen that REM has posted,
has had something to do with space.  These messages have just as much
right to exist as any other.  Discussing how to get into space without
discussing how to pay for it is an exercise in futility.  After all,
we can do ANYTHING in space RIGHT NOW if price were no object.  But
price IS an object, and always will be.

There ARE people who post political arguments to the list which have
nothing to do with space.  Mike Trout did so in yesterday's issue.
I replied to his message and did not CC my reply to the list.  (I took
the liberty of forwarding your message to him.)

It would take you far less effort to skip the offending messsages than
to write the message you did.  Or why not READ the messages.?  You might
learn something.

> AAAAAGGGGHHHHHH !!!!!

That looks like fun.  Mind if I try?   AAAAAAAAGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHH!

> It angers me to see any subject where people are trying to
> achieve something new and real fill up with the old political
> hacks. ...

What is YOUR politicial opinion?  Why do you hold it?  Don't think
that you don't have on.  If you think you don't, it is simply
subconscious, and your voting behavior is controlled by your glands
instead of your mind.

> However I don't want your dogmas, ...

It's only a dogma if it is not based on reason.  Which is exactly what
we are arguing about on the net in the first place.

> ... go somewhere else where I can unsubscribe.

You will have to unsubscribe from life.  These debates will continue.
And not just on the net.

> Making Sci.* safe for scientists.

I am a scientist.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 07:43:37 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!killer!elg@ames.arpa  (Eric Green)
Subject: Re: We?

in article <227143.870713.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") says:
>> From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
>> Clearly, then, we should scrap all public and private space
>> activities and put the labor and capital into 'food or consumer goods
>> or industrial infrastructure' instead.

One of the biggest problems that the U.S. has is a huge OVERSUPPLY of
'food or consumer goods or industrial infrastructure'. For example, the
steel industry running at only 60% capacity. Or apartment complexes
nationally averaging only 70% occupancy (there's spot shortages in a few
big cities that have rent-controls, but nationwide, there's a huge
housing surplus). Or the tons of cheese sitting in U.S.D.A. warehouses,
occasionally distributed to welfare recipients.

Any problems you have with attaining such goods are in distribution
(i.e.  you're too poor to buy it!), not in a shortage of resources...

The space program seems a worthy cause to sink a couple percent of the
GNP into. Maybe we can get engineers working on designing spacecraft
instead of the next generation of GoBots :-).

  Eric Green {ihnp4,cbosgd}!killer!elg

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 20 Jul 87 14:02:40 PDT
From: Christopher Schmidt <SCHMIDT@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

	The City of Palo Alto, in its official description of parking
lot standards, specifies the grade of wheelchair access ramps in terms
of centimeters of rise per foot of run.  A compromise, I imagine...
--Christopher

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 21:17:01 GMT
From: fluke!inc@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Gary Benson)
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

>   Does anybody else find it a bit sad that in this supposed age of
>   metricization, NASA still quotes payload capacity in pounds?

>>  First, the metric system is the only "official" measurement system
>>  in the U.S., whatever that means.  I think this may go back to the
>>  very beginning of the country; someone like Jefferson pushed for it;
>>  it went along with the clever new idea of 100 cents in a dollar.
>>  (Does anyone know how old the metric system is?)

Yes! Nearly 200 years. The SI was commissioned by the French government
shortly after the revolution, which as I recall ended in 1789. The
original meter was some decaded division (1/millionth I think) of the
distance measured by a standard length of chain walked off between Paris
and Barcelona, which are both on 2 degrees East longitude. An
interesting sidenote: after it was invented, the French passed a series
of laws against using traditional units of measure. They actually jailed
a number of shopkeepers and such, but the system was firmly in place in
France within 4 years of its adoption. A second interesting sidenote:
when Britain went metric the US was left as the only advanced nation on
earth that does not use SI. We're not alone, though. There are three
other countries still holding out with us. Bahrain is one, but I forget
the other two. Excluding the US, the total population not using metric
is something around 1 million.

Now what's *that* doing in sci.space?

Gary Benson
John Fluke Mfg. Co. Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 22:44:49 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC)
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

Dan Rose writes:
>
>(Does anyone know how old the metric system is?)

I believe the metric system was created in 1797.

>However, some progress was made.  During this time, soft drink
>companies were coerced to change to metric packaging.  Out of this was
>born the liter and 2-liter bottle of soda, which corresponded to the
>change from glass to plastic.  There is now a whole generation of
>Americans who know what a metric unit is, instead of what the stupid
>formula is to convert it to English.  That wasn't so hard, was it?  Now
>if they started selling canned goods by kilos, we'd have the whole
>thing licked in a few more years.

Ask those people who learned what a liter is from pop bottles, how big
is a milliliter.  How many know that it's the same as a cc?  The same
problem also occurs with people who know what a milligram is from
vitamins but don't know what a gram is.  The point is that Americans are
learning the metric system piecemeal instead of as a complete system.
The best way to really convert to the metric system is to go cold
turkey, i.e. get rid of all references to the English equivalents so
that people have to think in metric.

>By the way, the "English" system isn't used by the English anymore.
>They also got rid of shillings and pence in the last 25 years.

I understand that when the English converted to a decimal coinage they
found that some people still liked to think in guineas.  Guineas are a
gold coin last minted in the early 1800's whose value was set at 21
shillings (1 pound + 1 shilling).

Dan Tilque
dant@tekla.tek.com

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 21 Jul 87 08:47 EST
From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Re: metric

In article <1397@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
>In article <722@trwcsed.trwrb.UUCP>, kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml) writes:
>> Also, whatever happened to the big push for metric that we were
>> hearing back in the 70's?.
>As I recall, there is a law on the books, passed by Congress sometime
>in the mid-70s, committing the US to adopting the Metric System.  The
>law, however, contains no timetable nor enforcement provisions.

This last weekend I was reminded at the pace we are converting to
metric.  I was on I-75 in Ohio when I saw a sign that said:

			    All signs metric
			     next 20 miles

Ron Picard  (PICARD@GMR.COM)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 21 Jul 87 11:42:56 MEZ
From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: News of Soviet Space Activities

Date: 21 July 1987, 11:41:20 MEZ
From: jens-thomas meyer         0551/709-2325        ES54     at DFVLRGO1
To:   SPACE at S1-B

>From a german newspaper ( refering to TASK) :

Progress 30 have entered the lower atmosphere and burned up.

The Soviets will launch a manned mission with three cosmonauts on
this wednesday. An astronaut from Syria will participate in the mission.
It was supposed that they will go to MIR.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 16:28:54 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ...

>  ... should the number of observed superluminals continue to increase,
>  "(i)t will be more and more difficult to believe that so many of the
>  most energetic and violent objects in the universe point themselves
>  right at us."

Maybe it's deliberate.  :-) :-)
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 19 Jul 87 00:45:32
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Why live in interstellar space (moving somewhere or not)?

<JM> Date: 10 Jul 87 13:53:05 GMT
<JM> From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
<JM> Subject: getting places

<JM> ... Next question: Why go anywhere?  At 1/1000G, most people
<JM> involved will not see anything they can't here, and generations
<JM> will see nothing.  To put in the effort to physically stabilize the
<JM> fragile shell, & to provide the effort of propulsion, you better
<JM> come up with a reason to leave, not a reason to get somewhere,
<JM> since the folks concerned will _NOT_ get somewhere.

I think I can rebut this on two points:
 (1) Outside the solar system the travelers will see the Galaxy and the
      beyond (other galaxies, and perhaps things invisible from Earth or
      LEO) like never before, unblocked by gas and dust and scattering
      of sunlight off same, with no artificial objects randomly getting
      in the field of view and damaging sensitive equipment.
 (2) Or instead of traveling they can keep station near a bunch of
      automated deep-space-based obvservatories, tending them. If
      something breaks down, repair with local staff (physical visit or
      just telepresence) would be much faster than telepresence from
      Earth, putting the equipment back in service before it becomes
      obsolete. Perhaps Earth/Sol society will send supplies and
      niceties in return for this important work.


<KFL> Date: Sat, 11 Jul 87 12:20:37 EDT
<KFL> From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
<KFL> Subject: Re: Overpopulation?
<KFL> To: LOCAL.arpa!jwm@aplvax.arpa
<KFL> Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

<KFL> 3) Habitats may trade valuable information with eachother.  Even
<KFL>    today, much that is paid for is information rather than goods
<KFL>    or services.  Going to another solar system, or even to the far
<KFL>    outer portions of this one, will allow them to collect very
<KFL>    valuable information that is useful for trading.  And there
<KFL>    should be no major problem in communicating over interstellar
<KFL>    distances.  Existing radio telescopes can communicate with a
<KFL>    similar device thousands of light years away.

There's a problem maintaining trading over distances where radio takes a
good fraction of a lifetime. Even if trade is desirable, defaulting on
the agreement is profitable due to lack of repeated interactions. It is
a form of "prisoner's dilemma" game where you win in the short run by
defaulting, and lose only if the game has enough cycles for the other
party to retaliate enough. See Axelrod's book ("The Evolution of
Cooperation" I think is the title) for computer tournament of Prisoner's
dilemma simulations and relationship to evolution etc., directly
applicable to this distant-radio commerce.

The only solution I see, other than genetically programmed people who
are slaves to contracts, is to have lots of trade-relay stations spaced
(pun, sorry) close enough that each neighboring pair can have frequent
interchanges to encourage cooperation and punish defaulting, and so each
trade-relay station can have several trading partners so as to have the
choice of trading with those who keep their agreements best and offer
the best price. The information will still filter across the Galaxy at
just under the speed of light, but there will be more of it because
everyone is in reliable trading contract with neighbors and thus more
willing to give away information (on promise of payback later) than with
direct trading aross hops that are many-lightmonths or lightyears long.

(It might be fun to try an info-barter system over the net to see how it
works, except these mailing lists and digests tend to discourage
bartering because any time somebody posts some information a whole lot
of freeloaders get it for free, i.e. without any incentive to post some
good information of their own. I don't know of any mechanism on this net
to make it easy to keep track of info-trading partners to support an
info-barter system.)


<JM> Date: 13 Jul 87 15:01:31 GMT
<JM> From: aplcen!aplvax!jwm@mimsy.umd.edu  (Jim Meritt)
<JM> Subject: Re: Overpopulation?

<JM> 3) "information trade" This one isn't bad, but will take some real
<JM> long-range planners, of which we have a shortage.

Or it must be directly beneficial to individual trading colonies over a
short term. What do you think of my comparing it to Prisoner's dilemma?
What do you think of my proposed short-hop frequent-interaction
solution?

<JM> I think that 5), which you missed, would be a better reason.  It
<JM> is, after all, the primary reason that the current colonies were
<JM> made: To get away from something (generally political) you don't
<JM> like.  Not crowding, just don't get along with your neighbors.
<JM> Stuff like wrong religion, prejudice, hate, and poor environmental
<JM> conditions (nuclear missles).

I agree, and let me elaborate a little... In deep space, nobody can
knock you out with a nuclear missile. The worst they can do is refuse to
send you supplies in return for work (you work for several employeers at
the same time and keep a good supply of emergency rations to last you a
disruption of supplies), or refuse to send you information (you stop
trading with them, and trade with others instead), or send you faulty
information to ruin your info-trading reputation (you always indicate
the route you got the info, which you guarantee to be from the trader
just before you, and you rely on that trader's word or on public-key
cryptosystems for all the traders earlier in the path, so any faulty
information is clearly identified with the creator and public-key signer
rather than the trader; and if possible you intelligently reject or
comment-on information that really looks fishy). Lack of supplies is a
big risk, but if that's less risk than nuclear missiles you take it.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 17:37:27 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova

How do you pronounce Betelguese ?

Beetle juice ?
Beetle geese ?
Bet ell goose ?

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 1987 17:04-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #289

Steve Abrams:
It is difficult to see how we can decide "so many of the most violent
objects are pointing themselves at us" when by the nature of the
superluminal, we may not be able to see the ones that don't point
directly at us. If the number pointing at us climbs, then it just means
the universe has that many more violent phenomena that we CAN't see
(yet).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #295
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Jul 87 10:45:42 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01581; Mon, 27 Jul 87 03:23:53 PDT
	id AA01581; Mon, 27 Jul 87 03:23:53 PDT
Date: Mon, 27 Jul 87 03:23:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707271023.AA01581@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #296

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 296

Today's Topics:
		     Re: Betelguese and Supernova
		   Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ...
		     Re: Betelguese and Supernova
		    Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
			Re: My grouse with L5
			     L5 Rebuttal
			Re: My grouse with L5
			Re: My grouse with L5
		     Sagan == Death of the Future
		   Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ...
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 23:04:31 GMT
From: bloom-beacon!tjpak@husc6.harvard.edu  (Tae J Pak)
Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova

Brent Callaghan writes:
>How do you pronounce Betelguese ?

It is pronounced "BET-tel-jews" .

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 22:19:41 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC)
Subject: Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ...

Josh Diamond writes:
>There is some work being done at University of Rochester's Physics
>Department (by Emil Wolf - one of my ex-professors) that indicates the
>existance of a NON-ASTRONOMICAL red shift, which could explain the
>"appears to be moving faster that light" problems.

I think you mean NON-DOPPLER red shift.  


>I'm not sure whether this has been published yet, 

There was a write-up about this is a recent Science News article.  The
magazine is at home so I don't know the date (early/middle July).

Dan Tilque
dant@tekla.tek.com

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 03:32:50 GMT
From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arpa  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Betelguese and Supernova

In article <457@unisoft.UUCP> jef@unisoft.UUCP (Jef Poskanzer) writes:
>Face it, Weener.  We don't *know* jack shit about stars.  What we've
>got is a lot of guesswork.  It's probably very good guesswork, but all
>the "Trust me, I'm a Doctor" posturing in the world won't make it
>anything else.  We won't *know* about stars until we go surfing on
>them...

Oh sure, the fact that we saw a burst of neutrinos from the supernova
approximately in line with theory shows that we're sooo ignorant...

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Santa Clara, California
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	But ... physicists were still far removed from such a
	way of thinking; space was still, for them, a rigid,
	homogeneous something, susceptible of no change or
	conditions.  Only the genius of Riemann, solitary
	and uncomprehended, had already won its way by the
	middle of the last century to a new conception of
	space, in which space was deprived of its rigidity,
	and in which its power to take part in physical
	events was recognized as possible.  
		Albert Einstein, *Essays in Science*, 1934

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 20:33:04 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING

In article <1302@sputnik.COM> inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes:
>people around this newsgroup have been discussing lately. People are asking,
>"How can we get the US moving again in the space effort?"
>
>Why not make use of Mr. Sagan's talents? ...

    Because the kind of `space effort' Sagan wants is just like
Apollo: a laudable goal (going to Mars), but in such a fashion that
NOTHING will be left over when the goal is accomplished. He is pushing
US-Soviet cooperation on a Mars mission for political reasons first
and scientific reasons second, and putting humanity permanently into
space is nowhere on his agenda. Many of us are fighting this nonsense.
(If Sagan's Mars mission was paid for out of the State Dept. budget,
I wouldn't care.)

--
    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 14:34:14 GMT
From: phri!roy@NYU.ARPA  (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

> However, some progress was made.  During this time, soft drink
> companies were coerced to change to metric packaging.  Out of this was
> born the liter and 2-liter bottle of soda

	I remember when metric was just starting to get introduced.  The
big incentive was that since all units were powers of ten, it would be easy
to compare prices in the supermarket.  Bullshit!  Now, instead of 28 oz for
$1.49 vs. 45-1/2 oz. for $2.19, we have 750ml for $1.39 vs. 1.75l for
$2.29.  You think that makes it any easier to calculate the better per-unit
price?  And while I'm on the subject, what's this facination American
marketing has with 9's?  I mean, green beans for $0.69 instead of $0.70?
And not just in supermarkets; a Sun-3/50 now lists for $4995; why not an
even $5k?
-- 
Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 17:08:58 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: My grouse with L5

>     People who disapprove of L5 have N other organizations to get
> involved in. Planetary Society. SSI. BIS. WSF...

SSI, BIS, and WSF are all good (I'll be publishing plugs for them from
time to time in my AW&ST summaries).

But please, not the Planetary Society!  That really is a bunch of cheer-
leaders.  Worse:  cheerleaders for Carl Sagan, not cheerleaders for the
space program.  If you really believe that since "...humans have been to
the Moon six times... it is not a place crying out for further exploration",
then join the so-called self-styled "Planetary Society".  If you want to get
mankind into space, put your dues into SSI or WSF instead.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 16:13:20 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: L5 Rebuttal


>From: adamj@tart14.berkeley.edu.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter)
>Subject: My grouse with L5

>	It is a surprise to hear this, but not the sort of thing I was
>hoping for.  When I was a member, I asked quite a few people if L5
>had ever taken a stand against any action, and nobody could recall.
>Indeed, the person who answered the phone at _L5 News_ said that L5
>had never done so.

>  They live in a fantasy land, publishing articles
>that show a fundamental lack of understanding of high-school physics
>		<<< L5 does nothing.  >>>

First of all, I share a lot of the sentiment that Adam expressed in his
article. It is the prime reason I could never become a part of any
local chapter for any length of time, seemed to be a lot of effort
tied up doing nothing. Going to conventions and preaching to the 
believers is not very useful. 

Never-the-less, in the late 1970s there was a treaty that the Carter
administration was about to sign called the UN Moon Treaty. Signing this
treaty would have made it as binding as US Law. Among other things this 
treaty declared all extraterrestrial resources to be the common heritage
of all mankind and hence no citizen or government had the legal right
to exploit any space resource without the approval an UN commission.
(So much for free enterprise in space.)

Furthermore, the treaty gave any government the right to "inspect" any
device, station/facility off Earth. (Personally I don't want the KGB
having the "right" to board my solar sailing yacht.)

At that time, the L5 Society went to Washington, hired a lawyer, and 
managed to reach high up enough into the Carter Administration to stop the
Moon Treaty dead in its tracks. In doing this the Society incurred a large
financial debt that it eventually had to pay off. To say that L5 never
did anything is dead wrong. It was L5, and only L5, that prevented this
treaty from becoming the law of the land. 

I remember this pretty vividly, the society was only 3000 members at the
time and as a staving graduate student I donated what I could to fight 
this Treaty. It was a black time, there was less interest in space than
today, if you can believe that. We weren't flying much of anything, the
shuttle wasn't near ready and no one seemed to understand why anyone 
would care if we gave away a few rocks in space.


				Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 17:01:10 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: My grouse with L5

> ... When I was a member, I asked quite a few people if L5
> had ever taken a stand against any action, and nobody could recall.

Have you never heard of the Moon Treaty?  I find this hard to believe.
L5's place in history is secure for scuttling that, if for nothing else.
(If you want to be pedantic, it was scuttled by persons who Just Happened
to also be affiliated with L5 -- L5 per se is/was Strictly Non-Political
to conform with IRS regs -- but we all know what that really means.)

Past doings of the L5 Phone Tree -- another organization which has No
Official Connection with L5 but just happens to involve the same people --
might also be of interest.  It did play some part in little unimportant
matters like the survival of Galileo and funding for the space station.

> ... _L5 News_ is indicative of my reasons for leaving...

If you want better stuff in L5 News (or whatever the revised version is
called, I forget...), contribute some.  Remember that you won't get paid
for it.  Any newsletter's biggest problem is getting good material.

I don't speak for L5/NSI/NSS/etc., but I'm proud to be a life member.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 02:14:15 GMT
From: nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: My grouse with L5

In article <8336@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>But please, not the Planetary Society!  That really is a bunch of cheer-
> ...
>Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
>the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!he

	Although I agree entirely with those who dislike the PS and
Sagan, this reminds me so much of a scene from "The Life of Brian" (I
think Henry already mentioned this point, actually, but the analogy is
so clear... and I didn't memorize this so it's just roughly correct,
don't send me corrections!)

[The scene is in a Roman Coliseum.  Brian walks up to a small group of
people complaining about Romans and their horrible oppression]

Brian: ...I hate the Roman's too!  Are you the Judean People's front?

Reg: F**k off!!!

Brian: [taken aback] What???

Reg:  Piss off!  Bloody Judean people's front...SPLITTERS!  Do
we look like the Judean People's front????  WE are the People's front
of Judea!!!

Brian: Sorry...I didn't mean...

Reg: There's only one thing we hate more than Romans, and that's the
bloody Judean people's front!

...ANyway, I think you get the idea.  Once again, though, I do agree
that Carl et al are a bunch of splitter!


Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 05:42:15 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Sagan == Death of the Future

In article <424@uop.UUCP> robert@uop.UUCP (Robert  McCaul) writes:
>i originally started this as a query of net readers as to the questionaire
>sent out by the planetary soceity.

    I never saw this, only the various Re: Carl Sagan postings.

>Saganisms, that is fine, but these newsgroups have better things to
>discuss (i hope)

    True enough. Like how to stop the 'Mars Now' movement that Sagan,
Bruce Murray, et al. are heading.

    For years I have seen people preaching about how the pro-space
community has to present an organized front in order to accomplish
anything. The problem is that the different groups want fundamentally
different things; there is no community of interests. L-5/NSS, SSI,
and many other groups want to get people into space, along with the
ever-famous `infrastructure'* mentioned in the NCOS report.  The
details differ. NSI/NSS usually comes off very pro-NASA, while the
individual members (at least the L-5 portion) want vastly increased
private activities in space, correctly not trusting NASA to do the
job. The extremists want NO government activities in space (or
anywhere else :-).  But the goals are much the same.

* One definition of this word is rather hair-raising: `foundation,
groundwork; esp: the permanent installations required for military
purposes'. Presumably this is not the usage NCOS meant...

    Sagan & his Planetary Society, on the other hand, are focused on
one thing only: planetary exploration. They didn't want manned
spaceflight - until they got involved with the US/USSR joint Mars
mission concept. They didn't want a space station - until they
realized one is required to assemble a Mars mission (and if the
cooperative aspect works, why, the Soviets already have this nice
space station - no need to sully our hands with something potentially
USEFUL!)

    Planetary exploration is exciting, great science, gets good PR -
and it's woefully underfunded. But by making it the prime focus of
American space activities, we forfeit the future to nations and
indviduals with a broader vision. We abandon hope of PERSONALLY going
into space someday.

    The philosophy Sagan is the major proponent of is an attempt to
steal our future - and, by God, we will not let him do it without one
HELL of a fight! The man's achievements and personal qualities are
utterly irrelevant to why many people oppose him. In every meaningful
way, Sagan is the first active opposition (as opposed to being
ignored) that space activists have ever encountered. I want to see
people go to Mars too - but I want to see a child born in Luna City
first.	Where's D.D. Harriman when you need him, anyway?

--
    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

SUSHIDO - The Way of the Tuna

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 20:16:34 GMT
From: mcvax!jack@seismo.css.gov  (Jack Jansen)
Subject: Re: ... *seem* to travel FTL ...

In article <8707150210.AA08860@angband.s1.gov> EXT768@UKCC.BITNET (Steve Abrams) writes:
> ...  As the Science News article says, should the number of
> observed superluminals continue to increase, "(i)t will be more and more
> difficult to believe that so many of the most energetic and violent objects in
> the universe point themselves right at us."

Could someone please explain what these superluminal quasars are
about?

I think I would feel rather upset if I heard that Earth is a preferred
target for energetic and violent objects.........
-- 
	Jack Jansen, jack@cwi.nl (or jack@mcvax.uucp)
	The shell is my oyster.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #296
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Jul 87 06:19:32 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02099; Tue, 28 Jul 87 03:18:29 PDT
	id AA02099; Tue, 28 Jul 87 03:18:29 PDT
Date: Tue, 28 Jul 87 03:18:29 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707281018.AA02099@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #297

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 297

Today's Topics:
			    Launch of TM-3
			   Sick cosmonaut?
			 Re: Sick cosmonaut?
		 Soviet TM-3 mission launched to Mir
		      Bolide or Orbital Debris?
			     size of moon
  Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle?
			 Challenger Center??
		       Re: Challenger Center??
			     Re: antennas
		      space Re Mobile Receivers
			  Airlines in Space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Jul 87 08:49:23 MEZ
From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Launch of TM-3

SOYUS TM-3 was launched on wednesday,22.7.87,2.59(GMT), without any
complications.

Three cosmonauts are aboard of Soyus TM-3. Two russians and one
cosmonaut from Syria. This is the first step into space of syria.  The
spaceship should fly over Syria three times.

Soyus TM-3 should dock to MIR on Friday.

The crew of Soyus TM-3 should stay in orbit for seven days.

The present crew of MIR has been in orbit since 167 days.

In the news it was said that there is a new docking mechanism, and a new
propulsion system (?) aboard of Soyus TM-3.

Jens-Thomas Meyer

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 25 Jul 87 17:46:26 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Sick cosmonaut?

Heard on the radio ("All Things Considered") that one of the Soviet
cosmonauts aboard Mir since February has developed "heart trouble" and
will be relieved by another cosmonaut in the next few days.

Anybody know any more details about this?  It was mentioned in what
seemed like an incidental fashion, so it seems like it is not especially
serious (the main story compared the US & USSR space programs).

Speaking of ill cosmonauts, a few months ago one was brought down
because of "pneumonia" under what seemed like relatively urgent
conditions.  There was a staunch refusal by the Soviets to discuss
details.  Has anyone heard anything about this?

	John Sotos

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 87 08:32:06 GMT
From: nysernic!itsgw!leah!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!ed@rutgers.edu  (Ed Ahrenhoerster)
Subject: Re: Sick cosmonaut?

Yeah, just like "Gorbachev (sp?) has a cold" :-)

Seriously, newscasting methods can not be compared between the two
countries; so do not presume that something mentioned "incidentally" is
incidental.  It might be, but then again it might not.

-Ed Ahrenhoerster

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 26 Jul 87 10:21:46 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet TM-3 mission launched to Mir

   The USSR has successfully started it's international TM-3 mission to
the Mir/Kvant spacestation.  On July 20th they began by undocking the
Progress 30 cargo ship from Mir, and sending it into the atmosphere.  On
July 22 the Soyuz TM-3 was launched from the Baikonour cosmodrome
containing 3 men.  The crew consists of Alexander Victorenko (mission
comander & new cosmonaut), Alexander Alexandrov (flight engineer, with a
Soyuz T-9 149 day mission to his credit previously), and Mohamad Farise
(Syrian guest cosmonaut). On July 25th the Soyuz TM-3 docked to the Mir
station rear port, where they join Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Laveikin
who have been up there for 170 days now (nearly 6 months).  The crews
are currently concentrating on earth observation and biomedical
experiments.  However, there has been a lot of talk about a large format
East German camera they are going to use.  It sounds a bit like the
Omnimax film system shoot on the early shuttle flights.  Also they talk
about experiments that will require larges amount of power - possibly
welding done in the vacuum section of Kvant.  This mission will last
till about the end of the month.  On report from the BBC (but not from
the Russian shortwave) said that there would be a partial crew
switchoff.
   This mission again shows the change in the Soviet program toward
openness.  This is the third mission in a row where the launch date was
announced in advance plus the launch and docking to the station were
shown live on television (including Syrian TV in this case).  Addmitedly
live here means with a 7 second delay loop in case something fails.  In
this current mission they carried it further, giving the names of the
backup crew (which they almost never have done), and following the
movement of the cosmonauts from Star City to the launch site weeks
before the flight.  It almost sounds like the old Apollo days in
broadcasting here.
   Meanwhile we have the President's science advisor Dr. Graham
preventing NASA from giving Reagan a report on the Soviet Space Program.
Big lie techniques work well - if we keep telling ourselves we are the
leaders in space then we will convince ourselves that we are, even when
outside the USA people know that we are far behind.
   Sorry I am late in posting this - family visits prevented my getting
on the net sooner.

                                             Glenn Chapman
                                             MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 22:16:12 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Bolide or Orbital Debris?

I witnessed a beautiful green fireball last Saturday night (7/18/87) at
11:47 PM CDT, from Lake Ft. Gibson, Oklahoma.  It was traveling south to
north, approximately 10 degrees east of north and was visible about 4 to
5 seconds.  The object had a white trailing wake about 1 degree long.  I
estimate the apparent diameter as one-third lunar diameter, or 10
seconds of arc.  Two of us saw the fall.

Very pretty, very much like the incoming Martian bolides in WAR OF THE
WORLDS.  (And a bit creepy, considering the conversation we four were
having at the time, about aliens and such...)

Does anyone have information on decaying polar satellites about that
time?  Anyone else see it?  (There WAS an SF con going on in Tulsa at
the time, and who knows what they might have arranged.)

--Arlan Andrews

------------------------------

Date:     Friday 24 Jul 87 11:43 PM CT
From: David A. Lyons <AWCTTYPA%UIAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  size of moon

>I found a stone that I called Earth, then another one that was about
>one-sixth the size.  Together we calculated where to put it so it could
>be the moon, then we figured out how big the sun would be and that it
>would be about a half mile offshore.  We wound up doing most of the
>solar system.

Note that the Earth is about 3.66 times bigger (radius/diameter) than
the moon.  Now, the *surface gravity* of the moon is 1/6 of Earth's, but
be careful!  The *surfaces* are different distances from the center of
mass.

Probably a lot of people never stop to think that 1/6 surface gravity is
not the same as 1/6 mass--I am guilty of this myself.  I worked out some
moderately long calculations (just for fun) assuming that the moon's
mass was 1/6 of the Earth's, and didn't notice my error until weeks
later.  (The calculation was just "Where is the point between two masses
m1 and m2 a distance d apart where the gravitational forces from m1 and
m2 balance?"  It *does* come down to a very simple expression in the
end.  It's a fun problem & doesn't even require calculus.)

   David A Lyons
   AWCTTYPA@UIAMVS (BITNET)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 87 09:26:50 MEZ
From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Is there an escape module on the 'second' generation shuttle?

Date: 22 July 1987, 09:24:58 MEZ
From: jens-thomas meyer         0551/709-2325        ES54     at DFVLRGO1
To:   SPACE at S1-B

In Space-Digest 276 (Tue,7.7.87) I asked:

IS THERE AN ESCAPE MODULE ON THE 'SECOND' GENERATION SHUTTLE?

I asked this question with regard to an article in a german newspaper.
in this article it was written that there will be installed an escape
module in the shuttle. This will be based on rockets which will be
externally attached to the pressure vessel.

In Space-Digest 282 (Mon,13.7.87) I found an article written by Russ
Olsen. He refered to an article from Darren Leigh and wrote about
a destruction system for the manned space flights. Two more articles
in Space-Digest 285 (Bob Philhower,Chalie Bounds) had the same object.

I want to know if there are a RESCUE possibility for astronauts in
'second' generation shuttle.

Mr. MacLeod wrote about problems with the hot plume from the SRB's
which could destroy the escape module. I think this poblem will not
exist if the escape module will be seperated from the remaining parts
of the shuttle very fast by means of rockets ( like the rescue system
of the Saturn V).

Jens-Thomas Meyer

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 87 21:31:18 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Challenger Center??

This is a question about a recent solicitation received in the mail.
I assume many readers of this newsgroup must have gotten the same
one.  It was a letter signed by June Scobee, identified as wife of
(deceased) astronaut Dick Scobee.  The letter is full of the need for
dreams, inspiration, and financial support, but lacks description of
just what that financial support will be used for.  There is also a 
glossy brochure about a proposed "Challenger Center."  Actually there
are apparently plans for two centers, one in Washington, DC and one
at JSC in Houston.  The goals of the centers are worthy (e.g. "to
excite our imagination", "to teach"), but there is no mention of how
CC proposes to achieve those goals.  There is no list of members of a
board of directors.  (Indeed no names except June Scobee.)  The
return address is a P.O. Box in Washington, DC.

Does anyone know if this organization (Challenger Center) is
legitimate?  Who are the leaders?  Is there a good chance they will
actually do what they say they want to do?

I'll be glad to summarize any e-mail replies.  I'm also going to
write to the National Charities Information Bureau, but I don't have
much hope of a useful reply from them.  (They're a good organization
for reviewing established groups, but they are slow to write up
reports on new ones.)  Thanks for any help.
-- 
Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 87 13:25:40 GMT
From: uunet!pyrdc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Re: Challenger Center??

In article <634@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner) writes:
>This is a question about a recent solicitation received in the mail.
>
>Does anyone know if this organization (Challenger Center) is
>legitimate?  Who are the leaders?  Is there a good chance they will
>actually do what they say they want to do?
>

Well Steve, so long as you asked...

The Challenger Center for Space Science Education is a very real
organization with offices in Washington DC.  June Scobee (who has a PhD
in Education) is chairman of the board (made up of members of the
families of the Challenger Seven) and James Rosebush is President and in
charge of day to day operations.

The Center is currently in the midst of a one year (until January 28,
1988) fund-raising drive aimed at raising $50 million from direct mail
(what you and I received) industry, government, provate foundations,
etc.  They'll send you a breakdown of how they plan to raise the money
if you'd like.

Parallel to the fund-raising, a lot of work is going on in the area of
curriculum in cooperation with teachers, major museums and researchers
across the U.S.

The Challenger Center for Space Science Education will be building (to
start) a Space Life Center in Washington DC, and a Satellite Center in
Houston Texas.  These centers will be used to bring students and their
teachers in for hands on learning experiences in simulated space flight
and planning.  The aim is to aid the students math, science and
communications skills.  Eventually, additional Space Life Centers will
be built in other parts of the country.

But these buildings aren't the Challenger Center.  The Space Life
Centers will be in computer communication with classrooms all over the
country (a network...sound familiar) so that other students and teachers
will be' able to work with the Space Life Station missions.  In addition
class plans and teaching materials will be made available for teachers
unable to tie into the network (or as a suppliment to it).

The whole idea behind the Center was for the families to give back some
of what they received from the American people following the disaster,
and to continue Christa McAuliffe's mission.

How do I know all this stuff?  Well, I'm the Center's volunteer (yes, I
think the only one).  I've been helping out for the past six months or
so and part of my job is to keep people on computer networks up to date
on progress.

Any questions?

++rich
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+
 |  Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                 A|W|A     |
 |  8519 White Pine Drive        The cause endures...               H|T|H     |
 |  Manassas Park, VA 22111        The hope still lives...          /|||\     |
 |  (703)361-1290 (h)           And the dream shall never die.     /_|T|_\    |
 |  (703)749-2315 (w)  (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker)             " W "     |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+

------------------------------

Date: 21 Jul 87 18:16:29 GMT
From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: antennas

>   Wrong again; antenna *gain* must grow if you want to improve the
>   ratio of signal to the noise generated in your receiving system.

Yes, antenna gain is what matters.

>   Most antenna designs are tuned to a specific wavelength (or function
>   of a wavelength, i.e., 1/4 wave, 1/2 wave, etc).  This determines
>   the frequency where the antenna will exhibit maximum gain.
>   Increasing the size past this point would only *degrade* performance
>   although, depending on the design if you increased it by some
>   integer multiple of the wavelength you might hit another gain 'peak'.

Except that the most popular satellite antenna (the parabolic dish) is
*frequency insensitive*, as long as you operate above its cutoff (i.e,
on frequencies where a wavelength is "small" with respect to the dish's
physical size.)  In this region, antenna gain depends directly on
antenna area, plus a few assorted things like illumination efficiency
(typically 50%). It may also surprise you to know that antenna gain
isn't everything. It is just as important to keep a relatively hot
object (like the sun or even the earth) from being "seen" by the
antenna, lest its blackbody radiation in the microwave region swamp out
the desired satellite signal.  It is often worthwhile to sacrifice a bit
of antenna gain if it will reduce sidelobe responses.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 22 Jul 87 17:30:13 EST
From: JBAPTIST%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: space Re Mobile Receivers

Date: 22 July 1987, 16:57:32 EST
From: Jose Pedro V. Poiares Baptista                 JBAPTIST at ESTEC
To:   SPACE at S1-B
Subject: Re Mobile Receivers
       INMARSAT is already using geostationary orbits for mobile
telecommunications with commercial ships and airplanes.
       Non geostationary orbits were already used for telecommunication
purposes (see Molnya Satellites (USSR)) for fixed satellite service.
       This type of orbits was also studied for mobile communication
for T-Sat (UK). The advantage of this type of orbit (highly elliptical
with a period of around 12 hours and with the apogee above the area
of coverage) is that the satellite can be seen for around 8 hours
with a very high elevation angle (higher than 70 degrees).
       This particularity allows the implementation of a system
with no satellite tracking and allowing the use of flat antennas
on car roofs.

       I am not sure that this small thing will get there so I will
stop here.
                       Pedro Baptista    (JBAPTIST at ESTEC.BITNET)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 14:25:35 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Airlines in Space

A minor correction on a previous posting of mine: I stated that United
Air Lines predicted failure of the DC-3.  An e-mailed question prompted
me to re-check my sources.  United did hold back on buying the DC-3 for
quite a while and United's Pat Patterson didn't think the plane would
amount to much.  But the big opponent to the DC-3 was TWA.  Their test
pilot flew the prototype and announced that it was "a clunk".  Extensive
development problems seemed to back him up for a while, but we all know
what eventually happened.

And now what you REALLY wanted to read: due to extensive flamage this
location (my terminal is melting), this discussion about airline and
airliner history is being moved to rec.aviation.  I agree that it
doesn't belong here.  Unfortunately, I feel that it doesn't belong in
rec.aviation either (note the .rec), nor in any other existing group.
I've proposed a misc.frequent.flyer group to handle discussions about
the airline industry.  So far the whopping response has been three yes
votes and three no votes.  I promise that when incorrect airline
information is posted in sci.space, I will not reply other than to
invite the poster to join me in rec.aviation for a showdown.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #297
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Jul 87 06:19:48 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01477; Wed, 29 Jul 87 03:18:49 PDT
	id AA01477; Wed, 29 Jul 87 03:18:49 PDT
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 87 03:18:49 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707291018.AA01477@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #298

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 298

Today's Topics:
	       Be an astronaut (or just look like one)
			   Re: anniversary
	     Re: Be an astronaut (or just look like one)
	       Audio Tape of Challenger's Last Seconds
		       Re: Government in space
		     Sagan != Death of the Future
	      Space science is not special, nor is Mars
			Still more infighting
		   Re: Sagan != Death of the Future
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 17:28:11 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Be an astronaut (or just look like one)


Okay, as long ago promised, here is the information on astronaut-type
jumpsuits (I'm not a shuttle pilot, but I play one on TV...). 

Disclaimer in advance, I don't work for any of these companies, but I
do own (or plan to) at least one suit from each company.  I am gathering
together the group order from Barrier wear, cost to you will be cost from
Barrier-Wear plus postage from me to you (jumpsuits don't email...yet).

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. U.S. Space Camp, 1 Tranquility Base, Huntsville AL 35807

   These are the jumpsuits used in Space Camp and come with the Space Camp
patches.  Adult and kid's suits are available with adult costing $74
and kid $69.  Adult sizes are even mens' 36 to 50 regular.  Kids run
even sizes 6 to 20. 
If you attend camp, you have a chance to try them
on for size first.  The material is sky blue polycotton (50/50).  The suits
have exposed zippers, chest and hip pockets and velcro wrist and ankle
adjustments.  Available by mail (catalog available at above address
or call 800-633-7280 and ask for the gift shop).
PERSONAL OPINION - The last on my list, since there are better suits available
for the same or less money, even the kids'  On the other hand, if you
attend camp, you CAN try them on for size first.


2. The Cockpit, 33-00 47th Ave, Long Island City, NY 11101
   (retail outlet) 595 Broadway, NY, NY      1-800-354-5514

   The retail arm of Avirex, the folks who make Space Camp's jumpsuits
as well as having made military flight gear for many years.  Adult flight
suits similar to NASA's include Item #6341.  100% cotton in NASA  Cobalt
Blue, seven zippered pockets, velcro wrist and waist adjustment tabs,
two way front zipper, Velcro square for IDs.  even sizes 36-50 regular.
This is the version without shuttle chase team patches. $69.
   Much nicer than the Space Camp suit, this is what the Enterprise Team
wore to camp last year.  The only disadvantages are a) cotton shrinks and
b) no pockets to put your hands in.
Item #6340 is similar in Royal Blue (what the astronauts will be wearing when
flights resume in 198?).  It has epaulets and is cut to the 1985 Navy
flight suit mil specs. $89
   A kids' suit (Item #6339K) is $39.50 and identical to the space camp
kids suit except for slightly different patches.
PERSONAL OPINION - I'd certainly buy the kids' suit from them ( a lot cheaper
for the same suit ), and would buy the adult jumpsuit too if it wasn't for

3. Barrier_Wear 158 Bodo Drive Durango, CO 81301 (their address)

   They make the clothing for NASA.  In royal blue Nomex, the cost is
$275.  And if you want exactly what the astronauts wear, that's the way
to go.  HOWEVER, before you panic, I've been working with Ray Lawson at
Barrier-Wear since April, and we've come up with a modified version
in 50/50 poly/cotton in the new Royal Blue color.  It's missing some
external velcro strips, the lower leg and cigarette pockets, but still
has chest and thigh pockets, pass through hip pockets (the kind you
put your hands in) zippered sleeve and ankle adjustments, velcro
patch for identification, etc.  The price is compatible with the
others (I'll have the exact price from Barrier-Wear July 28th).
Sizes available are
32 short to 46 long.
The only thing is, Barrier-Wear isn't in the retail biz.  We need to
buy (in the general vicinity of) 20 of the things.  I'm putting the
order together.  Many orders will come from the Space Camp groups I'm
headed down with, but if you're interested by all means let me know.
Total cost to you will be $ (Barrier-Wear's price) + $ (postage and wrapping).
I'm not planning on making any profit on this,
this is my cost.  My address is:
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+
 |  Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                 A|W|A     |
 |  8519 White Pine Drive        The cause endures...               H|T|H     |
 |  Manassas Park, VA 22111        The hope still lives...          /|||\     |
 |  (703)361-1290 (h)           And the dream shall never die.     /_|T|_\    |
 |  (703)749-2315 (w)  (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker)             " W "     |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+

I'll post the price of the Barrier-Wear version next week when I get it.
Those of you in the Washington, DC area, I'll have a prototype the
August 1,2 weekend (email me so we can get together).

++rich

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 17:07:53 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: anniversary

in article <2048@zeus.TEK.COM>, dant@tekla.TEK.COM (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC) says:
> Anyone for the creation of a national space holiday?  If other
> minority groups can have holidays, why not the space cadets?

I believe that AIAA has been trying to get July 20 designated as a
national holiday for about 17 years now. July 20, and usually the entire
period covered by the Apollo 11 mission has been desginated a state
holiday by all 50 states for at least the last 5 years.

		Bob P.
Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland
UUCP Address:  {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet
Alternate:     {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet
        I am solely responsible for what I say.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 16:06:32 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Be an astronaut (or just look like one)

In article <276@netxcom.UUCP> rkolker@netxcom.UUCP (rich kolker) writes:
>Item #6340 is similar in Royal Blue (what the astronauts will be wearing when
>flights resume in 198?).  It has epaulets and is cut to the 1985 Navy
>flight suit mil specs. $89

There must be some suitable comment about an organisation which
has already chosen what colour of flight suits astronauts will be
wearing on the next flight of a machine which MIGHT take off
in over a year from now.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 87 23:25:55 GMT
From: robiner@oberon.usc.edu  (Steve Robiner)
Subject: Audio Tape of Challenger's Last Seconds


I had heard that the New York Times had recieved a court settlement
in which NASA had 30 days to turn over the actual audio tape 
retrieved from the Challenger black box.  Its been well over 30 days,
but I haven't heard anymore about it.  Has anyone heard or read about
this tape?

=Steve=

------------------------------

Date: 20 Jul 87 22:19:00 GMT
From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Government in space


[KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU.UUCP ]
>And the prime question wasn't whether the Southern economy  could
>run without slaves, but whether slavery was moral. It wasn't. And
>the situation today is exactly parallel. Those stately antebellum
>mansions  were  quite  beautiful. So are the pictures from Apollo
>and Voyager. But that doesn't justify either slavery or taxation.

Beautifully put. I agree. But that is not the whole  issue.  *As-
suming* slavery or taxation exist, it is better to build graceful
mansions than ugly ones; it is better to promote  space  explora-
tion  than, say, population control. At least it *may* be better;
another argument - that government space programs actually retard
private  ones  - may still hold. I am open to conviction.  But it
would be naive to expect the government to tax less because  peo-
ple  stop  pressuring it for space programs. They'd just spend it
on something else. There is  nothing  inconsistent  in  resisting
taxation *and* arguing for greater space budgets.

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 16:28:31 GMT
From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Sagan != Death of the Future

I am getting fed up with all of the Carl Sagan bashing that's been going
on lately.  I would like to make a few points in his (and the Planetary
Society's favor).  I am a biased participant, being a trained planetary
astronomer and a charter member of the Planetary Society, though I was
involved in very early L-5 activity at MIT in 1975-76.

1.  Carl is one of the grand old men of the young field of planetary studies,
having done good scientific work on Mars in the very early 60's and
edited the major journal in the field, *Icarus*, for more than 10 years.
He studied under Gerard Kuiper at the University of Chicago and taught
at Harvard (which turned him down for tenure, to their later dismay)
before settling in at Cornell.  I worked in his lab there for 2-1/2
years.  His writings made him famous well before Cosmos, and he is
respected by scientists in his field for increasing public suppoort for
their work.

2.  The Planetary Society has, for the most part, the support of the
planetary science community, members of which have devoted their lives
to the study of the solar system.  We see expanding humanity's
consciousness of its place in the universe as important a goal as
getting a few humans out there.

3.  We have tried for years to keep some sort of planetary exploration
program alive in the face of varying NASA budgets and the GIGANTIC cost
overruns of the manned space program.  Remember that the last successful
planetary probes were launched years before the shuttle flew.  The
crumbs of money that fall toward science that can be done (or at least
attempted) from the shuttle dwarf what can be obtained through current
planetary programs.  I have been employed for the last three years on a
shuttle-flown astrophysics project that was funded that way.

4.  The Mars goal was not set by Carl and Bruce, but by a group of
graduate students at the University of Colorado who called themselves
the Mars Underground (many of whom I am proud to call friends).  They
decided that the constant studies and redesigns of the US planetary
program were totally unproductive and went outside normal channels to
call the first Case for Mars Conference in 1981, getting some support
from the Planetary Society.  The third conference is occurring even as I
type, in Boulder.  The Boston Globe has been carrying daily dispatches
from it this week.  Their goal, in the words of Dan Burnham, designer of
the turn-of-the-century Plan for the City of Chicago was to "make no
small plans; they have no power to move the minds of men."  And I think
that the minds of men (and women) are moving.

On to the Oort cloud,
Doug Mink, aging, but hopeful, hippy astronomer
mink@cfa.harvard.edu
{seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 19:41:45 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Space science is not special, nor is Mars

In article <630@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> mink@cfa.harvard.EDU (Doug Mink) writes:
>  We see expanding humanity's consciousness of its place in the universe

    Which is hardly the sole province of space science!

>as important a goal as getting a few humans out there.

    See what I mean about fundamentally different goals? We want to
get a LOT of humans out there. You don't even acknowledge the concept.

>Their goal... was to "make no small plans; they have no power to move
>the minds of men."  And I think that the minds of men (and women) are
>moving.

    Project Apollo moved people's minds too. Then it moved NASA into a
hole that it shows no sign of getting out of even today - because Apollo
was a PROJECT, not a PROCESS. The Mars mission is another closed
project. If we do it the way the Martians want, another generation of
planetary scientists will have employment. Ah, but what then?

    I think a lot more planetary science would get done if the up-front
costs for launching were not hundreds of millions of $$$; if
opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to
last for decades; if each project wasn't such a major financial and
managerial endeavour. The way to achieve this is greatly expanded human
presence in space.

    Maybe it's just my prejudiced imagination, but this talk of human
destiny, high goals, place in the universe, etc. etc. which comes up
every time the Martians try to justify themselves seems to contain an
unconscious assumption of moral superiority that makes me very
uncomfortable.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

Down with Mars! Back to the Moon first.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 00:18:07 GMT
From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Still more infighting

Jon Leech replies to my article defending Sagan and Mars:
>     See what I mean about fundamentally different goals? We want to
> get a LOT of humans out there. You don't even acknowledge the concept.

I acknowledge that it is desirable OVER THE LONG TERM to get people into
space.  BUT if you can tell me how the US is going to have more than 10
shuttle launches per year before the year 2000, do it.  I've recently
read a bit about the political origins of the Apollo program, and that
information leads me to believe that something of that magnitude will
never happen again in the USA unless there is some EXTERNAL influence
that makes Congress believe that we must establish a presence in space.
Right now we don't even have the ability to launch unmanned spacecraft.

Maybe I'm too cynical about how the US program disintegrated after the
Challenger explosion, but I grew up with NASA, starting to follow the
space program when the astronauts were selected in 1958 (I still have
the original LIFE article).  When I started at MIT in the fall of 1969
after Apollo 11, I studied with scientists who had experiments on Apollo
and thought it would go on forever.  It could have but for a failure of
nerve in Washington, DC, where few people in power cared about the space
program.

The sorry state of the US space program at present is due to the fact
that manned space flight is damned complicated, much more so than anyone
thought it would be.  Because it cost so much, the shuttle was required
to do more than it could possibly be expected to.  Obviously what we
need now is an unmanned heavy-lift freight system to support relatively
infrequent (10/year) human trips into space (over the next 10 years).
While this need is obvious, it does not seem to be the way things are
going to go.  Hence we are battling manned versus unmanned when both are
needed in near-earth spacea.

>     I think a lot more planetary science would get done if the
> up-front costs for launching were not hundreds of millions of $$$; if
> opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to
> last for decades; if each project wasn't such a major financial and
> managerial endeavour. The way to achieve this is greatly expanded
> human presence in space.

Which costs tens of billions of $$$.  This is the shuttle fallacy all
over again.  Cheap launches come when there are a lot of them; that's
the Russian truth.
 
>     Maybe it's just my prejudiced imagination, but this talk of human
> destiny, high goals, place in the universe, etc. etc. which comes up
> every time the Martians try to justify themselves seems to contain an
> unconscious assumption of moral superiority that makes me very
> uncomfortable.

I don't see how exploring the solar system with robots which provide
their sense data to anyone on earth is more elite than sending a
relatively few people into space at a far greater monetary cost is more
elite.

Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer
mink@cfa.harvard.edu
{seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 01:20:09 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Sagan != Death of the Future

> I am getting fed up with all of the Carl Sagan bashing that's been going
> on lately.  I would like to make a few points in his [favor.]
> 1...4...

You forgot:

5. A perpetrator of the infamous TTAPS hoax, a landmark in the squalid
decline from objective scientific discourse to fraudulent political
pleading.  Furthermore, this partisan orientation is quite evident in
the Mars scheme.

What is necessary for a real space industry is to cause NASA not to
clobber private space efforts.  As readers of the Commercial Space
Report know, NASA has long been an active (and powerful) enemy of
private space startups.  The rest of the government seems to be about as
hostile--take the recent Commerce dept chokehold move against private
earth imaging.  The stupidity of this move is that now good commercial
imaging will be available to everyone *except* the U.S., this done in
the interests of national security of course.

--JoSH

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #298
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Jul 87 06:19:56 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03282; Thu, 30 Jul 87 03:18:51 PDT
	id AA03282; Thu, 30 Jul 87 03:18:51 PDT
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 87 03:18:51 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707301018.AA03282@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #299

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 299

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Still more infighting
		      Re: Insult of TTAPS study
       Little kids and big agencies (was: Re: space photos ...)
		      Re: Still more infighting
		   Re: Sagan == Death of the Future
			     more on Mars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 02:57:48 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Still more infighting

    All this arguing over Mars just gave me the idea for this quick, and
no doubt biased, net.survey. I encourage everyone who has strong
feelings about Mars missions one way or the other to respond (to me
personally, not the net, please!) I will summarize in 2 weeks or so.

    I) Do you think our next major goal in space after the space
	station should be (check one):

	___ A piloted mission to Mars

	___ A permanent Lunar base

	___ (Other, describe here)
					       1
   II) Do you personally work in space science?

  III) Any comments relevant to the topic?

(1) I am asking this because I want to see if space scientists have
    notably different views on the subject than everyone else.

    Send responses to

	jon@csvax.caltech.edu	(Internet)
	...seismo!cit-vax!jon	(UUCP)

    Now, back to the postings...

In article <632@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> mink@cfa.harvard.EDU (Doug Mink) writes:
>Obviously what we need now is an unmanned heavy-lift freight system to
>support relatively infrequent (10/year) human trips into space (over
>the next 10 years).  While this need is obvious, it does not seem to be
>the way things are going to go.  Hence we are battling manned versus
>unmanned when both are needed in near-earth spacea.

    I think it's exactly the way things are going to go. The ELV
industry is in much better shape than NASA. They have guaranteed
launches from the DOD and with the development costs covered, are able
to offer Atlas-Centaur, Titan, and Delta II launches commercially.  The
Air Force Advanced Launch Vehicle program just issued its first
contracts, and low cost is a major factor the designers are to work for.
Ariane 5 and the Japanese H-2 are coming soon, too. By the early 90's,
the current launch vehicle shortage will have turned into a glut, except
that commercial operators will start thinking up lots of new uses for
space by then.

    How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them, and
had to develop numerous highly complex systems that had never flown
before, rather than designing with what was available at the time?
They're not THAT much less expensive than a shuttle even as it stands -
I suspect the learning curve alone accounts for a lot of the difference.

>>     I think a lot more planetary science would get done if the
>> up-front costs for launching were not hundreds of millions of $$$; if
>> opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to
>> last for decades; if each project wasn't such a major financial and
>> managerial endeavour. The way to achieve this is greatly expanded
>> human presence in space.

>Which costs tens of billions of $$$.  This is the shuttle fallacy all
>over again.  Cheap launches come when there are a lot of them; that's
>the Russian truth.

    This is getting into a circular argument. We're not going to have
lot of launches just to support unmanned spaceflight.

    - The Soviets have more launches largely because their satellites
	don't last nearly as long as ours. Whether that is intentional
	or not is debatable but irrelevant to the point.

    - The price they quote for a Proton launch bears no particular
	relation to what it costs, one being hard Western currency
	and the other internal accounting.

    - Large-scale manned spaceflight is prominently quoted among the
	applications of the Energia booster.

    Gordon Woodcock (Executive Chairman, NSS, and a director in Boeing's
Space Station group) has an interesting paper in the latest (May/June)
issue of SSI Update which addresses the economic feasibility of space.
Two interesting conclusions:

  ``There are economically plausible evolutionary paths by which space
    transportation operations could "bootstrap" from today's low traffic
    and high cost to the reverse situation. These paths require that a
    second-generation reusable launcher somehow be brought into being
    without amortization of its nonrecurring development becoming an
    albatross around the neck ofa prospective commercial operator.  If
    that can somehow occur, and if the other substantial barriers to
    commercialization of space transportation can somehow be surmounted,
    economic bootstrapping of demand growth and cost reduction can bring
    about an era of affordable large-scale industrialization and
    settlement.''

  ``Affordable settlements are described in this paper as a logical
    outgrowth of space industrialization initiatives and the resulting
    decreases in costs of space operations. The principal key is an
    affordable trip to low Earth orbit, and that is possible with
    commercialization of launch services and economic growth of the
    market for space transportation.''

>I don't see how exploring the solar system with robots which provide
>their sense data to anyone on earth is more elite than sending a
>relatively few people into space at a far greater monetary cost is more
>elite.

    I don't know how you got onto this track. I think unmanned planetary
exploration is cheap and wonderful and deserving of lots more money -
although the average American saw pictures from Voyager on her TV one
week and never thought of it again. We can send a few scientists to Mars
for tens of billions, or we can do a lot more in Earth-Moon space. It's
clear that putting X people on Mars one time is a lot more elite than
10X (or whatever) in LEO and on the Moon permanently, with more
following.  Sure, we could do both - except that the reality is that
NASA is not going to get more than one major project in that timeframe
(1995-2005). If this claim turns out to be wrong, I will be delighted to
see both happen.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

Down with Mars! Back to the Moon first.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 23 Jul 87 09:15:26 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Insult of TTAPS study
Newsgroups: sci.space

>5. A perpetrator of the infamous TTAPS hoax, a landmark in the squalid
>decline from objective scientific discourse to fraudulent political 
>pleading.  Furthermore, this partisan orientation is quite evident
>in the Mars scheme. 
>
>--JoSH

I have seen some of the comments and I think Doug does a very cogent
job.  TTAPS appeared as a logical corollary to the LBL/UCB work of the
Alverez et al work.  The people who work with topics like atmospheric
dynamics, palentology, and other forms of planetary science.  TTAPS
represents a hypothesis and it deserves objective scientific commentary,
not insults.

You don't know what you are talking about, so shut your face in this
case!

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 21:09:53 GMT
From: beta!a!mwj@nyu.arpa  (William Johnson)
Subject: Little kids and big agencies (was: Re: space photos ...)

In article <2392@ames.UUCP>, eugene@pioneer.arpa (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
(I've moved this from sci.astro where he first posted it)
> An added note since we were discussing astronomy education.  When I
> was in grade school, a friend's father worked for Hughes on the
> Surveyor Lander at JPL.  Later I phoned [(818)-354-4321 its in the
> phone book] and wrote and got tons of literature (they fully realized
> that they were sending it to a kid) [all this for coupons?! ;-)] One
> photo of JPL I will remember vividly of a building (264), little did I
> realize I would eventually work in that building.  Some of you guys
> might never work further on space and astronomy, but your kids might.

Oh boy, does your little anecdote ever bring back a memory!

Not knowing how old you are, I don't know whether the following story
came before or after yours, but: I was in, I believe, 2nd grade when the
first United States spacecraft reached Venus.  (One of the Mariners, I
think.)  We read about this in My Weekly Reader or such, and with the
innocence of an 8-year-old I asked my teacher why the Mariner wouldn't
go on in and take pictures of Mercury too.  She didn't know, and with at
least equal innocence suggested I write to the director of JPL (William
Pickering, as I recall) and ask HIM -- and I did.

A week later, I got a response: a letter -- SIGNED BY PICKERING --
spelling out the reason, technically correct (as I realized on taking a
mechanics course in college) and couched in terms an 8-year-old could --
and did -- understand.  Accompanying this were the obligatory pretty
pictures of an Atlas taking off, Mariner itself, and I forget what else
-- my parents still have them in a scrapbook of my childhood.

25 years later, I am a practicing physicist with a big interest in the
space program (no, not Star Wars), and I have long felt that that letter
"launched" me in my chosen profession.  Furthermore, 25 years later the
memory of getting that letter still brings tears to my eyes.  William
Pickering (or whoever it was), wherever you are -- bless you.

Soapbox time.  THIS is how to get the United States back into space: get
the attention of every little kid you can and convince them that space
is NEAT.  We adults may be screwed up beyond redemption, but if the kids
get interested, WE'LL DO IT.  Or at least they will.

Bill Johnson
Los Alamos National Laboratory

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 18:43:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Still more infighting


It seems to me that all this Saganaki (a flaming appetizer) being posted
to this group is ignoring historical reality:

The Apollo program was a "one-shot" exploration program.  And it was a
remarkable success.  We went from a cold start to putting people on the
moon in less than ten years.  It was accomplished by a group of
dedicated people who shared the simple dream of seeing somebody walk on
the moon.

Then...
what happened?

We turned our space program over to the "infrastructure" people, that's
what.  The people who promised us "routine" access to space (as if once-
a-month flights to the moon weren't routine access...).  The people who
foresaw long-term space stations (as if Skylab, which had been tossed up
almost as an afterthought, was something else...).  The people who
promised cheap.

In other words, the people who brought us the Shuttle.

There's a lot of talk in this newsgroup about how we have to turn space
over to businessmen, how we have to build the equivalent of roads and
sewers, how we have to develop all those things that we seemed to have
back during the glory days of Apollo.  What they seem to miss is that
the US space program has been in the hands of those exact people for the
last fifteen years, and all we've got to show for it is some burned
O-rings.

I think it's time to give space back to the dreamers.  If they want to
go to Mars, that's fine with me.  If going to the moon and staying is
what they want, that's fine too.  The important thing is to get moving
again, toward some tangible goal that can inspire the way the moon did
almost 30 years ago.  Preferably one that's big enough to require
routine access to space...and when we get it, just maybe, we'll be smart
enough not to blow it the way we did last time.

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 02:00:21 GMT
From: ulysses!faline!karn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future

I have been patiently waiting for the "bash the Planetary Society" fad
to wane, but I can't let some of this stuff go by without saying
something in their defense.

If their newsletter (The Planetary Report) is any indication, the
Planetary Society is run by highly competent professionals with a
sincere interest both in doing meaningful scientific exploration and in
making the results of their work available to the interested public.
Every issue of the newsletter contains at least one very interesting
article presenting the results of a ongoing mission (e.g., the
composition of the Uranian atmosphere) or proposing some clever new
technique for further exploration (e.g., a combined helium/hot air
balloon for exploring the Martian atmosphere by day, and its surface by
night).  Some of these things (like the Martian balloon) I never read
about elsewhere, so I almost always learn something new. The articles
are invariably thoughtfully written. They strike a good balance between
including interesting details and remaining readable by a general,
though scientifically oriented, audience. Carl Sagan is only one of many
contributors, and not even a major one at that.

In stark contrast, L-5's publications (before I let my membership lapse)
read more like the preachings of a religious cult. One writer after
another repeats the same dogmatic themes, with only minor variations. An
"Us vs Them" mentality (US vs USSR; US vs Europe and Japan; Private
Enterprise vs NASA and the US Government; True Space Believers vs
Congressional Heathens and Assorted Other Pagans and Philistines) is
pervasive. Thoughtful, in-depth analyses are discouraged. In other
words, they read just like most of the stuff on this group.

I think it is the height of unfairness to say that the Planetary Society
wants to "steal" your dream. Let's face facts. If anything, our bloated
overemphasis on manned space flight has not only "stolen dreams" from
the less glamorous but scientifically far more worthwhile unmanned
planetary exploration program, it has killed the dreamers through
attrition.  Everybody here knows what the Challenger disaster and the
Centaur cancellation have done to those few scientific missions left
with funds after the Shuttle development overruns cancelled dozens of
other worthwhile projects. You're crazy if you want to go into space
science today in the US. Don't get angry at Van Allen and Pierce for
telling it like it is.

As far as the "Mars Project" is concerned, I have my doubts too.
However, Sagan is quite explicit and up-front in stating his reasoning.
It would force the US and USSR to divert some of the enormous resources
they waste each year on self-destructive persuits towards something
that, while certainly not the most cost-effective way to spend such sums
of money, is at least more benign than building missiles or
anti-missiles or anti-anti-missiles.

I think many otherwise "pro-space" people vehemently oppose the Mars
project mainly because they would have to admit that our
military-industrial complexes have garnered so much political influence
in our respective countries that rational decision-making is no longer
possible; finding "busy-work" for the bomb-builders is now a political
prerequisite if we are to stop building weapons we don't need. This is
especially true for the pro-SDI crowd, as they would have us believe
that there are rational reasons for SDI, instead of its real purpose
being to guarantee full employment and exponential growth for the
weapons industry.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 87 14:32:11 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: more on Mars

This is a letter I just sent to the editor of the "Space Advocate"
insert in the NSS's Space World magazine, who has solicited letters
pro/con on Mars.

       Dear Space Advocate Editor:

       It is clear that the "Martian Question" is a controversial one.
       The supporters of a Mars mission make a number of excellent
       points, including that the Mars mission, like the Moon landing,
       is a simple, widely understood goal that can be advocated without
       a lengthy prior explanation.  One major purpose of NSS is to
       educate the public about space development. It will be many years
       before our goals are as well understood as the exploration of
       Mars, a subject that has been in the public eye for more than a
       hundred years.  Keeping silent while the Saganauts promote Mars
       as a goal will only delay the date of our permanent breakout into
       space and lose a golden opportunity to present as an alternative
       a program of space development.

       I do not advocate directly opposing a "man-on-Mars" program.
       Although I personally think we are better off without such a
       program, I would never urge that this opinion be the public stand
       of the NSS. Instead, we should "in principle" endorse the
       exploration of Mars -- after the space station is completed, the
       near-Earth asteroids explored, a lunar mine established, and so
       on, and turn our full efforts to pushing these projects.  If, at
       some point, a Mars program got underway, and some aspect of it
       that could be beneficial to space development was threatened,
       then we should support that aspect of the Mars program.  At no
       time should NSS waste its limited resources to advocate an
       "Apollo" style Mars mission.

       Unfortunately, the space movement is already factionalized,
       mainly between those who advocate only space exploration (the
       Planetary Society), and those who advocate both space development
       and exploration (NSS, SSI, ASF, Spacepac, SEDS, Sunsat Energy
       Council, Lunar Development Council, and the American Lunar
       Society). The agenda of the space development movement must be to
       break free of the paradigm of funding research that captures the
       imagination to funding projects that benefit us all economically.
       Only by escaping from the trap posed by old ways of thinking can
       we build a permanent future for us and our children in space. It
       is a measure of how far we have come that, regretably, innovators
       such as Van Allen and Sagan now represent the "old ways."

			     Sincerely,
			     Dale L. Skran Jr.
			     mtgzz!dls
			     11 Beaver Hill Rd
			     Morganville NJ 07751

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #299
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Jul 87 06:20:19 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05020; Fri, 31 Jul 87 03:19:09 PDT
	id AA05020; Fri, 31 Jul 87 03:19:09 PDT
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 87 03:19:09 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8707311019.AA05020@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #300

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 300

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Insult of TTAPS study
			   Re: Space Dreams
		   Re: Little kids and big agencies
		   Re: Sagan == Death of the Future
			     Saganization
		      The Cost of Space Tourism
		   The Cost of a Vacation in Space
		   Re: Little kids and big agencies
		     human vs machine spaceflight
		       Re:Re: My grouse with L5
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 87 19:16:47 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Insult of TTAPS study

> TTAPS represents
>a hypothesis and it deserves objective scientific commentary, not insults.
> You don't know what you are talking about, so shut your face in this case!

I can only assume you want me to keep talking about it, or you would
not have offered such a vacuous barb as a challenge.  Very well.
What I am talking about is not the scientific merits underlying 
the atmospheric studies.  I'm talking about the hoax, which was
the heavily funded effort to convince the public that Sagan et al had
found positive proof that even the smallest nuclear war would end
all life on earth.  

How many papers in refereed publications and conferences have a public
relations firm hired to tout them to the popular press?  If a paper is
as scientifically compelling as TTAPS claimed to be, why would it
*need* one?  

Why this is germane to SPACE is that Sagan's opinions as to what are
the right things for space science or exploration are *untrustworthy*.
The man lies to benefit his political agenda.  Lots of people do that.
But Sagan lies about SCIENCE, and that is unforgiveable.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 87 17:01:01 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Space Dreams

article here; it's good to know that one is not alone.  I went through
similar experiences growing up, except that I wasn't born until 1967.  I
spent all my growing-up years immersed in space literature, reading
histories of all the boosters, probes, and manned missions from the V-2
to the lunar landings.  I even spent a lot of time reading books on
spaceflight written in the 1950's that told of the great future we had
ahead.
  I never met anyone who understood my feelings until college; my
parents certainly didn't understand (in all fairness, they were already
in their fifties) and the other 'students' in my high school were of the
"let's get out of here and make money and goof" variety that others have
complained about.  Finally, I met a few other like-minded people here at
Princeton, and they've helped keep me from becoming totally
disillusioned.
  I've been around airplanes since I was 6, and I never get tired of
flying or of just looking at airplanes.  When it came time to choose a
major, I picked aerospace engineering.  But all the while I was hoping
to use it for space work; I never forgot where I wanted to go.
  I remember reading one of those simple little magazines that was
handed out to my first grade class (in 1974).  The front cover was an
artist's conception of the Shuttle, and the title was "Space Shuttles in
1978" (hah!).  Inside was an article on the Shuttle and another on the
upcoming Apollo-Soyuz linkup.

  I watched the first launch of Columbia; I continued to stare at the TV
screen for several minutes after there was nothing more to see.  I
remember the day I arrived home from school and was greeted with "The
Shuttle just blew up!"  I was born near the end of the First Great Space
Boom, and most of my life has been spent watching the budget go down and
down and the time projections of space stations and colonies get pushed
off farther and farther into the future.  I am only 20 years old, and I
*still* have doubts whether I'll get my chance to go beyond the
atmosphere.

  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU>

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 87 17:42:46 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Little kids and big agencies

In article <243@a.UUCP>, mwj@a.UUCP (William Johnson) writes:
> Soapbox time.  THIS is how to get the United States back into space:
> get the attention of every little kid you can and convince them that
> space is NEAT.  We adults may be screwed up beyond redemption, but if
> the kids get interested, WE'LL DO IT.  Or at least they will.

I couldn't agree more!  I've never had any problem with NASA's PR.  I
grew up in New Zealand and always had my letters replied to promptly and
courteously.  I remember I was always tremendously excited when I came
home from school and saw the big envelope from the "MANNED SPACECRAFT
CENTER".  The envelope always contained a personally written letter.

In my first year at Auckland University I had access to an IBM 1130 with
a Fortran compiler.  I became interested in celestial mechanics and
writing simulations.  I sent a letter to the Manned Spacecraft Center
requesting trajectory data for the scheduled flight of Apollo 10.  They
sent me the data alright - a 4 inch stack of double sided sheets covered
in coordinates.  It must have cost a fortune in postage.  Of course
there was an accompanying letter expressing hope that I would find the
data useful.  I was ecstatic!

I wrote a program to convert the trajectory data from geocentric
coordinates to local right ascension and declination and plotted the
coordinates on a star map.  The plan was to try an glimpse the
spacecraft through a telescope during the translunar or transearth
coast.

It took several Apollo flights and more heavy packages of trajectory
data before we were successful.  We spotted Apollo 15 exactly where it
was supposed to be through a 20" telescope at our local observatory.

This kid still thinks "space is NEAT"!

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 87 22:32:23 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Douglas H. Price)
Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future

I feel qualified to be a Planetary Society basher, being (and still am)
a charter member.  If you will go back to your past issues of Planetary
Report, about a year ago there was an editorial highly critical of
manned spaceflight.  The editorial was clearly of the "they're bleeding
us poor researchers" slant, with the very strong implication that the
entire manned space program should be trashed immediately since there
was little valuable science that "couldn't wait" until some unspecified
future.

(Note on the above, not that they aren't bleeding the researchers.  Just
like another contributor to the net last week, I just don't think trying
to get more money by cutting a bigger piece of the pie for yourself is a
good way of doing business.)

Well, Society headquarters must have been buried in a mountain of
hate-mail, because by the very next issue, the Planetary Report
editorial had done a 180 degree turnaround, admitting that there might
be something worthwhile to manned spaceflight after all.  The letter
column was full of strongly worded criticism for the previous issue's
editorial.  I therefore believe that the MEMBERSHIP of the Planetary
Society is clearly pro-manned space, but the BOARD of the Planetary
Society has its own axe to grind.

						Douglas H. Price
						Analysts International Corp.
						@ AT&T Bell Laboratories
						..!ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 87 23:05:41 GMT
From: carnes@gargoyle.uchicago.edu  (Richard Carnes)
Subject: Saganization

Paleontologist David M. Raup had this to say about Carl Sagan, in
*The Nemesis Affair* (recommended):

  "A research scientist who allows his or her name to be displayed
  prominently in the press is taking a risk.  If this same scientist
  appears on Johnny Carson or hosts a television series, disaster may
  await.  I am talking about what I call `saganization'.
  
  "Carl Sagan, a superb astronomer, has made his mark in several fields
  of science.  Even as a student at Chicago, he had a seminal effect on
  the university community by spearheading discussion and research on
  the origin of life and related topics.  He got people from many
  different disciplines talking to each other.  He is now the David
  Duncan Professor of Physical Science at Cornell and Director of
  Cornell's Laboratory for Planetary Studies.  He founded *Icarus*, a
  major journal in solar-system astronomy, and his entry in *Who's Who*
  is one of the longest I have seen, with a seemingly endless list of
  academic honors and awards.  He is a member of the American Academy of
  Arts and Sciences (no mean feat for a physical scientist), although
  not the National Academy.  He maintains an active research program,
  now focusing on the possibility of the existence of life elsewhere in
  the Solar System.
  
  "Pick a biologist or geologist at random and ask:  `What do you think
  of Carl Sagan?'  The answers will not be uniform but they will
  contain a disturbing number of negatives.  You will hear that Sagan
  is more interested in personal glory than science.  You will learn
  that his `Cosmos' series was a disgrace because it showed too many
  shots of Sagan and because it had a strong religious overtone.  He
  sells T-shirts.  He spends all his time on the lecture circuit and
  never does any science.  His biology is terrible.  He isn't much of
  an astronomer--even though the speaker knows neither astronomy nor
  astronomers.  And so on.  This is saganization.
  
  "As far as I can tell from my own observations, none of the negative
  charges can be sustained.  I happen to think the `Cosmos' series was
  excellent education that did much to promote public understanding of
  science.  A Sagan-Phil Donahue interview once turned into a superb
  lecture in chemistry.  The scientific talks I have heard Sagan give
  are good, state-of the-art science.  He attends scientific meetings
  regularly, takes part in the discussions.
  
  "A surprising number of scientists have been saganized.  Stephen Jay
  Gould is another example.  A fine and imaginative scholar, Gould is
  breaking new ground in evolutionary biology and paleontology.  He
  also happens to write and speak very well, talents that enhance an
  interest in communicating with the general public.  His saganization
  bothers him deeply, because his most important objectives are to
  contribute to his science and to be respected for it by his peers.
  Carl Sagan, Steve Gould, and other examples have led many in the
  scientific community to be very cautious of the press."

Another distinguished scientist who has been saganized is ecologist
Paul Ehrlich.  Not coincidentally, Ehrlich and Sagan each chaired one
of the panels of scientists that reported to the public on the
nuclear winter studies (see *The Cold and the Dark*).

Richard Carnes

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 16 Jul 87 22:52 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: The Cost of Space Tourism

About the cost of space tourism: for your information, the cost of
supporting a person on the space station will be about $1 million per day.
Even if that's reduced by a factor of 100 it's still outrageously expensive
for a several week vacation. I don't see launch and hardware costs coming
down by a factor of 100 in 20 years, by the way; a factor of 10 I could
believe, if we work hard.

This seems sufficiently obvious that I'm amazed that anyone could think
space tourism could be flourishing in 20 years. Yet, to judge by the most
recent Space World, a lot of NSS members think just that (read it; some of
the predictions are hilarious). I think there's an element of wishful,
almost self-delusional, thinking here.

Lest anyone think I'm hopelessly negative, let me say that I'm confident
that one day space tourism (or even commuting to/from orbit) will be
commonplace. Long after we're dead, though.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 87 18:04 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: The Cost of a Vacation in Space

If you figure all the costs of building the space station and supplying
life support materials, the cost to stay in it will be roughly a million
dollars per person per day (more for short stays, due to the fixed cost of
the ticket to orbit). I'd be willing to pay perhaps $20K for a month in
space; readers of this list will probably not be able to afford more than a
few hundred $K any time during their lives.

Some of the >$30G (1987) price tag for the station (phases 1 & 2) is
development cost, but a space tourist facility would have to be more
luxurious to be attractive. I don't see costs coming down in 20 years by
the multiple orders of magnitude that would be needed to make space tourism
feasible.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@slb-doll.csnet

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 87 18:24:27 GMT
From: faline!mike@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Mike A. Caplinger)
Subject: Re: Little kids and big agencies


Promoting the space program by interesting children in it is exactly
what NASA has already done; I suspect that's why most of us read
this group in the first place!  The problem is things have fallen
apart even with our interest.  It's just not possible for most of us to
work in the field right now.  I have a degree in astrophysics and I was
at Caltech in the Planetary Sciences Department in 1981, just about
when the unmanned program went down the tubes.  I'm as interested in
space as anyone, but interest doesn't keep one from the mind-numbing
frustration working for NASA must bring these days.

It'll be a long, long while before we can get another generation as
interested in space as those of us who grew up in the 1960's, when
space was for real, are.  And all this bickering about whether
men should fly to the Moon or Mars, when we'll be lucky to be
back in orbit two years from now, isn't going to help.

	Mike Caplinger

ps.  I don't care if you belong to the Planetary Society or not;
if you don't think the two most important projects right now
are Galileo and the HST, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 87 12:29:09 GMT
From: unc!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: human vs machine spaceflight

opinion:

I hear and read a lot about how much more science we could get done if
we used robotic instead of occupied vehicles. The assumption seems to
be that going up ourselves is just another way to take real
experiments up.  Or perhaps a way to garner popular/political support
for a space program. I've never seen it this way.

Human spaceflight is research into human spaceflight. Now if you
believe we should NEVER go into space--that we will NEVER have a
reason to go there, then we shouldn't do the research. If you believe
that we will sometime in the future expand into space then we need to
do the basic research for that expansion and there is only one way to
do it. Spaceflight is not something about which you can say "when we
need it we'll do it." The advances are gradual, incremental. If we
wait until we need it badly, for whatever reasons, we will kill many
people trying to do it big before we know how to do it well. 

It is expensive research. It is important research. It would be worth
doing even if no other scientific research were carried along.
Unfortunately it has long term goals which get lost in any limited- 
scope cost/benefit analysis.

				Jim Symon

UUCP:decvax!mcnc!unc!symon
Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 24 Jul 87 14:03 EST
From: <RETANTS%SUNRISE.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  Re:Re: My grouse with L5

Subject: Re:Re: My grouse with L5

>>In article <4397@jade.BERKELEY.EDU> adamj@lime.BERKELEY.EDU (Adam J. Richter)
>> writes:
>>    1. Grab the spot-light.  March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING.
>>        (e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?)
>
>    You are right, we need to do something that can get us some
>publicity and some national exposure.  "The people" need to made aware
>of the plight of the space program...

     Unfortunately, a more organized group is required to do something
like this.  To be affective, and not just a nuisance, a march requires a
lot more people and a lot of time and planning.  This is a very good
idea but a group just can't rise out of nothing and do it.  65 people
will be ignored.

>>    2. Make score-cards.  Congressmen, NASA employees, etc.
>>        Just what they've done, not whether it's good or
>>        bad.  Score-cards might not be the right term.
>>        Maybe, "histories?"  Whatever, it is useful
>>        to know where officials stand on manned/unmanned,
>>        capitalist/socialist, pro/anti SDI, etc., also
>>        how they stand on Space as a per se objective.
>
>    AN excellent idea.  Really.  THis is something NSS should be doing.
>

     This is a good place to start, but requires a lot of research.  Any
library in a university or the main library in a city has copies of the
minutes to almost all of what goes on in any given congressional
session.  The congressional records can be obtained easily.  The problem
is wading through all the different issues that come up in any given
session and determining which apply.  There is a committee on space in
the congress which is a good place to start looking for all the base
issues.  Then they must be followed through any voting procedures.  A
lot of the issues never make it as far as the floor and are therefore
difficult to keep track of.  Also, if few issues make the floor, it is
hard to know how your run of the mill congressman would vote.  Anything
further would require direct letters to the officials in question.

>>    3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real*
>>        space newsletter.  If someone puts it
>>        on-line, and it is "just the facts" (or at least
>>        labels editorials as such), I'll litter Berkeley with it.
>>
>    I'm working on it, I'll post my progress later.

Good.  If the information can be spread over the net to key people,
distribution becomes considerably easier.  There all many colleges and
universities on the net who have small clubs interested in space active
on their campus.  The net allows them to get nationally based
newsletters quickly and distribute them on campus.  The more people that
know, the more power we have to work with.  Also, by working with
college students, we are dealing with the future engineers, pilots, and
congressmen.  The space program (for lack of anything better to call it)
is going to require years to improve to the state we want it in.  This
is a good place to start.

>>    4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and
>>        a good way to start preaching to the non-converted, unlike a
>>        convention.
>
>    Sure.  See, the only problem about all of this, for me, is I
>don't know how to do it.  I've never marched on Washington, I don't know
>how to find out what is going on in congress, what is being voted on,
>who voted for/against what, etc.  I would tend to rely on NSS or some
>other space group to get this sort of information.  Keep these ideas,

Well, I've given you every idea I have off the top of my head.  Nothing
is impossible, but the organization and dedication necessary for this
type of project is immense.  I don't have the time or effort to start it
myself, but should someone come along that does, let me know.  I will
help. It's my future, and I want some influence.

                                Becki Tants
                                Office Coordinator I, Chemistry Stockroom
                                Syracuse University
                                RETANTS@SUNRISE.Bitnet

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #300
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Aug 87 06:17:55 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06473; Sat, 1 Aug 87 03:16:46 PDT
	id AA06473; Sat, 1 Aug 87 03:16:46 PDT
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 87 03:16:46 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708011016.AA06473@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #301

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 301

Today's Topics:
		    Mir Watch and What you can do.
			 Political scorecards
	     Surveys of Congressional Positions on Space
		 L5 fanatics; the antispace movement
	       Re: L5 fanatics; the antispace movement
		    Re: SPOT & maximum resolution
		    Re: SPOT & maximum resolution
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 1987 14:18-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Mir Watch and What you can do.

1) Sheri (I want to see Earth from orbit), and
2) L5 doesn't do anything?

I recommend you call the NSS office in DC and have them either get you
in touch with a local chapter or give you information on our Mir Watch
campaign.

I would not be at all surprised if the Post article was in some devious
way associated with our project: the timing is right.

We kicked off the Mir campaign with a reception in the capitol building,
which I attended (or partly attended: I spent the first two hours
sitting on the belt way waiting for a wreck to be cleared).  The
centerpiece was a large rotating model of Mir and a computer running the
orbit calculations.  Turn out was good, and I think we made our point to
some key people.

Gordon Woodcock wrote a program to give us the best viewing times for
MIR as it goes over head at a given locality.  These location are
available from Henry Vanderbilt at the DC office.  The object is to take
community groups out and show them the soviet station going overhead.
I've heard that invariably some little kid asks "Where is ours?" to
which you get to reply, "WE don't HAVE one..."

Like most of our efforts this is primarily local.  You get a lot more
mileage and a lot more permanent effect on people by doing things that
way.  Media hype techniques are effective for selling hula hoops, not
for selling a long term space program.

Quite a few chapters are using this as a counterpoint to the Spaceweek
celebrations around the country. (The vast majority of which are run
either overtly or otherwise by NSS/L5 people) A second push will
probably occur about the time kids go back to school.  Many of our
chapters have been working with local school systems doing space
education efforts (and supplying the unsung manpower to make a large
number of the Young Astronauts chapters work), and this would fit right
in with our increasing emphasis on educational matters.  After all, we
ARE a 501-C3!

For the people out in the midwest, I'd recommend going to the Midwest
Space Development Conference.  This event will no doubt be a good place
to learn more about Mir Watch, and if you are an educator, a great deal
of programming will be aimed using space education.  Issues of Teaching
Space, an educational newsletter published by our Cincinatti chapter
people with occasional aerospace grants, is also a good class room
resource.

Video tapes on space are available from Minnesota L5 and Baltimore L5.
Most are at the cost of the tape.  Topics vary from highly technical to
introductory.  Quality from studio to home video.  Many space related
sessions from conferences are included.

L5 people have been central to efforts to include space related
programming in many other conferences.  Space tracks for Balticon,
Worldcon's, various teacher's conferences, etc have been organized by L5
chapters.  Several of the largest teachers conferences coming up will
have space tracks organized by Georgia Franklin and Jule Zumwalt from
Seattle L5.

L5 has provided a great deal of support to SSI.  Most key L5 people are
also senior associates.  Most key SSI people are also L5 members.  Most
of the SSI support teams spin offs from the local L5 chapters.  The
study project for construction of an SPS designed to be built from lunar
materials was done by Seattle L5 people who incorporated a company in
order to carry out the project.

L5 is working closely with AMSAT on the packet radio satellites, and we
are currently studying the possibility of doing a Lunar Orbiter project
with them and SSI.  We are acting as a coordinator.  About $6K or so was
raised at the Pittsburgh Conference for the feasibility study.

L5 chapters have computer bulliten boards for supplying space related
information in about 10 cities.

L5 chapters are a primary source for space related information in many
cities, and are the prime generators of letters to the editor, the
applyers of negative pressure on those who print editorials or news that
is anti space program in nature.

Many chapters are major generators of space related news in their areas.
In a good year, our Pgh chapter will generate at least one HARD news
item on the evening TV news, will do 3-4 radio talk show appearances and
maybe 1-2 TV talk show/ soft news appearances.  Replicate this across
the country...

L5 chapters are often the major source of lecturers on space in the
community.  Once again, our chapter typically supplies lecturers for
5-10 community groups per year.  One of our members is a Teacher in
Space candidate who does inschool talks to public and private school
groups at the rate of 2-3 a week.  She has talked to a sizeable
percentage of the students in Western Pennsylvania at this point.

We assist other community organizations that are involved with science
education.  Our group often supplies volunteers to help the local
planeterium when it needs expertise on space.  We also have ties with
local eductional television and the Pittsburgh Regional Center for
Science Teachers.  Other groups do similar things.

We have ties into Chambers of Commerce's around the country.  Our people
have been central to the founding and/or operations of many of the Space
Business Round Tables around the country.

We have a telephone tree that is activated for legislative action.  We
have generated possibly as high as 45000 letters in a maximum effort
campaign.  More than one congressional office has had it's phones
completely tied up by our calls for several days running.

Our DC lobbyist has been told by some key staff people that we have made
many space budget issues untouchable from budget cutting.  We are
unfortunately not (yet) large enough to force significant increases,
although we have a letter from one of the congressional committee
members thanking us for our key efforts in getting the replacement
orbiter funding sliced out of the DOD budget.  We also have an older
letter from Hans Mark, former associate director of NASA, thanking us
for being one of the primary forces for getting the space station
initiated.  Some of you on the net may have been part of the guerilla
warfare on that issue, if you remember the Scientists for A Manned Space
Station we put together with many of you adding your names.  This was
part of a key ploy in the first and second year funding battles.  A
battle in which we were a key coordinating force in the 'outside'
players.

I could include pages and pages of what we do.  Anyone who skims through
Space Calendar who knows who our people are will rapidly get the
impression that we have our fingers in just about everything.

WE are the ACTIVE space organization.  Our activities mainly occur via
volunteer grass roots efforts (and funding), NOT via nationally
publicized efforts at a well funded national office.  OUR office is
invariably in cash flow crisis and has acted as a support structure for
local activities.  NOBODY does more in the local communities than we do.

If you want to read a magazine and share vicariously in what 'we' are
doing or complain about what we aren't doing, go join someone else.
'We' don't need you.  But if you want to pledge "your life, your fortune
and your sacred honor" to creating a space faring civilization, and are
willing to take personal responsibliity for starting the activity that
we aren't doing that you feel needs to be done, then YOU are the kind
of person that belongs in NSS.

				Ad Astra,
			Dale Amon, NSS (NSI/L5) Board of Directors

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 1987 16:01-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Political scorecards

Spacepac keeps a scorecard such as has been asked about. The information
is hard to come by because most sapce related votes never go to the
floor, (at least not since the early 70's) so rating can be difficult
except for the members of key committees that handle NASA issues.

Dale Skran is the new Spacepac Chapters Coordinator (I was the old one)
and is on the net. I suggest anyone interested in this document get in
touch with him. Scott Pace (also on the net) is the usual source of
this spiral bound book, (The Space Activists Handbook) but he rarely
reads his mail.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Jul 87 19:25:54 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Surveys of Congressional Positions on Space


You can request the "Space Activist's Handbook" from
Spacepac for $15 at the following address:

Spacepac
Suite S
2801 B Ocean Pk Blvd
Santa Monica, CA 90405


If you are interested in helping Spacepac, feel free to give
me a call at 201-946-9367. Leave your name and number on the 
answering machine and I'll get in touch with you.

Dale Skran
Spacepac Chapters Coordinator
mtgzz!dls

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 27 Jul 87 18:26 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: L5 fanatics; the antispace movement

About the L5 Society...

I think a good word to describe some members of the erstwhile L5 society is
"fanatic". Webster's definition: "marked by excessive enthusiasm and often
intense uncritical devotion". I see a lot of this. For example, see the
latest Space World which printed the entries in a contest in which people
at the recent Pittsburgh convention were asked to predict what would be
happening in 2007, fifty years after Sputnik. Many of the predictions
showed little connection with reality (variable gravity hospitals in low
earth orbit, for example).

Someone commented that those opposed to space are even less organized.
Definitely, this needs fixing. I propose the formation of the National
Organization Opposing Space Exploration. (Their slogan: "If we hang
together, space exploration is finished (and vice versa)".)

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@slb-doll.csnet

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 87 17:10:44 GMT
From: nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: L5 fanatics; the antispace movement

In article <8707280029.AA01063@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
>About the L5 Society...
>
>I think a good word to describe some members of the erstwhile L5
>society is "fanatic". Webster's definition: "marked by excessive
>enthusiasm and often intense uncritical devotion". I see a lot of this.
>For example, see the
> ... ad nauseum

	Sometimes I wonder if people like you do these things not
because you really care but because you like to start fights....  Well,
I'm not into throwing insults around onthe net like other people, but
you must realize that this can be said about ANY group of people.  There
are anti-space fanatics who are more fanatical than any space fanatic
(my justification is twofold, both personal experience and this: That
many anti-space fanatics are so because of religious beliefs, and
religion sparks more fanaticism than any other cause.  I challenge you
to dispute that. Note that the phrase "many anti-space fanatics" does
not mean "all anti-space fanatics").
	The fact that almost every group of people have fanatics amongst
them (and if you really think L5 is unique in this respect then you are
no less than ignorant, but I don't believe this is so) is not a product
of the group, be it religious, technical, space, social, whatever, but a
product of human nature.  There are a lot of people who are ready to be
fanatics about anything, and once they find a cause off they go.  I'm
not saying this is good or bad either, I'm just saying it happens, and
you simply can not criticise a group for having fanatics.  If you don't
like fanatics, criticise the human race.  Many people would view your
own criticisms to be founded in jealousy and envy, that you do not have
a cause of your own which you believe in.

Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 03:14:03 GMT
From: newton.physics.purdue.edu!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu  (Carrick Talmadge)
Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution

In article <472@augusta.UUCP> bs@augusta.UUCP (Burch Seymour) writes:
>As to it's resolution. SPOT's OK, but far from wonderful. The DoD birds
>are *supposed* to resolve 3 or 4 inches from several hundred miles.

Lessee...  The diffraction limitation for a circular lens using
Rayleigh's criterion is

        1.22 lambda                  D
        ----------- = sin(theta) ~= ---
          diameter                   R
where
        lambda   -- wavelength of light (~5e-7 meters)
        diameter -- diameter of lens aperature 
        D        -- linear resolution of lens [3-4 inches]
        R        -- 300 miles


This gives:

                                          300 miles * 1610 meters/mile
        diameter ~= 1.22 * 5e-7 meters * ------------------------------
                                          3 inches * 0.0254 meters/in

                 = 1.22 * 5e-7 meters * 6.3e6 

===>    diameter = 3.8 meters = 150 inches   <====

Conclusion: You need a pretty dern hefty lens to get anything near this
resolution.

This is ignoring atomospherical distortion problems, which I recall to
limit resolution to about 0.5 arc seconds [anybody remember the correct
number?].  Using 0.5 arc seconds as illustrative, this would imply a
linear resolving limit at 300 miles of about 50 inches.  Good enough to
spot a man (or tell what kind of tank you're looking at) but not much
more.


Carrick Talmadge			 clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu
--------

    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
    no matter how improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes

    Yes, but what happens if nothing's left? -- Watson's reply

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 87 03:09:15 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution

In article <796@newton.physics.purdue.edu> clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu.UUCP (Carrick Talmadge) writes:
>In article <472@augusta.UUCP> bs@augusta.UUCP (Burch Seymour) writes:
>>As to it's resolution. SPOT's OK, but far from wonderful. The DoD birds are
>>*supposed* to resolve 3 or 4 inches from several hundred miles.
>
>Lessee...  The diffraction limitation for a circular lens using
>Rayleigh's criterion is
>This gives:
>===>    diameter = 3.8 meters = 150 inches   <====
>
>Conclusion:  You need a pretty dern hefty lens to get anything near this
>resolution.
>
>This is ignoring atomospherical distortion problems, which I recall
>to limit resolution to about 0.5 arc seconds...

I think that the 0.5 arc seconds number is for looking out from the
bottom of the atmosphere.  Looking down from the top, the smearing is
more like 0.5 arc seconds (if that is the right number, it is approx.
right) times the thickness of the main part of the atmosphere, call it
5-10 km, which gives a centimeter or two.

To see why the direction you're looking matters, think of someone with
his face pressed up against frosted or "bathroom window" glass.
You can see him better than he can see you.

			David Palmer
			palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #301
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Aug 87 06:25:45 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07623; Sun, 2 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT
	id AA07623; Sun, 2 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT
Date: Sun, 2 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708021019.AA07623@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #302

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 302

Today's Topics:
		    Re: SPOT & maximum resolution
		    Re: SPOT & maximum resolution
		    Re: SPOT & maximum resolution
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
			    Re: Carl Sagan
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
			nanotech book request
			    Re: Carl Sagan
		     Re: Metric vs. English units
Visitor's Drives...Last Atlas-Centaur Shrugged...Proxmire Shot For Treason
		    Maggie keeps Britain Grounded
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 87 09:06:56 GMT
From: newton.physics.purdue.edu!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu  (Carrick Talmadge)
Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution

In article <3317@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (David Palmer) writes:
>In article <796@newton.physics.purdue.edu> clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu (Carrick Talmadge) writes:
>>This is ignoring atomospherical distortion problems, which I recall to
>>limit resolution to about 0.5 arc seconds...
>
>I think that the 0.5 arc seconds number is for looking out from the
>bottom of the atmosphere.  Looking down from the top, the smearing is
>more like 0.5 arc seconds (if that is the right number, it is approx.
>right) times the thickness of the main part of the atmosphere, call it
>5-10 km, which gives a centimeter or two.

David Palmer, along with Steve Willner (willner%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu)
and Bob Ayers (ayers@src.DEC.COM) have all correctly made this point
regarding atomospheric distortion, although Steve Willner suggested that
a value of 3-10 arc seconds might be more appropriate for typical
viewing from Earth, rather than my value of 0.5 arc seconds.  If David
Palmer's suggestion is correct that the correct formula is

    (Earth limiting resolution) X (thickness of atmosphere)

this would give a number more like 15-20 cm as a lower limit under
typical viewing conditions.  [I think my 0.5 arc seconds, or something
close to it, may be correct for *optimal* atronomical viewing conditions
from a higher elevation observatory, such as Kitt Peak.]

Steve Willner also pointed out that (1) older satellites already had 72"
mirrors on board, [Bob Ayers pointed out that 60" mirrors were given
away for the construction of the MMT, so obviously mirrors in this size
range can't be in too short of supply] and (2) under high contrast
conditions [or for high signal to noise ratio, as he puts it], a factor
of as much as two in resolving power can be gained.  Putting these two
comments together, one could claim even for a satellite at a "safe"
orbit of 300 miles up, a maximum resolution of 3" could be obtained (of
course, under perfect seeing conditions).  Things also will clearly get
much better by allowing the perigee of the orbit to go much closer to
the the Earth than 300 miles, although at the obvious expense of a
shorter satellite life time.

Still nothing that comes close to reading newspaper print, which CBS
reported last year that the new spy satellites could do.  Even reading
license plates from space looks rather problematic (another standard
claim of the grunt media), although an SR-71 would have no problem with
this.

Carrick
clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 24 Jul 87 15:38:40 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Lessee...  The diffraction limitation for a circular lens using
>Rayleigh's criterion is
 . . .  good added comment . . .
>    When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
>    no matter how improbable, must be the truth. -- Sherlock Holmes
>
>    Yes, but what happens if nothing's left? -- Watson's reply

You are making certain assumptions about how lenses are used on some of
these sensors, (you are thinking of camera optics) and detector
mechanisms.  Try considering using other sensors as well as cameras).
Existing sensing systems are not near their potential limits.  Don't
forget to take motion blur into account.

Try writing the National Recon Office.  (Exercise left to reader ;-).

P.S. I finally saw the SPOT image on Nightline.  I think it is nothing
more than a texture map onto a sphere with the center like a lens since
it is close to the viewport.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  Don't write me, write the NRO.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 87 13:17:11 GMT
From: mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@rutgers.edu  (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution

> This is ignoring atomospherical distortion problems, which I recall to
> limit resolution to about 0.5 arc seconds [anybody remember the
> correct number?].  Using 0.5 arc seconds as illustrative, this would
> imply a linear resolving limit at 300 miles of about 50 inches.  Good
> enough to spot a man (or tell what kind of tank you're looking at) but
> not much more.

I won't claim the information I presented is perfect, as I noted it came
from the book _Deep_Black_ by William Burrows. His claim of 3 inches was
based on 2 sources. First he went to an astronomy professor, who is an
expert at telescope design (I don't have the name handy as my copy of
the book is loaned out), and using the best guesses at the size of the
telescope on the bird (KH-11 I *THINK*) they worked out the theoretical
resolution of 3 inches. He backed this up by political reasoning. The
SALT agreement limits the up-scaling of existing weapons (I'm going from
memory here so excuse any detail fuzzing) to 5%. They took the smallest
Russian weapon that fell into that agreement and took 5% of its size,
the login being we constructed the treaty based on what we *could*
verify. Five percent of that weapon's size turned out to be...  3
inches.

Another factor to consider is the telescopes are thought to use all
sorts of active measures to correct atmospheric distortion. Rubber
mirror is the term used in the book. They measure the distortion in a
wave from and then adjust the mirror to compensate.  Besides, there's a
picture in the book that CLEARLy resolves less than 50 inches and the
claim is made it was take by a KH-11 at 504 miles.

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 15:25:02 GMT
From: scw@locus.ucla.edu
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

In article <2805@phri.UUCP> roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:
>> However, some progress was made.  During this time, soft drink
>> companies were coerced to change to metric packaging.  Out of this was
>> born the liter and 2-liter bottle of soda
>
>	I remember [...]t any easier to calculate the better per-unit
>price?  And while I'm on the subject, what's this facination American
>marketing has with 9's?  I mean, green beans for $0.69 instead of $0.70?
>And not just in supermarkets; a Sun-3/50 now lists for $4995; why not an
>even $5k?

Ah, the art of pricing, and magic numbers.  The fondness for the digit 9
in prices, especially in the least significant is due to the fact that
$4995 seems to be a LOT smaller than $5000, 'Look George, This car only costs
4 thousand dollars, that one costs FIVE thousand dollars'.  Other interesting
'magic' prices are xx.49 (less than 50 cents)  $0.69  and xx76 (or xx.76) [this
one only in the USA, probably because of contations with 1776]. Also for the
same reason 4995 seems to be much smaller that 4999.

Stephen C. Woods; UCLA SEASNET; 2567 BH;LA CA 90024; (213)-825-8614
UUCP: ...!{{inhp4,ucbvax,{hao!cepu}}!ucla-cs,ibmsupt!ollie}!scw 
ARPA:scw@CS.UCLA.EDU  <-note change from locus.ucla.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 14:10:38 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

In article <2805@phri.UUCP>, roy@phri.UUCP (Roy Smith) writes:

> 	I remember when metric was just starting to get introduced.  The
> big incentive was that since all units were powers of ten, it would be
> easy to compare prices in the supermarket.  Bullshit!  Now, instead of
> 28 oz for $1.49 vs. 45-1/2 oz. for $2.19, we have 750ml for $1.39 vs.
> 1.75l for $2.29.  You think that makes it any easier to calculate the
> better per-unit price?

Good point.  American marketing types apparantly believe that we won't
be able to handle major changes in product size.  When metric units are
used, it's usually just a rough conversion of the old product size into
a rounded-off metric value.  A better idea would be to change product
sizes to things like 1 liter, 2 liter, 500 ml, etc.  I've noticed other
countries seem to have no problems with this--are we Americans so set in
our ways that we can't handle a 25% increase or decrease in the size of
a can of vegetables?

To get this topic back to sci.space (at least partly), I'm interested in
the experience of net readers with regard to learning the metric system.
I HAD to learn it in public school.  Learning the metric system was a
required part of ninth grade science; if you didn't learn the metric
system you flunked science, you flunked ninth grade, and you didn't get
into high school until you passed it.  This was the mid-60s in the city
of Tulsa.  Does anybody else have similar/dissimilar experiences?  Are
schools teaching the metric system today?  If we want to keep up with
the rest of the world in space and elsewhere, shouldn't this be part of
school curricula?  The way things are going, space will be explored
using the metric system.  We're fooling ourselves if we think we're
training future astronauts if all they know how to measure is pounds and
miles.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Jul 87 22:16:55 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Douglas H. Price)
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan

A few friends and I came up with the ultimate Carl Sagan measurement,
the "sagan."  A Sagan, of course, is an arbitrary number of the
"billions and billions" persuasion.  One can speak of "sagans of space",
or "sagans of jelly beans".  One important point, though.  The phrase
"sagans and sagans" is not to be used.  It is redundant.

				Douglas H. Price

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 14:18:19 GMT
From: nsc!nsta!amos@decwrl.dec.com  (Amos Shapir)
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

(This barely relates to sci.space, so I'm redirecting to sci.misc)
The federal US is already metric - sort of. Signs I have seen lately in
some national parks say:
ELEVATION: 609.6m (2000 ft)
and even:
WATER 13.72m (45 ft)

No wonder such advertising makes people think the metric system is
complicated and obscure...

-- 
	Amos Shapir			(My other cpu is a NS32532)
National Semiconductor (Israel)
6 Maskit st. P.O.B. 3007, Herzlia 46104, Israel  Tel. (972)52-522261
amos%nsta@nsc.com @{hplabs,pyramid,sun,decwrl} 34 48 E / 32 10 N

------------------------------

Subject: nanotech book request
Date: Thu, 23 Jul 87 13:32:26 EDT
From: LT Sheri Smith USN <ltsmith@mitre.arpa>

A couple of months ago there was a short discussion on the net about
nanotech.  Two books were mentioned as being advisable to read..one
which hailed the new technology as the end of war and a chicken in the
pot for everyone. The other was supposed to be a more sober treatment of
the subject.

I jotted down the names and authors of both, and now can't find them. If
you know what I'm talking of, could you please post the info to me
direct?? I am working on a novel and think this may be a significant aid
to fleshing out the story.

Many thanks..

Sheri
ltsmith@mitre.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 24 Jul 87 15:58:01 GMT
From: mtune!akgua!sortac!wcb@rutgers.edu  (Bill Barksdale)
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan

In article <4729@ihlpa.ATT.COM> dhp@ihlpa.UUCP (Douglas H. Price) writes:
>A few friends and I came up with the ultimate Carl Sagan measurement,
>the "sagan." A Sagan, of course, is an arbitrary number of the
>"billions and billions persuasion.  One can speak of "sagans of space",
>or "sagans of jelly beans. One important point, though.  The phrase
>"sagans and sagans" is not to be used. It is redundant.

Great! But, why not define the "sagan" so it will be useful in the kind
of calculations the man is known to make:

	1 sagan == the total number of stars in the universe

This will technically remove the redundancy from "sagans and sagans,"
but there's always a price . . .

Bill Barksdale

------------------------------

Date: 25 Jul 87 14:00:09 GMT
From: phri!roy@nyu.arpa  (Roy Smith)
Subject: Re: Metric vs. English units

In article <3513@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU> rose@sdcsvax.UCSD.EDU (Dan Rose) writes:
> I remember being shocked at the *committee's* lack of familiarity with
> the system -- for instance, it took a European to point out that
> dekameters, centiliters, and so on weren't actually used.

	I don't know about that.  I'm looking right now at a French wine
bottle.  The bottle itself has "75 cl" cast into the glass (although the
paper label says "73 cl").  Perhaps a somewhat more esoteric example,
but the proper unit of measurement for Circular Dicroism (look it up in
a book on spectroscopy) is mdeg/dmol (millidegrees per decimole).  But,
yes, it certainly is more common to use 10*(3*i) units; what H/P
calculators refer to as engineering, as opposed to scientific, notation.

	Getting even furthur off the space track, I once was working
from a hand-drawn schematic when I ran across what was supposed to be a
"10 nF" capacitor.  This had me so confused that I tracked down the guy
who wrote that and asked him what he meant.  Other than that, I've only
seen capicitors in uF or pF, with a "10 nF" cap being called ".01 uF"

Roy Smith, {allegra,cmcl2,philabs}!phri!roy
System Administrator, Public Health Research Institute
455 First Avenue, New York, NY 10016

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 87 07:31:46 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA  (MacLeod)
Subject: Visitor's Drives...Last Atlas-Centaur Shrugged...Proxmire Shot For Treason


>In article <8707150210.AA08860@angband.s1.gov> EXT768@UKCC.BITNET (Steve Abrams) writes:
>> ...  As the Science News article says, should the number of
>> observed superluminals continue to increase, "(i)t will be more and more
>> difficult to believe that so many of the most energetic and violent objects in
>> the universe point themselves right at us."

Didn't some science fiction writer hypothesize that what we are seeing is the
decelerating fusion drives of ships coming to say hello?  No?  Oh.

Excuse me, I am in a rotten mood tonight, after reading that the last Atlas
has shrugged and now the US has no operational boosters of any sort online.

If I weren't an anarchist I would suggest that management of our space
program borders on treasonous and that those responsible be taken out behind
the Capitol and shot, Proxmire first.

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 87 12:14:56 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Maggie keeps Britain Grounded

The following article appeared on the weekly space news column "In
Orbit" on Channel 4's Oracle service.

I reproduce it below in full below because, despite being an important
announcement (To us in Britain at least), it was totally ignored by all
the other media.

The author also expresses the events much better than I could.  I have
added my comments at the end.

All credits for the article go to the original author.

=============================================================


MAGGIE KEEPS BRITAIN GROUNDED
	Dr David Whitehouse.

Thursday was a very sad day for those of us keen to see Britain follow
our European partners and become more involved in space.

Margret Thatcher, in response to House of Commons space advocate Michael
Marshal (parlimentary advisor to British Aerospace) said she had no
plans to increase what we spend on space.

For many years it was argued that Britain needed a co-ordinating body to
avoid duplication of its space effort.  To this end the then Minister
Geoffrey Pattie announced the creation of the British National Space
Centre in January 1985 - just in time to impress at a European Space
Agency meeting.

It would be set up officially in a few months from then, it was said,
but time dragged on until November when the BNSC was established in
London's Millbank tower. Its first task was to come up with a space plan
to improve our performance in this important field and see how to
benefit most from it.

Britain's space plan was eventually submitted to the goverment in July
1986 and then shuffled back and forth for refinements and consultations.

It called for an increase to about 300 million pounds a year from 100
million pounds in the amount Britain spends in space (mostly with ESA).
A goverment decision was expected in Oct '86 .. Dec '86 .. The new year
.. February .. Before the election .. after the election. and this week,
finally, we got it.

During this time Mr Pattie was shuffled to the backbenches.  Yet
everyone was confident of an increase. Preperations at ESA level were
under way...

After all the expectation the increase in space funding
is...	precisely nothing.

More than that, the first the British National Space Centre knew about
the non-increase was when told exclusivley by "In Orbit" after House of
Commons question time.

It is staggering that it should have taken well over a year to decide on
no increase, leaving once-confidant space officials embarrased and
signaling to our European colleages that our enthusiasm doesn't stretch
to actually spending money.

Space is important - the pinnacle of out society's technology.  ALL
comparable countries in Europe are increasing their space spending
because they realise it's a vital investment.

No-one can, of course, have everything they want. Bit if we are to
maintain our standing and prepare for the future can we afford not to
spend on space? We've lost a part of the 21st century. Tomorrow's adults
will be the poorer.

=============================================================

There isn't really much I can add, except to echo the feelings expressed
above and ask the simple question.

What now?

Does anyone out there have any ideas what we in this country can do now.
With the unwillingness of the goverment to spend any money, and their
obsession with privatising EVERYTHING perhaps they might be persuaded to
help make changes in the law to favour companies investing in space.
What changes would be needed.

How about selling shares? (The goverment loves selling shares, even when
what its selling doesn't belong to it).  Money for the channel tunnel
has been raised in this way.  Can space be next in line? if so how?

There has to be some way forward. We've been grounded too long as it is.
	Bob.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #302
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Aug 87 06:20:19 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09111; Mon, 3 Aug 87 03:19:20 PDT
	id AA09111; Mon, 3 Aug 87 03:19:20 PDT
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 87 03:19:20 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708031019.AA09111@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #303

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 303

Today's Topics:
      Re: Little kids and big agencies (and last word on metric)
	       Re: Soviet TM-3 mission launched to Mir
	      John Leech's survey, another possible goal
		    Cheap ways into space please.
		      Relativistic mass increase
		  Re: FACT SHEET/Commercial Centers
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 87 10:27:32 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Little kids and big agencies (and last word on metric)
Newsgroups: sci.space

>at Caltech in the Planetary Sciences Department in 1981, just about

Oh yeah?!  Were you at the Monday afternoon Colloquia?  Just curious,
small world.

>	Mike Caplinger
>
>ps.  I don't care if you belong to the Planetary Society or not;
>if you don't think the two most important projects right now
>are Galileo and the HST, then there's something seriously wrong with you.

Hear hear!

Added note: Julian Gomez and I went on a flight on Thursday last before
SIGGRAPH.  I should also mention that General Aviation maps are also in
English like the measurements from Mean Sea Level.  The problem is not
exclusively NASA's, so can we now get off this?

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 87 12:31:17 GMT
From: gatech!udel!thomson@rutgers.edu  (Richard Thomson)
Subject: Re: Soviet TM-3 mission launched to Mir

In article <8707261421.AA07521@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>The crew consists of Alexander Victorenko, Alexander Alexandrov, and Mohamad
		      ^^^^^^^^^		    ^^^^^^^^^
>Farise.  Yuri Romanenko and Alexander Laveikin who have been up there for...
			     ^^^^^^^^^

Won't this make it confusing for the USSR to understand the transmissions?
It's almost like something out of Airplane!...		Rich Thomson

------------------------------

Date: 23 Jul 87 15:27:11 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: John Leech's survey, another possible goal

In article <3309@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes:

> ... I encourage everyone who has strong
> feelings about Mars missions one way or the other to respond (to me
> personally, not the net, please!) ...

sorry, but ...

>     I) Do you think our next major goal in space after the space
> 	station should be (check one):
> 
> 	___ A piloted mission to Mars
> 
> 	___ A permanent Lunar base
> 
> 	___ (Other, describe here)

    If one posits the U.S. government should spend any money at all, the
next goal should be an inexpensive private launch capability.

    The U.S. government offers to buy 100 million dollars worth of LEO
launch capability per month from the lowest bidders, with
"business-like" penalty clauses for failure or delay by either party.
The government sends up whatever it likes; spy sats, space probes, space
stations, or Carl Sagan.

    The guarantee has to be fairly long-term, impervious to the moods of
the administration or congress, so perhaps the interest on a $20 billion
endowment earmarked only for those purposes is the way to do it.  It
should be administered by GSA or some other agency disconnected from
DOD, NASA, etc.

    Over time, inflation diminishes the $100M/month to nothing, reducing
the government's involvement.  In the medium term, it acts as a
trustworthy goad to private investment.  As many big and small companies
compete for this money, launch costs should drop dramatically, the
fittest companies will survive, etc.

    $1.2 billion per year seems awfully small compared to current
spending levels.  In the beginning, it would buy only 3 or 4 launches
per year.  I would bet that it could start a lot of small companies
developing launchers, though, resulting in LOTS of launches later.  (It
might even help with world peace.  People would sneak into missile silos
at night and steal the rockets.  We can offer immunity to folks who
steal Soviet ones.  Would Soviet sailors mutiny if they could get $500
million for their sub full of launch vehicles??? :-) )

    A good way to raise a chunk of this $20B is to sell NASA, of
course...  on the other hand, who would be fool enough to buy it?

Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Return-Path: EMAILDEV%UKACRL.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
Date:       Mon, 27 Jul 87 13:02:33 BST
From: (ZZASSGL at UMRCCVM) <ZZASSGL%UK.AC.UMRCC.CMS@ac.uk>
Subject:    Cheap ways into space please.

Having followed that various arguments about NASA, L5, profits etc etc
etc none of which have come to any great conclusion how about trying a
different tack?

WHY IS GETTING A FEW MILES UP INTO THE AIR SO EXPENSIVE???????

It is often stated that to get x kilograms to a height of y kilometres
costs z cents if done efficiently ( the actual numbers are not very
important the fact that z is reasonably small is).  The real problem is
to get closer to z with every new launch(?) technique.  It seems to me
that now that the system of mounting the payload on the end of a huge
bomb is pretty well debugged nobody is doing any really
powerfull(=expensive) research on better ways of doing it.

The most down to Earth system I've read about is the "Sky Stalk" or "Sky
Lift" (=Sky Elevator") as described by Clark and others.  Of course we
do not yet have the materials necessary to build such a structure as
these writers have described. But then prehaps there are better ways of
building such structures.

There are other possibilities - such as half way stations maintained at
high altitude by means of solar heated ballons(with prehaps a small
atomic plant for nighttime).  Would people pay to stay at a Hilton
maintained at 50000 feet?

OK I've thrown a couple of quarter baked ideas to the wolves how about
some others and comments.  After all if you can't beat the bureaucrats
at least you can outthink them.

Geoff. Lane.
UMRCC

------------------------------

Date: 17 Jul 87 11:19:59 GMT
From: eagle!icdoc!aw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andrew Weeks)
Subject: Relativistic mass increase

Brian Yamauchi asks :

>I have two questions for the physics experts on the net:
>
>1) Through time dilation, it is theoretically possible to travel X
>light years in less than X years of subjective time.  How does the
>energy required travel to do this compare to the energy that would be
>required if the universe was not subject to relativity (and the
>lightspeed limit).

Relativistic mass is given by:

       m = M/sqrt(1-v*v/c*c) where M is the rest mass

The energy required to reach v is therefore (m - M)*c*c, (which
approximates to m*v*v/2 if v is much less than c)

This means that relativistic mass increase and kinetic energy are the
same thing, even at low speed.

>2) How does relativistic mass increase conform to conservation of
>mass/energy in the universe?  Is the energy expended for acceleration
>being converted directly into the additional mass?

Yes. 

>If energy is being converted to matter then consider the following
>situation: suppose you accelerate to .9999c relative to Earth and then
>stop accelerating.  Then, from your point of view, the mass of the
>Earth will have increased while your (subjective) mass has remained the
>same.  Does this mean that the energy you have expended has been
>converted to mass on the Earth?
>
>This seems *wrong* but I can't think of a better explanation.

An accelerating space-craft is not an `inertial frame of reference', ie
one in which Newton's firtst law is true. Physical laws apply
differently in such frames. After all, if you accelerate to c/2, in your
frame, the rest of the universe has accelerated to c/2, while you remain
stationery.  How did it get the energy to do this??

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 28 Jul 87 13:11:49 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: FACT SHEET/Commercial Centers
Newsgroups: nasa.telemail.lf

I forward this from the NASA Internal news system.  I hope someone out
there could use the information.  I note that many of the universities
are not the first rate ones, and many are probably not Usenet nodes.
Perhaps sites near those nodes can help out.  Better to improve rather
than strictly critize.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

>Jim Ball                                            July 28, 1987
>Headquarters, Washington, D.C.
>(Phone:  202/453-1922)
>
>
>
>        CENTERS FOR THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OF SPACE
>
>
>     A key element in NASA's initiative to support the expanded 
>commercial use of space is the creation of innovative research 
>institutions funded through a cooperative partnership of 
>industry, universities and government.
>
>     Known as the Centers for the Commercial Development of 
>Space (CCDS), these non-profit research organizations focus on 
>specific technology areas identified as having potential for 
>future commercial development in space.
>
>     NASA's Office of Commercial Programs manages the grant 
>program and provides funding up to $1 million annually to the 
>commercial development centers, which also receive support from 
>corporate and university affiliates.
>
>     NASA support represents "seed money" to establish and 
>sustain the centers while increasing non-NASA financial and 
>institutional contributions lead to self sufficiency for the 
>CCDSs after a period of 5 years.
>
>     The space agency also offers to the CCDS NASA scientific and 
>technical expertise, opportunities for cooperative activities and 
>other forms of continuing assistance.
>
>     The CCDS program began in late 1985.  In the first two 
>solicitations, nine centers were selected by NASA to conduct 
>pioneering commercial development research in areas ranging from 
>materials processing to remote sensing.  These centers represent 
>involvement by 58 private companies, 22 universities and 6 other 
>government agencies.
>
>
>                           - more -
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                                           Page 2
>
>
>     Seven CCDS have been added to the program as a result of the 
>1987 solicitation.  These include the first centers to specialize 
>in the areas of space power, space propulsion, life sciences and 
>materials for space structures.
>
>     In soliciting proposals for the CCDS grant program, NASA 
>identifies a number of research areas considered to have 
>promising commercial potential.
>
>     Proposals submitted to NASA are evaluated by a distinguished 
>independent group of peer reviewers representing industry, 
>academia and government.
>
>     The selections are based on these evaluations and the 
>availability of budgeted funds for this activity.  Continued 
>funding of a CCDS depends on the center receiving a favorable 
>annual review of its progress.
>
>     Though NASA designates the general area of commercial 
>development research for each center, the specific agenda of 
>research and development activities are determined by the private 
>sector to produce benefits for commercial enterprises.
>
>     The 16 CCDS, their host facility and the year of their 
>selection are:
>
>
>                              1985
>
>Center for Advanced Materials, Battelle Columbus Laboratories, 
>Columbus, Ohio.
>
>Center for Macromolecular Crystallography, University of Alabama 
>- Birmingham.
>
>Consortium for Materials Development in Space, University of 
>Alabama - Huntsville.
>
>ITD Space Remote Sensing Center, NASA National Space Technology 
>Laboratories, Mississippi.
>
>Center for Space Processing of Engineering Materials, Vanderbilt 
>University, Nashville, Tenn.
>
>
>                              1986
>
>Center for Development of Commercial Crystal Growth in Space, 
>Center for Advanced Materials Processing, Clarkson University, 
>Potsdam, N.Y.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                                                           Page 3
>
>
>Center for Space Vacuum Epitaxy, University of Houston, Texas.
>
>Center for Mapping, Ohio State University, Columbus.
>
>Center for Space Automation & Robotics, University of Wisconsin, 
>Madison.
>
>
>                              1987
>
>Center for Advanced Space Propulsion, University of Tennessee 
>Space Institute, Tullahoma.
>
>Center for the Commercial Development of Space Power, Auburn 
>University, Auburn, Ala.
>
>Center for the Commercial Development of Autonomous and Man-
>Controlled Robotic Sensing Systems in Space, Environmental 
>Research Institute of Michgan, Ann Arbor.
>
>Center for Secretion Research, Pennsylvania State University, 
>University Park.
>
>Center for Bioserve Space Technologies, University of Colorado, 
>Boulder.
>
>Center on Materials for Space Structures, Case Western Reserve 
>University, Cleveland, Ohio.
>
>Center for Commercial Development of Space Power, Texas A&M 
>Research Foundation, College Station, Texas.
>
>
>
>                             - end -

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #303
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Aug 87 06:20:09 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11185; Tue, 4 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT
	id AA11185; Tue, 4 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 03:19:06 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708041019.AA11185@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #304

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 304

Today's Topics:
			  Rabbit vs. Turtle
		       Re: FTL and time travel
			 Pro-Space Publicity
		    Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING
			   Re: size of moon
			    Sagan and Mars
		Space Shuttle & Presidental Candidates
		     Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle
	      We can too help!  (was: My grouse with L5)
			Look like an astronaut
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 29 Jul 87 16:36:23 EST
From: JBAPTIST%ESTEC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Jose Pedro V. Poiares Baptista)
Subject: Rabbit vs. Turtle

    U.S. space policy reminds me of the rabbit in the old tale of the
race between the fast rabbit and the slow turtle.

    The rabbit (U.S.) runs from one tree to the other proving to itself
that it is the fastest runner in the forest and when it gets there (to
the tree) decides to rest in the shadow and have a nap (read U.S. space
policy runs from one project to the next scraping whatever is behind,
people, experience, "products"). The target is mainly achievement not
something more concrete. The "rabbit" is the fastest runner in the
world, no doubt about that.

    The turtle keeps its pig-headed mind on the target (winning the
race) and for her the trees are only events (read gradual development of
existing "products", proper long-term planning, constant R&D for new
projects and updating of old ones, even budget distribution along the
years). The "turtle" goes slow and has short legs.

    In the end the turtle won the race.

    Nice Tale.         Pedro

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 87 18:18:06 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

> kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml), >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne Throop)

>> [...] FTL implies time travel.
>  Does this assume that the FTL travel takes place through space (our 
>  universe)?  
No.

>  Would this hypothesis still hold with the "hyperspace"
>  idea (i.e., circumventing our universe to get from a to b)?  
Yes.

> What I want to know are there any intrinsic differences between FTL
> through space and FTL around space?  
Not from the standpoint of the FTL implying time travel.  
There may be others, of course.

Wayne Throop

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 27 Jul 87 10:26:24 CDT
From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>
Subject:  Pro-Space Publicity

I was just looking through a back issue (May '87) of GOVERNMENT EXECUTIVE
magazine (I'm no executive, myself -- this was an extra copy discarded
by the library in our building). Anyway, I would recommend that Space
readers try to locate a copy of this issue, as there are a couple
articles in it of particular interest to you. One is on the management
of the NASA Space Station program, but the primary one, and why I am
posting this with the subject above, is an editorial column about how
ABC and CBS refused to air a McDonnell Douglas-sponsored ad, prepared by
J. Walter Thompson, in favor of the development of the US Space Station
which dramatically displayed our current inferiority to the Soviets in
space. It's on page 56, and pictures from the ad are on page 57.
I'll quote a bit:

"... The video portion begins with a a shot of outer space and
gradually, as a space station comes into view, the voice-over narrator
says that 'Right now, in space' medicines are being developed to cure
disease, new materials are being developed that could revolutionize the
quality of products manufactured on Earth and scientific discoveries
are being made that could change history.

By the end of the script, a Battlestar Galactica-sized space ship fills
the screen -- with a red star and the letters CCCP on it. Says the
narrator, 'Shouldn't we be there too? America needs the Space Station.'"

"...Budget limits said they could afford to buy time on only one Sunday
morning talk show and a few local-TV nightime news slots. [This explains
why I had never seen this ad nor heard of it before now.-WM] The
networks made that decision easy for them. Only NBC said it would run
the ad. ABC and CBS turned it down, said it was 'too controversial'."

[About a half-page of discussion omitted, ending with comments on the
role of the media to censor ads for various reasons.] "... When they
deny expression of 'controversial' opinions they don't like, this
Republic has a heap of trouble, folks."
(editorial by C. W. Borklund, Editor-In-Chief)

I think the point here, related to recent discussion on this list, is
that there HAVE been efforts out there to publicize the pro-space
concerns voiced by many of this list's participants. But much of this
effort has been stifled and suppressed by enemies of the pro-space
viewpoint. If someone with the clout of McDonnell Douglas can't get a
professionally-produced ad on TV, what chance do private persons have of
spreading the word with some kind of newsletter or lobbying effort?
(Though the budget limits mentioned above indicate that McD-D wasn't
putting much corporate might behind this -- I wonder if the networks
would have been so quick to refuse a "media blitz" campaign, where McD-D
would be buying a LOT of ads, not just a few?)

Anyway, I think a lot of the past weeks' posters/participants would find
this editorial and the series of stills from the ad of great interest.
Maybe McD-D would donate copies to other groups for dissemination in
various ways, like local cable public-access channels? Be a shame to
waste the production costs...

Regards,
Will Martin
wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA   (on USENET try ...!seismo!wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA )

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 87 18:59:53 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!lew@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING

In article <1302@sputnik.COM>, inc@tc.fluke.COM (Gary Benson) writes:
> When Sagan walks across his astral calendar and on the 30th he talks
> about the emergence of man, I for one get a much better feel for the
> time spans involved when we speak of the cosmos.

This is surely nitpicking, but I don't like Sagan's calendar since it
represents a linear phenomenon ( passage of time ) by area. The little
patch at the end of the calendar actually minimizes the psychological
impact of the small ratio of historical to geological time.

Now if *I* were doing it *I* would use rolls of adding machine tape with
a time scale of 1 year/mm. I would show that historical time unrolled in
a few steps ( 5000 yrs = 5 m ) Then I would get into a truck loaded with
rolls of adding machine tape and drive the length of Route 80 while I
commented on the epochs that were unrolling. I imagine myself like David
Attenborough - "Here we ah in the late Jurassic period as we pass
through the decidedly Cenozoic vegetation of Iowa ..".  Oh well, *I*
didn't do the show did I?

> ..................................... Just last week, I performed a
> rather Saganesque demonstration for a friend of mine. We were on a
> beach and I found a stone that I called Earth, then another one that
> was about one-sixth the size. Together we calculated where to put it
> so it could be the moon, then we figured out how big the sun would be
> and that it would be about a half mile offshore. We wound up doing
> most of the solar system - I must confess I couldn't remember the size
> of most of the outer planets relative to Earth. She was delighted; had
> never done anything like that, and thanked me because it helped her
> understanding.

Here I fault Sagan a little more substantially. He committed the same
crime everybody else does in uncoupling distance scales from size scales
in his stroll through the solar system. I once built a 10^-10 scale
solar system and actually showed it to my daughter's fourth grade class.
We went out in the schoolyard and I put different kids in charge of each
planet and sent them out in different directions ( no arbitrary syzygy )
with their charges.  Some of us stood near earth and looked with
binoculars at Jupiter and Saturn ( about 70 and 150 meters distant and
the size of small marbles )
  
> That's the value of Carl Sagan. He is a valuable spokesman for
> science, and discussions about whether someone likes him or not strike
> me as inappropriate to this newsgroup, and even a little offensive.
> When *my* starship leaves, I'd much prefer that Carl Sagan be my
> fellow passenger than some stuck up twit who wouldn't deign to speak
> with me unless I could prove a passing mark in calculus.

I like Sagan OK, insofar as he certainly does more good than bad ( I
think ) but I am deeply mistrustful of the Ooo - ah approach exemplified
by COSMOS.  I remember coworkers talking about how spectacular the
effects were and so on, but I don't think anybody was inspired to so
much as look at a star through a pair of binoculars.  ( Vega through
10X50's is sublime. ) The hard truth is that the beauties of astronomy
are subtle, and it takes a little cerebration to achieve the
breathtaking stage. A real astronomy show would be like a Zen
instruction book - "Stop watching this show! Go outside!"

		Lew Mammel, Jr.

------------------------------

Return-Path: <hoey@nrl-aic.ARPA>
Date: 29 Jul 1987 01:49:35 EDT (Wed)
From: Dan Hoey <hoey@nrl-aic.arpa>
Subject: Re: size of moon
To: "David A. Lyons" <AWCTTYPA%UIAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov

    Date:     Friday 24 Jul 87 11:43 PM CT
    From: David A. Lyons <AWCTTYPA%UIAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
    Subject:  size of moon

    ...Probably a lot of people never stop to think that 1/6 surface
    gravity is not the same as 1/6 mass--I am guilty of this myself....

Amazingly, though, surface gravity *is* proportional to escape
velocity, assuming spheres of equal uniform density and Newtonian
physics.

Dan Hoey

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 87 12:22:59 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Sagan and Mars

     I have been reading (except for the political flames) but not
responding to recent SPACE digests, being a bit too busy writing and
defending my thesis.  However, I would like to go on record as saying
that I, too, am a bit queasy at Sagan bashing and very, very uneasy
about the anti-Mars sentiment on the net.
     I don't watch TV, and have never seen Cosmos, but I have great
respect for scientists who make the effort to bring science to the
general public.  Quoting Roald Hoffman (Nobel prize in Chemistry, 1981;
writing in _American Scientist_ July-Aug 1987):
    "...To simplify may be to trivialize... but think of the alternative
to *not* trying to explain what we are doing, not just the technological
end or the medical benefit, but the hard (and sometimes soft), beautiful
logic that fascinates us.  The alternative, not really far down the
road, is a cutting off from sthe society that supports us, and from
those close to us, a sinking into still more jargon,; the alienation of
just those young people whom we want to join us."
     Bringing science to the populace, and trying to convey the
excitement and beauty, is not easy; and unfortunately, rather than being
a worthy and respected task, far too often brings scorn and ridicule
from colleagues, rather than the respect it deserves:
     "Popularization is taken as a sign of softening, the kind of thing
a macho scientist in his prime just wouldn't think of doing...  If he is
so good at talking about science--and we know this takes time, so much
time--the presumption is that there must be something inadequate in his
science. I suspect that there is some illogical reaction along these
lines in the astronomy community to Carl Sagan, a remarkable expositor
who has done more for science around the world than any other person I
know."  (again from Hoffmann)
    There seems a remarkable intolerance in this list for different
opinions.  I think that, overall, we should realize that Sagan is much
more with us than against us.  Save the bashing for Proxmire and Van
Allen.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 87 16:38:51 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!calgary!arcsun!rob@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rob Aitken)
Subject: Space Shuttle & Presidental Candidates

[more $9.95 << $10.00 flamage deleted.  -Ed]

Obligatory space shuttle question: Does anyone have any information on the
priority/funding that the various U.S. presidential candidates are prepared
to give NASA, and how this will affect the launch schedule?

Rob Aitken
In Canada: aitken@noah.arc.cdn
Everywhere else: arcsun!rob@seismo.css.gov

------------------------------

Date: 27 Jul 87 17:06:50 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle

In article <3309@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes:
> How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them, and
> had to develop numerous highly complex systems that had never flown
> before, rather than designing with what was available at the time?
> They're not THAT much less expensive than a shuttle even as it stands
> - I suspect the learning curve alone accounts for a lot of the
> difference.

In today's dollars at least $1 billion apiece if we had only built 4.
It is not correct that a 747 is comparable to a Space Shuttle in cost.
According to the "Boeing News" of July 24, 1987:(page 1)

"China Airlines will acquire six 747-400 superjets valued at about $1
billion...".  These are the new version coming out next year.

According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter will
cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars.

j

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 87 20:54:45 GMT
From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu  (Patrick White)
Subject: We can too help!  (was: My grouse with L5)

In article <3282@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes:
 >    There's really not much else many ``dedicated supporters of
 >space'' can DO.  ...
 > ...    							The
 >rest of us are not in a position to do anything but cheerlead for
 >whoever is getting SOMETHING done ...

   Nonsense!  In this newsgroup alone, there are many people with skills
that any start-up space company NEEDS, such as physics, engineering,
computer programming, dietetics, medicine, law, etc.  These skills cost
lots of money for a small start-up company to get and only add to the
already enormous cost of a leading edge technology venture involving
space exploration.  Although we can't invest money, or didn't get a job
with a company that is involved with space, there is still something
that can be done to further space exploration -- donate your time and
skills to some small start-up company's space project.  Donating this
kind of time will do far more to further the space exploration we all
want to see than will spending time to get space related orginazitions
in the news (after all, actions have always accomplished more than
words).
   Or, if you don't like the idea of donation your time to a particular
comnpany, then how about bashing some ideas arround here on the net -- I
don't mean just talking about them, but rather doing detailed
calculations to determine feasibility, actually drawing up plans,
finding sources and costs of materials, and perhaps even doing some
"basement" research on new techniques or materials.  Then releasing the
designs to the public domain.
   Donating this kind of time and effort will surely do far more for
space exploration than an infinite number of meetings or conferences
that achieve nothing more than talk.

   By now, you are probably expecting me to try to get other people to
donate time to some start-up company I have, but you would be wrong.  I
do not have any such company and never intend to start one.
   However, since this is my idea, I will be the first to offer some of
my free time as a programmer and computing power of my micro to a
start-up company that needs some code written.  If there is anybody that
is interested in taking me up on my offer, I can be reached at the below
addresses.

-- Pat White
UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain
BITNET:	PATWHITE@PURCCVM
U.S.  Mail:  320 Brown St. apt. 406,    West Lafayette, IN 47906

------------------------------

Date: 28 Jul 87 16:32:21 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Look like an astronaut

Okay, as I promised, the information on prices for the Barrier-Wear
jumpsuits.

They're $95 (we get a proce break if we buy 100...not real likely).

That's more than I thought they were going to cost.  I will have a
prototype in my hands this weekend.  It may still be worth it.
The biggest advantage to these suits is that you can put your hands in
your pockets, which you can't in the Cockpit suits.  In the royal blue,
they're only $6 more than the Cockpit.

After we get a chance to look at the prototype this weekend at Not-the-
August Party (we is a group of folks going down to Space Camp together)
I'll let you know if the order is going to go ahead.  Those of you who
have emailed me will get more information (Monday) in your mailbox.

Rich Kolker
8519 White Pine Drive
Manassas Park, VA 22111
(703)361-1290 (h)
(703)749-2315 (w)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #304
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Aug 87 06:19:52 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13740; Wed, 5 Aug 87 03:18:43 PDT
	id AA13740; Wed, 5 Aug 87 03:18:43 PDT
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 87 03:18:43 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708051018.AA13740@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #305

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 305

Today's Topics:
		     Soviet/Syrian mission lands
		Suggestions on names for Mars Observer
			      Discovery
			Jane's opinion of NASA
			 astronaut breakfast
			Re: Spotting Apollo 15
			Re: Spotting Apollo 15
		  Shuttle Jumpsuits...Ordering Info
       Manned vs. unmanned missions, public perception of space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 87 00:54:09 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Soviet/Syrian mission lands

  The Russian/Syrian space mission ended today (July 29th) when the
Soyuz TM-2 spacecraft returned to earth.  On board were Alexander
Viktorenko (mission commander), Mohammed Faris (Syrian Airforce Major)
and Alexander Laveikin.  This forms a partial crew switchoff as Laveikin
has just spent the last 174 days on Mir (his first space voyage).
Laveikin apparently has had health problems - he was very slow adapting
to zero G, and now has heart problems.  He has been replaced by
Alexander Alexandrov, flight engineer on the Syrian mission, who has
already spent 149 days in space on Salyut 7 during the Soyuz T-9 flight
in June '83.  Remaining with Mir is Yuri Romanenko (104 days from Soyuz
26 & 33).  A crew switch off was probably not planned in the original
mission, but as I noted two months ago in a posting there were
statements then that the crew may be relieved before too long.  No more
was said about that until just before this flight so Laveikin must have
taken a turn for the worse.  The Soyuz TM-2, which came up with this
mission, is bringing down materials processing samples, and photographs.
The fresh TM-3 is being left behind and the Soviets have said that it
will be moved from the rear docking port to the forward one in the next
few days (they like to change Soyuz's every 6 months or less to keep the
ships in good order).  This change probably means that the Progress 31
tanker will be coming up within a couple of weeks (they usually do that
after a visit).
     By the way, in answer to the question of a few days ago on Space
digest, the cosmonaut that got sick previously was Vladimir Vasyutin,
commander of the Soyuz T-14 mission to Salyut 7 in Sept. '85.  He became
ill and was running 104 degrees temperatures when the mission landed in
Nov 85, long before it was expected to come down.  It turned out that he
had a prostate infection, which is the reason why they are so quiet
about it.  If there is one thing that is even more secret in Russian
society than the military it is things even slightly related to sexual
functions or, um, equipment.  That mission was their first attempt at a
crew switchoff.
    So now when a Soviet cosmonaut gets ill they replace him and
continue the mission.  They are obviously building up to a constant
presence in space.  I wish we were.

                                            Glenn Chapman
                                            MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 87 12:45:52 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu  (Stephen P. Masticola)
Subject: Suggestions on names for Mars Observer

A friend who is working on the Mars Observer spacecraft and I have
decided to solicit suggestions (unofficially) on a less prosaic name for
the MO.  Names should be appropriate for a spacecraft whose mission is a
long-term survey of Mars and nearby space, and should not have been used
on earlier spacecraft.  Please mail your suggestions to me at
masticol@topaz.rutgers.edu.

				- Steve Masticola.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 87 17:13:17 GMT
From: duh%psueclb.BITNET%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Discovery


        Hey! I just heard on the radio that they sucessfully powered up
Discovery at KSC.  This is the first time that Discovery has been powered
up since the accident, and its an important milestone along the path to
flight of Mission-26.  I just had to tell everyone, but I'm sure you all
knew. :-) :-) :-)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 87 04:47:23 GMT
From: tektronix!teklds!zeus!tekla!dant@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dan Tilque;1893;92-789;LP=A;60HC)
Subject: Jane's opinion of NASA

An article in the local newspaper gives some interesting comments from
Jane's Spaceflight Directory (from the introduction by Reginald
Turnill): [These quotes are from an article which in turn quotes
Turnill.]

	Turnill found that in visiting NASA facilities he found "many
	who doubted whether there would be a resumption (of shuttle
	missions) before 1989 and even some in high places who thought
	Shuttle Mission 26 might not occur before 1990.

	"The fact is that currently NASA has lost the will to fly men in
	space.  There are apparently some 2,000 people now concerned
	with 'safety, reliability, and quality assurance' -- people
	whose own safety can be ensured only by saying 'No.'"

NASA has its usual reaction: long on promises, short on results.

This is mostly nothing new to those on the net, but it's interesting
that's it's now making it into the regular press.

Another quote (of Turnill):

	"It is time for the West, and the U.S. in particular, to worry
	less about the nightmare of 'technology transfer' and to worry
	more about the lessons to be learned by making a close study of
	what our Eastern European rivals are doing."

Dan Tilque
dant@tekla.tek.com

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 87 19:28:19 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: astronaut breakfast

The traditional breakfast for astronauts since Mercury days has
been steak and eggs.  The eggs are scrambled but how is the 
steak prepared and what cut of beef is it?

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 87 19:44:32 GMT
From: terra!brent@sun.com  (Brent Callaghan)
Subject: Re: Spotting Apollo 15

In article <618@mas1.UUCP>, gulvin@mas1.UUCP (Tom Gulvin) writes:
> In article <24146@sun.uucp> brent%terra@Sun.COM (Brent Callaghan) writes:
> >It took several Apollo flights and more heavy packages of trajectory
> >data before we were successful.  We spotted Apollo 15 exactly where
> >it was supposed to be through a 20" telescope at our local
> >observatory.
> >
> >This kid still thinks "space is NEAT"!
> 
> Hold on there brent - you can't tell us a cool story like that with
> out more details! You mean that you actually SAW apollo 15 from the
> ground? What did you see? CSM/LM (on way to moon)? S-IVB + CSM + Lunar
> adapter? White smudge?  What were the conditions of observation?
> Field of view? Type of equipment? Shoe size?...

I interested some amateur astronomers in the project.  They were a bit
sceptical but after we went over my printouts they figured that it was
worth a try.  We were lucky to get time on a 20" reflector at the
Auckland observatory.

Our biggest problem with spotting the thing was in getting a clear sky.
We had bad weather almost every night we had time booked for observing.
We had the computed position plotted onto a starmap and pointed the
telescope there looking for something unusual.

This night we had a gap in the clouds that lasted about 10 minutes.  We
saw an orange dot exactly where it was supposed to be.  We assumed that
the orange was due to the gold foil reflecting sunlight off the angular
surfaces of the lunar module.  The brightness varied during the
observation in a way that suggested that the spacecraft was rotating
slowly - passive thermal control.

Made in New Zealand -->  Brent Callaghan  @ Sun Microsystems
			 uucp: sun!bcallaghan
			 phone: (415) 691 6188

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 87 21:03:50 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Douglas H. Price)
Subject: Re: Spotting Apollo 15

>The brightness varied during the observation in a way that suggested
>that the spacecraft was rotating slowly - passive thermal control.

Indeed, Apollo spacecraft did slowly rotate while in transit.  This was
euphemistically referred to as "barbecue mode".  The idea was to
distribute solar heating evenly across the spacecraft.

						Douglas H. Price
						Analysts International Corp.
						@ AT&T Bell Laboratories
						..!ihnp4!ihlpa!dhp

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 87 13:14:04 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Shuttle Jumpsuits...Ordering Info

Thank you for waiting...

The Barrier-Wear shuttle jumpsuits are going to cost $95.  Since this is
more than I thought they would, I'll take care of postage.

For those of you who missed it, these are a polyester/cotton version
of the astronaut shuttle jumpsuit, made by the original company and cut
from the same patterns.  They are the royal blue color that will be used
when flights resume.  Lower leg pockets and external velcro have been
removed to save cost (originally $275).

Sizes are from 32 short to 46 long.  My best suggestion for finding your
size is to go to the nearest Sears/work clothes store etc. where they
sell work coveralls and try some on.  The waist is adjustible.  As an
alternative, I give you the following information, which is stolen from
the men's jacket size chart in the Sears catalog:

SIZE    CHEST       WAIST
36      34-36       29-31
38      37-39       31-33
40      39-41       33-35
42      41-43       35-37
44      43-45       38-40
46      45-47       41-43

Chest and waist of course are in inches.  As I said, I recommend finding
a place that has coveralls and trying some on.  Also take into account
you can get short, regular and long.

So...to order. Make checks payable to W.A.C.O. (all the money is passing
through this account so the order can be made before all your checks clear)
and send them to me at the address below.

Here's the form:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

NAME.................................
ADDRESS...........................................
..................................................
PHONE (In case I have questions).........................

Size(check correct size or use numbers if ordering more than one)
	Short	Regular	Long
32	.....	.....	.....
34	.....	.....	.....
36	.....	.....	.....
38	.....	.....	.....
40	.....	.....	.....
42	.....	.....	.....
44	.....	.....	.....
46	.....	.....	.....

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The order will be going out NO LATER THAN Sept 1, so I need your money
in hand by August 28.  Delivery should be about 3 weeks later (hopefully
sooner).

I AM NOT MAKING A PROFIT ON THIS, as a matter of fact, I'll probably
lose a few bucks on postage.  I'm just providing a service in exchange
for being able to get a suit myself.


 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+
 |  Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                 A|W|A     |
 |  8519 White Pine Drive        The cause endures...               H|T|H     |
 |  Manassas Park, VA 22111        The hope still lives...          /|||\     |
 |  (703)361-1290 (h)           And the dream shall never die.     /_|T|_\    |
 |  (703)749-2315 (w)  (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker)             " W "     |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 29 Jul 87 13:04 CDT
From: <KCB9792%TAMSIGMA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu> (Kevin 'Charlie' Brown)
Subject:  Manned vs. unmanned missions, public perception of space

Oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech) writes:

> I think a lot more planetary science would get done if the up-front
> costs for launching were not hundreds of millions of $$$; if
> opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to
> last for decades; if each project wasn't such a major financial and
> managerial endeavour. The way to achieve this is greatly expanded
> human presence in space.

Typically, planetary probe projects are a LOT less expensive than manned
missions (mainly due to *much* smaller payload, lack of life-support
systems, smaller power requirements, etc.).  However, I do have to agree
that most of the problem is in the high launch costs.  This problem
plagues both manned and unmanned missions.

I should point out that unmanned missions can and should be used to aid
us in reaching the ultimate goal of a large manned presence in space.
Specifically, probes are useful in allowing us to see what we're getting
ourselves into. It logically follows, then, that before we go someplace
(like the moon), we should send unmanned probes first.  I have to agree
with the idea that the best way to start establishing a presence in
space is to establish a presence on the moon, since there are resources
there that will be needed in near-earth space construction, and it is
far easier to get something off the moon than it is to get the same
thing off the earth.  I also agree that the moon needs a lot more
exploration.  Since unmanned probes are very good for exploration
purposes, it seems to me that we need to send several exploratory probes
(preferably the rover-type, but we also need orbiters) with
state-of-the-art sensory equipment to the moon.  Once we've gained a
detailed knowledge of the moon (both front and back sides), then we can
safely establish a manned presence there.  If we can already safely
establish a manned presence on the moon, then we should do so, but I
don't know that we know enough about the moon yet...

If planetary exploration via unmanned probes is so much more
cost-effective, why bother sending a manned exploration team to Mars?
Why not send several unmanned rover-type probes instead?  While this is
going on, we can begin to establish a presence in near-earth space
(earth-moon system) and, having done that, we can then *safely*
establish a presence on Mars (imagine the problems we would have right
now if a rescue team were needed for a manned Mars mission.  A
well-established presence in near-earth space would make such a rescue
mission much easier and much more timely.  As it stands right now, by
the time we could get a rescue mission off the ground the people on Mars
would probably be dead).

The main reason that launches are so expensive is that the hardware
isn't mass produced.  Our industry relies on mass production for its
survival, and it's mainly through mass production that the price of a
product will drop to a reasonable level.  Consider how expensive an
automobile would be if only twenty or thirty copies were produced,
compared with the price of the same automobile when 20,000 or 30,000 are
produced.  But a company will not mass produce something that will be
bought in limited quantities at best. The result: we need to launch a
lot of stuff into space in order to lower the costs.  This includes both
manned *and* unmanned missions.  We're currently in a circular
situation: we are unwilling to launch large numbers of payloads on a
regular basis because the cost per launch is so high, and we can't lower
the cost per launch until we start launching large numbers of payloads
into space.  To break out of this, somebody is going to have to be
willing to spend some money on launching payloads into space on a
regular basis until launch costs come down.  As the cost per launch goes
down, more people will be willing to send payloads into space, and
unless something really nasty happens the trend will continue until it
reaches an equilibrium point.


Mink@cfa.harvard.EDU (Doug Mink) writes:

> The sorry state of the US space program at present is due to the fact
> that manned space flight is damned complicated, much more so than
> anyone thought it would be.  Because it cost so much, the shuttle was
> required to do more than it could possibly be expected to.  Obviously
> what we need now is an unmanned heavy-lift freight system to support
> relatively infrequent (10/year) human trips into space (over the next
> 10 years).  While this need is obvious, it does not seem to be the way
> things are going to go.  Hence we are battling manned versus unmanned
> when both are needed in near-earth space.

Actually, both types of space flight are complicated, but in different
ways.  Manned space flight is complicated due to the life-support
problems, and the fact that we do our best to keep the people alive up
there (thus the redundant life-support systems.  I wouldn't have it any
other way, but it does make things a bit costly).  On the other hand,
unmanned space flight is also complicated, mainly because the knowledge
we have of the environment into which we send our probes is much less
than our knowledge of the environment into which we send our manned
missions.  For example, if the probe gets far enough away from earth,
then you start having to worry about time delay in communications.
Let's face it, spaceflight in general is complicated, but obviously it's
also manageable.

It seems to me, however, that the main (but certainly not the only)
reason that our space program is in shambles is that people simply don't
consider it as important as other earth-bound issues.  Now that the
Soviet space program has made ours look childish, people may start
viewing the space program as an important issue.

Unfortunately, I suspect that if we somehow mobilize our space program
(whether it be via NASA or private enterprise or both), people will
eventually lose interest again once they no longer perceive the Soviet
space program as a threat.

The ultimate problem (as I see it) is that most people here in America
are very nearsighted.  The reason that American companies rarely plan
into the far future is that the people in those companies don't think in
terms of the far future, only in terms of the near future.  The main
problem is not with our companies or with our government (though these
things are an extension of the problem), but rather with *us*, i.e. the
average American.

The American people need a change in philosophy.  The current philosophy
seems to be 'live for today'.  While this philosophy may be necessary to
a degree for survival, most people do nothing but live on a day-by-day
basis.  How can we possibly realize a long-term goal when most everyone
is concerned with only the present and/or near future?


   Kevin Brown (KCB9792@TAMSIGMA.BITNET)
   Texas A&M University

   Voice: (409)846-2667
   SNAIL: 4302 College Main #353
          Bryan, TX  77801


Live for today AND tomorrow.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #305
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Aug 87 11:09:21 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15963; Thu, 6 Aug 87 08:07:18 PDT
	id AA15963; Thu, 6 Aug 87 08:07:18 PDT
Date: Thu, 6 Aug 87 08:07:18 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708061507.AA15963@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #306

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 306

Today's Topics:
	 Stanford Satellite Program at AIAA/DARPA Conference
		      Dry Ore Separation Device
		     Progress 31 launched to Mir
			  Re: Jan Wasilesky
		   Re: Sagan and Planetary Society
			     Mars, nyet.
		 Space isn't all too special, either
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #299
				goals
		   Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 87 17:45:04 GMT
From: scherzo!lyang@sun.com  (Larry Yang)
Subject: Stanford Satellite Program at AIAA/DARPA Conference


STANFORD SMALL SATELLITE PROGRAM TO PRESENT PAPERS AT  AIAA/DARPA
			SATELLITE CONFERENCE

Monterey, California, August 4, 1987:

Graduate students and faculty of  the  Stanford  Small  Satellite
Program  will present three papers at the AIAA-DARPA "Lightweight
Satellite Conference",  August  4-6  at  the  Naval  Postgraduate
School,  Monterey.   The  meeting  is  intended to facilitate the
transfer of information relative to the critical technologies and
management  methods  which  will  support the development of low-
cost, lightweight satellite systems.

Graduate students Victor Aguero (AA), David Cannon  (ME),  Robert
Crigler (ME) and Burton Lee (Engineering Management) will present
"Small Satellite Ejector Mechanisms: Implications for Bus  Design
and  Passive  vs.  Active Attitutde Control" at the Satellite Bus
Design Session.  The Data Transmission Session will  hear  Victor
Aguero,  David  Lauben  (EE)  and  Karan  Ponnudurai (EE) present
"Small Satellite Communication Systems: VHF- An Alternative to S-
and  L-  band".   Both  papers summarize results of research per-
formed on contract to NASA-Ames during the past academic year.

Dr. Michael Wiskerchen, Associate  Director  of  the  Center  for
Aeronautics  and Space Information Sciences (CASIS), has been in-
vited to present "Rapid Prototyping Testbeds" before  the  Ground
and  Mission  Operations  Technologies  Session.   The major NASA
operations centers have funded CASIS to develop information tech-
nologies  aimed  at  reducing  mission costs and accelerating the
transfer of advanced applications into operational  environments.
Dr.  Wiskerchen  shall discuss implications of the CASIS coopera-
tive research/applications program for lightweight satellite mis-
sions.

The Small Satellite Program was established in late 1985 to apply
advanced  technology  and  management  methods  to new-generation
space platforms.  NASA-Ames contracted for studies of  small  sa-
tellite technology, and in particular, for the desgin of a proto-
type 120 lb. satellite called SURFER (Stanford  University  Radio
Frequency  Emissions Receiver). SURFER is intended to address the
needs of space scientists who desire a low-cost free-flying plas-
ma field measurement platform for use with Space Shuttle tethered
satellite missions.

Enthusiastic support from  graduate  students,  however,  quickly
demonstrated  the  program's  substantial value as an educational
vehicle.  To date, an estimated  80  graduate  and  undergraduate
students   have  participated  in  related  for-credit  projects,
coursework, and independent study.  Major  aerospace  contractors
have  recognized  the importance of the program by hiring several
team members.

Victor Aguero,  Program  Manager,  states  that  discussions  are
currently underway to expand the Stanford program into additional
small satellite research areas, including applications of  compo-
site materials, surface mount technology and other advanced tech-
nologies.

For further information, please contact:          
  Victor Aguero, Program Manager: (415)723-2945 or (415)723-3245
                                  E-mail: aguero@star.stanford.edu
  Burton Lee, Deputy Program Manager: (415) 723-2945

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 87 17:13 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Dry Ore Separation Device

Today's NY Times (8/5/87, page D6) has an article on a recently invented
ore separation device.  The device separates mineral grains by density.
Unlike other machines with this function, it uses no water.  Grains are
dropped into an oscillating separation chamber where some arrangement
of baffles causes dense grains to drift to the center.

Although the inventor wants to use it on desert gold deposits, it seems
to me a device like this would be ideal for beneficiating lunar ore.
For example, you might want to separate ilmenite or meteoric metal particles
from the less dense silicates and glasses.  The machine seems rugged and
simple, and might very well operate in a vacuum.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 87 18:52:11 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Progress 31 launched to Mir

     The Soviet Union has launched the Progress 31 cargo craft to Mir
last night (Aug 3/4) and it will dock with the station on Aug 5-6th.
Typically this will carry up 1 tonne of fuel and 1.5 tonnes of cargo.
On board Mir Yuri Romanenko (up for 180 days now from the Soyuz TM-2
crew) and Alexander Alexandrov (now up 14 days from the Soyuz TM-3 crew
switch off) have been using the Kvant observatory section to look at
this year's supernova.  Progress 31 makes the 7th tanker, and 12th
vehicle to visit Mir.
     In other news the Russians launched on July 25th a very large
(15-20 tonne) earth resource satellite.  Information suggests that it is
similar to the large Landsats the Ride report was calling for in the
Mission-to-Earth studies of the 1990's.  Its mass is 5-7 times that of
the Landsat.
     Unless something unusual happens the Soviet's will be celebration
the 30th anniversary of Sputnik on October with a new space endurance
record by Romanenko.  It will be about a decade before we can equal his
mission duration, as things stand now.  I just hope this can change.

                                           Glenn Chapman
                                           MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 1987 15:50-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Jan Wasilesky

Very well put Jan, and those are precisely my own feelings. I'm a hard
core libertarian, but I'm also a realist. It is important to have strong
ideals to help set long term goals and to guide your decisions.  But if
you ignore current realities, you do your own ideals a disservice.

As a fanciful example to the already tortured historical parallel, who
do you think would have accomplished more:

	1) An activist who stood up at a slave auction and tried to
	   release the slaves on the block.

	2) A planter who built a plantation with an extra big basement
	   where he could secretly run a school to teach teachers to
	   spread literacy among the slaves.

The first goes to jail and gets in the history book while accomplishing
nothing. The second would probably never be known, might even be
castigated and lumped with the supporters of slavery, and yet is the one
who REALLY plants the seeds of destruction.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 1987 16:10-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Sagan and Planetary Society

I may disagree with Sagan on many points, but I don't feel quite the
vehemence of many here.

We (NSS/L5) have had common cause with them on numerous occassions,
Galileo, guaranteeing the continued suppert of Voyager, etc.

I'm sure if they would agree publicly that commercial goals and the
building of a permanent infrastructure were important parts of an
overall grand program, including a lunar base as a preliminary to a Mars
base, then I'm quite sure we could work amicably with them on wider
issues.

We at NSS/L5 have nothing inherently against many of the things they
want, in fact we share many of the same goals. It is only that they have
often made public statements attacking some of OUR primary goals, and
this has caused some bitterness and angry responses.

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 87 21:08:55 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      Mars, nyet.

    I feel very uneasy about the anti-Mars sentiment expressed on the
net.  I fervently hope that these expressions against Mars exploration
are "in the family" squabbles, and that they are not being broadcast
further. You all do realize, I hope, that to outsiders (i.e.,
politicians) the detailed arguments will blur into obscurity and all
that will be heard will be a vague anti-space sentiment.
    If there is one lesson that must be learned if space advocates are
to have any level of success, it is that such criticisms must be kept
internal, and a united front presented to the outside.  Even if it means
not criticizing (in public) a program that may draw money away from your
pet project.  When subgroups within a research community (and not just
the space network; but fusion, high-energy physics, solar power,
whatever) publicly criticize the need for each other's projects, it is
almost always the case that opponents and budget-cutters use the
disharmony as a tool to cut funding to ALL the projects.
    That means, don't air the dirty laundry in public.
    I think a good argument could be made that it is not a case of
either going to Mars or else building a space infrastructure, but
instead a case of either going to Mars or else continuing to piss away
time money and effort with the kind of space program we've got.  In
other words, Mars or *nothing*.
    I may not in fact believe this is strictly true, but I think it is a
valid argument, and I certainly can't criticize people who do believe
this for arguing the case for Mars.  Give them the benefit of being
honest.  And, remember, it is a *lot* easier to build up a
infrastructure if you can point to a tangible goal, like Mars.
    At least, if you are arguing that Mars will drain resources needed
to build a real space infrastructure, give me a reasonable argument as
to why you believe that if we *don't* go to Mars, we *will* get the
infrastructure.  In case you haven't noticed, the Mars Underground had
*nothing* to do with the dismantlement of the Apollo program.
    Arguing that "Apollo ended up being a one-shot deal with no
systematic exploration follow-up, so therefore we should not go to Mars"
is tantamount to doing statistics from ONE DATA POINT.  It is
meaningless.  Any sort of Mars mission would necessarily build up a
significant amount of space infrastructure, not to mention sheer
experience in zero-gee.  The thing to do is to USE that build-up, and
make sure it doesn't get destroyed when the hoopla is over.  Co-opt the
Mars project, do it right; don't torpedo it, or you may find that you
are left with nothing at all.

    With respect to Sagan in particular, some people have argued that
Sagan's express purpose in pushing this Mars project is to foster
cooperation with the Russians, in a vain attempt to avoid such
misunderstandings and posturing ("you're an evil empire!"  "Oh, yeah?
Well, you're imperialist swine!") as might lead to a nuclear war.  This
may be so, but is this bad?  I do not see how one can fault the man for
wanting to avoid nuclear war, even if he has to advocate (gasp) space
exploration to do it.

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA
                        EDU, try: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu

------------------------------

Date:     Wednesday 29 Jul 87 9:10 PM CT
From: Jacob Hugart <GWCHUGPG%UIAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  Space isn't all too special, either

In his article, oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes:

>    See what I mean about fundamentally different goals? We want to
>get a LOT of humans out there.[space]

It would be nice to have thousands (no, millions!) of humans in space,
or on their way away, but imagine what could happen to a craft -
carrying hundreds of spacers - doing what the Challenger did?  Unless,
of course, such ships are designed to be rugged and long-lasting.  But
no, you said:

>I think a lot more planetary science would get done...if opportunities
>were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to last
>decades;...The way to achieve this is greatly expanded human presence
>in space.

I agree that things won't become practical nor affordable until we get
more people out there, but who is going to go?  The situation on Earth
is quite comfy right now, and no one seems to be in a rush to leave.  We
can't place people in orbit if they don't want to go.

Certainly, there is no force compelling us to move starward, no tug of
destiny, but the few people who want to go are the ones who can go.  It
will take time, but we can't succeed by shoving shiploads of humans into
space.  If we are to be successful in surviving in space, without your
helpful, homey Earth, we must probe the limits of our machines.

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 87 15:11:01 GMT
From: "Michael J. Hammel" <SNHAM%TTUVM1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V7 #299

Ok, I've read the reports and now I wanna put in my 2 cents.  All these
arguments for and against the moon and mars seem pointless.  The more we
push for one or the other the more viable the ideas seem.  But where
does this lead? Nowhere.  How can someone like me (not involved in space
industry, just an average joe who thinks like 2nd graders, that space is
"neat") make a rational decision on what I want?  The more I hear the
two sides argue the more I want to say "Enough! Drop 'em both, and lets
pick something we can ALL be part of."  I remember getting up one
morning very early to watch a splashdown of one of the Apollo's. I don't
remember how old I was, or which Apollo it was, or when it landed, or
anything. I just remember how good I felt inside knowing it was possible
to get just a little closer to those specks in the sky.  I was just a
kid then, but I'm not anymore.  Someday I may have to choose between a
host of ideas on what we should do next.  I'm not worried about the
what.  I'm just worried about the when. Its been too long since I felt
good about what we're doing in space.

And one more thing: maybe alot of you dislike Sagan and Co. for their ideas to
to push for mars.  But at least it seems like they are really doing something.
Maybe if I heard more about what the other guys are actually doing, I'd feel
better about these debates.

Michael J. Hammel
SNHAM @ TTUVM1

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 30 Jul 87 17:00:17 EDT
From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject:      goals

  Jon Leech:>
 >Do you think our next major goal in space after the space
 >station should be (check one):
    >__ A piloted mission to Mars
 Yes
    >__ A permanent Lunar base
 Yes
    >__ (Other, describe here)
 Yes
   My first choice would be a PhD (Phobos/Deimos) manned mission
together with asteroid manned rendezvous.  Note that PhD has quite a low
delta-V requirement (in fact, even less than a lunar surface mission),
especially if aerobraking is used at both ends.
  My other first choice would be a tether-based transportation system.
This does not necessarily mean a skyhook, but very simple systems
including the one proposed on the net here by Dani could significantly
reduce Delta-V to orbit.
   However, I am also FOR a Mars Mission AND a lunar base.  Something is
better than nothing.
  >II) Do you personally work in space science?
No, photovoltaics ("solar cells")

--Geoffrey A. Landis,          BITNET: ST401385 at BROWNVM
    Brown University           ARPA:  ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@WISCVM.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 87 18:36:23 GMT
From: jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (John Unekis)
Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands

In article <8707300454.AA04852@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>  The Russian/Syrian space mission ended today (July 29th) when the
>Soyuz TM-2 spacecraft returned to earth. . . . . . . .
>
>  They are obviously building up to a constant presence in space.
>I wish we were.
>

This is getting nauseating. Could we please stop flagellating ourselves
with the Soviet space accomplishments. They have had more than their
share of failures. Remember when one of their cosmonauts accidently
opened a valve and let the air out of his capsule ? Remember when they
had a retro-rocket failure and their hard-landing was really a hard
landing?

The only thing that the Soviets do better than the U.S. is to control
their press. If they blow up a rocket, there is no Congressional
Comittee set up to publicly humiliate the Nation for months on end.
There is no television coverage of the engineers responsible being asked
to rat on their superiors and incriminate government officials. They
simply take those responsible for the failure out, shoot them through
the kneecaps, and then get on with the business of exploring space.

We seem to have a national obsession with guilt. We must indulge
ourselves in an orgy of accusations and incriminations to clear the
national conscience. The net result is that we embarass ourselves in the
eyes of the world and learn almost nothing of real value.

What is the actual result of the Challenger crash? A rocket booster
sprang a leak and the ship blew up killing the crew.

    SO WHAT!!!

We kill more people on our highways every day than have died in the
entire history of our space program. Why can't we just accept that these
are the risks associated with space exploration and get on with it. The
more man ventures into space, the more people will eventually die there.
These people will be heroes for taking the risks that they do, but our
entire space effort shouldn't be brought to its knees every time there
is a casualty.

Lets stop shaking at the knees and get America back in SPACE !

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #306
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Aug 87 06:19:25 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17743; Fri, 7 Aug 87 03:17:50 PDT
	id AA17743; Fri, 7 Aug 87 03:17:50 PDT
Date: Fri, 7 Aug 87 03:17:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708071017.AA17743@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #307

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 307

Today's Topics:
	       Sequal to "MAGGIE KEEPS BRITAN GROUNDED"
	       Re: Space isn't all too special, either
			   Re: Space Dreams
	       Re: Space isn't all too special, either
			     Re: L5 poll
     Re: Manned vs. unmanned missions, public perception of space
		   Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands
			       Lobbying
		     Re:Carl are you out there ?
			     Re: Lobbying
			     Volunteering
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 87 14:28:08 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Sequal to "MAGGIE KEEPS BRITAN GROUNDED"

The following news item appeared last night on the BBC's ORACLE news
service.

It was front page headlines on the Times this morning, appeared as a
short article in a few more newspapers, and wasn't mentioned in more.

I suppose it shows the strange variety of oppinions on space exploration
in this country.

---------------------------------------------------------
The head of the British National Space Centre has resigned following the
Goverment's refusal to fund research.

Mr Roy Gibson handed in his notice two weeks after the goverment turned
down a request to fund a 300 million pound space technology project.

The BNSC said the funding would enable Britan to participate in
international space ventures as well as home projects.

It would have included the development of the HOTOL space plane, a
rocket launcher designed by Rolls Royce and British Aerospace.
--------------------------------------------------------

The projects funding was wanted for were involvment with Columbus, the
ESA module for the US space station; a communications satellite; and
preliminary development work on HOTOL. If money can't be found to do any
more initial development then I can't see it ever getting built.

It looks like HOTOL is going to be yet annother missed opportunity. We
will be watching the Japanese launching their HOTOL lookalike in 2007
and thinking if only...

This should be a warning to those in the USA who want the US Goverment
out of space exploration, leaving everything to be done by industry.
This is exactly the type of space presence Britain currently seems to
have.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 87 20:49:58 GMT
From: sdcrdcf!markb@oberon.usc.edu  (Mark Biggar)
Subject: Re: Space isn't all too special, either

In article <8707300211.AA02504@angband.s1.gov> GWCHUGPG@UIAMVS.BITNET (Jacob Hugart) writes:
>It would be nice to have thousands (no, millions!) of humans in space,
>or on their way away, but imagine what could happen to a craft -
>carrying hundreds of spacers - doing what the Challenger did?  Unless,
>of course, such ships are

By the time we get millions of humans into space no one will think any
more of such an accident than what is currently thought about a large
air liner crash.  Should we ban 747's and DC-10's just because we can't
keep them from crashing?  Remember that it is still safer to travel
cross country by plane then by car (of course trains are safer then
either).

Mark Biggar
{allegra,burdvax,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,akgua,sdcsvax}!sdcrdcf!markb

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 86 08:55 EST
From: C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Space Dreams

   I *was* fortunate enough to be old enough in 1969 to appreciate what
it meant (or should have meant, in retrospect) to have a man set foot on
the moon. It is true that millions of kids, including many 9-year olds
like myself at the time, had every reason to believe that we were
stepping off into the grand future that scientists had predicted years
earlier.

   Thanks to our visionary leadership in Washington (D's and R's alike),
I too am afraid that routine access to space will have to wait until
well into the next century. One hope that I have is that the history
books of 50 years from now accurately reflect that the politicians of
the last decades of the 20th century didn't give much of a damn for
space-related activities. Since glory and historical immortality are
what many of these 'critters' seek, I will rest more comfortably in my
retirement years knowing that because of their own short-sightedness,
their names will be discarded as easily as our dreams for a 'space
reality' during our collective youth.

   BTW - I'm not this cynical in all of my areas of interest, by any
means.  But most of those do not depend upon the motives/beliefs of
politicians.

      Dave Chatfield, Dept. of Computer Services
      C0144%CSUOHIO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 87 14:16:17 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!homxc!brt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (B.REYTBLAT)
Subject: Re: Space isn't all too special, either

In article <8707300211.AA02504@angband.s1.gov>, GWCHUGPG@UIAMVS.BITNET (Jacob Hugart) writes:
> In his article, oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes:
> 
> >    See what I mean about fundamentally different goals? We want to
> >get a LOT of humans out there.[space]
> 
> It would be nice to have thousands (no, millions!) of humans in space,
> or on their way away, but imagine what could happen to a craft -
> carrying hundreds of spacers - doing what the Challenger did?  Unless,
> of course, such ships are designed to be rugged and long-lasting.

This guy scares me folks.

> But no, you said:
> 
> >I think a lot more planetary science would get done...if
> >opportunities were so frequent you didn't have to design hardware to
> >last decades;...The way to achieve this is greatly expanded human
> >presence in space.
> 
> I agree that things won't become practical nor affordable until we get
> more people out there, but who is going to go?

I will, you silly person. Any time. Now. Tomorrow. Whenever you can get
me there.


> The situation on Earth is quite comfy right now, and no one seems to
> be in a rush to leave.

Have you been sleeping ? Have you not read the articles posted by many
individuals to this very newsgroup?  If a way was found for anyone who
wishes to go, the stampede on this newsgroup alone would rival The
Charge Of The Light Brigade !^)*

> We can't place people in orbit if they don't want to go.
> 
> Certainly, there is no force compelling us to move starward,

Of course there is! Its in the hearts of those of us who daily dream of
going.


> no tug of destiny,

Destiny? Destiny? We don't need no stinking destiny !^)*


> but the few people who want to go are the ones who can go. 

Wish 'twere so. Wish i live long enough for it to be so. If not for
myself, at least for my children.


> It will take time, but we can't succeed by shoving shiploads of humans
> into space.  If we are to be successful in surviving in space, without
> your helpful, homey Earth, we must probe the limits of our machines.

Huh?


Ben Reytblat
AT&T-BL
ihnp4!homxc!brt


ps. sorry for flamage. i get set off by this sorta stuff.

------------------------------

Date:  1 Aug 1987 15:33-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: L5 poll

Paul, I really think you are being unfair to the people in that poll by
calling them 'fanatics'. If this had been a poll at a professional
conference, you could expect different answers. Our membership is drawn
from ordinary citizens, not all of which have the day to day immersion
in space affairs that you or I have. If you think that statements about
the future such as those in the Space World poll taken from housewives,
small time computer consultants, high school kids, artists, public
relations people and so forth makes them fanatics, then you are being
VERY elitist.

There were also a few people in the poll who would disagree with your
more pessimistic outlook. It doesn't mean they are right any more than
it means that you are right.

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 87 03:46:20 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Manned vs. unmanned missions, public perception of space

> ... I also agree that the moon needs a lot more exploration.  Since
> unmanned probes are very good for exploration purposes, it seems to me
> that we need to send several exploratory probes...  to the moon.  Once
> we've gained a detailed knowledge of the moon (both front and back
> sides), then we can safely establish a manned presence there...

We already DID this, 20 years ago, to the point where we felt quite safe
about sending manned expeditions.  The only big question remaining which
an unmanned system could answer better than a manned expedition is the
distribution of resources over the lunar surface, and especially whether
there are volatiles at the lunar poles.  A lunar polar orbiter with
modern remote-sensing gear is high priority.  But there is little that a
lunar rover could do that Apollo didn't do better.

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 87 17:39:12 GMT
From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (G.Gleason)
Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands

In article <231@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes:
>	 This is getting nauseating. Could we please stop flagellating
>	 ourselves with the Soviet space accomplishments. . . .

This is getting nauseating.  Berating Soviet space accomplishments does
nothing to further our own.  The Soviet committment to a presence in
space should have little to do with our own.

I also take offense at the way you reduced the importance of the Shuttle
failure.  There was no excuse for that shuttle to be launched over the
objections of the engineers, and I do think it is important that we look
carefully at the type of management failure that caused this tragedy.
And, on top of the actual shuttle failure, we find ourselves with little
in the way of expendible rockets to back up the shuttle.  We need to set
the pace for future space development, and not worry about what the
Soviets are up to, and we should do so in full cooperation with the rest
of the free world.

Now that the technologies spurred on by the space program have become
well developed and routine, we barely have a presense at all in space,
much less a permanent one.

Gerry Gleason

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  3 Aug 87 01:09:01 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Lobbying
To: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu

> Our DC lobbyist has been told by some key staff people that we have made
> many space budget issues untouchable from budget cutting.  We are
> unfortunately not (yet) large enough to force significant increases,

It takes very little pressure to make a budget untouchable.  As a
result, tax rates and the federal debt are both at record levels.
Government is more powerful every year.  Liberty is lost, a little
at a time.

How can you lend support to such a thing when you call yourself a
libertarian?

> But if you want to pledge "your life, your fortune and your sacred
> honor" to creating a space faring civilization,

But you want to pledge OTHER people's fortunes, not just your own.
This is wrong.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 87 09:21 EDT
From: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com
Subject: Re:Carl are you out there ?
Cc: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com

What about letting Carl Sagan Speak for himself.  I have a hard time
believing that he does not have access to this list at the University.
I would love to hear what he has to say. (clearly Pro- Sagan)

	At least sombody out there could call his attention to this list for
the purpose of response.  Hello Anybody out there ?

Do the Space Station - a great staging point.
							Keith J. Emanuel
							Xerox Corp.

------------------------------

Date:  3 Aug 1987 13:51-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
To: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Re: Lobbying

Keith: I don't have to agree with every activity. As an official
representative of the society I am ethically bound to publicly support
the policies of the organization or to resign. I mostly agree with
policy.  Call me an extra terrestrial libertarian. I don't really
believe it can happen here, and I'm an utter pragmatist. Libertarianism
is my preference, but I'll use what exists in fact, not in my
imagination.

I doubt anyone in NSS agrees with every activity. That must be true of
any organization that attracts a broad cross section of the public. We
are not selling a particular brand of politics, and it is inherent in
our goals that there is room for every brand of ism once we get out
there.

There is more to life than the Libertarian party. I will not limit my
life to the point where I take no action or join or work with any
organization for purely ideological reasons. That would be fanaticism.

------------------------------

Date:  4 Aug 1987 14:33-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Volunteering

I hate to point it out, but one of the best ways to get to know the
people who might need your abilities is to attend conferences and get to
know the people personally. Small companies are unlikely to trust their
fortunes on unknown's. They may need the help, but what guarantee do you
have if you aren't paying the person's livelihood? If you don't have a
contract with damage clauses? Believe me, I've been there and lost my
shirt because I didn't have a big enough stick.

If you really want to get involved in this manner, attend our Space
Development Conference in Denver, or watch Space Calendar and pick one
that looks interesting. Then introduce yourself to people at the
cocktail parties, the conference suite etc. Sit up half the night and
talk to the people running the companies.

Another possibility is to either start a new organization or start a
volunteer referral service within an existing one. I do know that there
has been significant volunteering of services in many of the rocket
companies. I've pointed a few people to Gary Hudsen myself.

Conferences are many things to many people. As for myself, I never get
to see the speakers because I'm also too busy meeting in the halls and
the back rooms. There is a great deal of very intense real work and idea
generation that occurs when you get people face to face.

I'm not putting you down, it's just that like most people, you are
grabbing on to a particular facet of space development (one that really
is very central) and saying "Everyone should do this, nothing else is
important."

What we need to do is build a space based CIVILIZATION. That means
entrepreneurs to generate small companies, venture capitalists to fund
them, lobbyists to keep the regulations off their back and military from
locking them out, conferences where they can exchange ideas and do back
room plotting, social organizations to help them keep up their spirits
and feel they aren't alone, societies to build a social consciousness
that makes it possible to get venture capital, makes people want to go
into space research, makes people want to fund space research, makes
people want to volunteer to help in any of these areas.  Not to mention
lobbying to make sure that basic research needed for novel propulsion
systems of the next century is carried out, building local groups with
long term cohesion that can become stable private funding sources for
private research organizations like SSI and of course, local action to
make sure the schools turn out a generation that is scientifically and
mathematically literate enough to be involved.

The world is not a simple place, and opening the high frontier is
neither a cheap nor a short term goal. Engineering is NOT the reason we
are behind.  Someone has to work on the job of making our culture act
more like a tortoise with rabbit legs.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #307
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  8 Aug 87 06:19:11 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19789; Sat, 8 Aug 87 03:18:01 PDT
	id AA19789; Sat, 8 Aug 87 03:18:01 PDT
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 87 03:18:01 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708081018.AA19789@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #308

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 308

Today's Topics:
			 Re: We can too help!
			  Re: Space tourism
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #298
			Re: My grouse with L5
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #298
       newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5)
     Re: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5)
			 Re: We can too help!
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 04 Aug 87 12:04 PDT
From: Frank Mayhar <Frank-Mayhar%LADC@hi-multics.arpa>
Really-To: Space
Subject: Re: We can too help!

Patrick White writes:
>    [...]  In this newsgroup alone, there are many people with skills
> that any start-up space company NEEDS, such as physics, engineering,
> computer programming, dietetics, medicine, law, etc.  [...]
>    Donating this kind of time and effort will surely do far more for
> space exploration than an infinite number of meetings or conferences
> that achieve nothing more than talk.
> -- Pat White

At last!  Someone with a really useful idea!  My expertise lies more
with programming than with space science or engineering, but I would be
more than willing to contribute a major portion of my spare time and
energy to such a project.  And I think that if enough of us do the same,
maybe we really could make a difference!  Thanks, Pat.

If there's anyone out there willing to take me up on my offer, I can be
reached at the following addresses:

Frank Mayhar
ARPA:    Frank-Mayhar%ladc@HI-MULTICS.ARPA
USNAIL:  680 Grand Ave. #201, Long Beach, CA  90814

                              Frank

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 87 12:08:50 GMT
From: jwl@ernie.berkeley.edu  (James Wilbur Lewis)
Subject: Re: Space tourism

In article <4130001@hpclla.HP.COM> rak@hpclla.HP.COM (Rajiv Kumar) writes:
-From: hpda!hpclla!rak@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rajiv Kumar)

-> Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat
-> of war.
-> Keith

-Dream on! The moment any Earth Govt sees that its own nationalistic and
-military interests are at risk, it will not allow its citizens to go to
-space and build private colonies. Why do you think a bunch of people
-cannot just claim some land in Antarctica and live free.
-Rajiv Kumar
-rajiv@hplabs or hplabs!rajiv

Well, maybe if we're obnoxious and nonconformist enough, they'll create
a penal colony "out there" just to get rid of us.....like Botany Bay.
While Earth stagnates under the weight of oppressive governments, the
free spirits and adventurers could prosper in space.

-- Jim Lewis
   U.C. Berkeley

"So, come on out, mate...to the land Out There!  We'll put another Denevian
Slime-Devil on the barbie!" :-)

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 1987 15:37-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #298

Bob Pendleton: If you are in Utah, the declaration is most likely the
work of J. David Baxter, Utah Space Associates L5. He has been working
on the National Space Observance since the early 70's. I don't think
the AIAA has gotten involved heavily in this. Most states (but not all)
that declare Space Weeks do so because of the work of the local L5
chapters. The central push comes from an organization named
(appropriately) Spaceweek. This is run out of Houston Texas by some
very hard working people (Dennis Stone in particular). We have worked
closely with them for quite a few years. The NSS/L5 part of the annual
Spaceweek effort is run by Chuck Devine in NJL5 (reachable via Dale
Skran or Evelyn Leeper)

The Spaceweek group has typically had some corporate support. MACDAC
for sure, and a number of others I can't remember and am too lazy to
dig from my files....

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 87 15:37:12 GMT
From: jade!tart16.berkeley.edu!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Adam J. Richter)
Subject: Re: My grouse with L5

It is apparent to me that my responses have not escaped the Siemens vax,
so I'm reposting this from Berkeley.  If you've seen this already (and
don't work for Siemens) please send me mail.
........................

>> == Me (Adam J. Richter)
> == Evelyn C. Leeper

[Evelyn Leeper responds to my claim that L5 does little more than
"cheerlead" for NASA.  Here, she picks up on my cliam the the L5 papers
posted to the net were "NASAese..."]

>Yes, it was the NJ [North Jersey] L5 who posted the papers.  But we did
>something with them.  See below.

[They presented them to their congresspersons.]

>> 	1. Grab the spot-light.  March on Washington and BURN SOMETHING.
>> 		(e.g., an effigy of Fletcher?)

>Sorry, I don't think "burning something" in Washington is going to get
>us into space--unless it's the booster of a rocket.  But the North
>Jersey L5 does go to Washington every year to visit the New Jersey
>congresspersons and let them know that space is important to their
>constituents.  The papers posted here were given to the congresspersons
>this year as an example of the direction that *we* wanted to see the
>United States--not NASA, necessarily--take to get us into space.

	The (unspoken) intended audience of such a demonstration would
be other voters, not congresspersons--obviously.  The problem that this
idea address is that of the uninformed voter.  Sorry if I was unclear.

	The point is to convey the anger and frustration that most space
supporters feel about the failure of anyone to achieve anything
meaningful in the past decade and a half.

>> 	2. Make score-cards.  Congressmen, NASA employees, etc.
>> 		Just what they've done, not whether it's good or bad.

>We do that.  Unfortunately, we can't mail them out, willy-nilly, to
>everyone in the state.  So if you're not in the L5, you won't get them.

	Well, that's gauranteed to influence tons of voters... :-)

>> 	3. I like that suggestion someone made about a *real*
>> 		space newsletter.  If someone puts it on-line, and it is
>> 		"just the facts" (or at least labels editorials as
>> 		such), I'll litter Berkeley with it.

>You want a real space newsletter?  Get AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE
>TECHNOLOGY.  It's on-line (at least Henry's summary).

	This has been mentioned by another respondee too.  I thought
about it before I posted.  There are problems with Henry Spencer's AW&ST
postings.  You have to know what Mir is, where the throat of the nozzle
is, why LOX/kerosine can win over LOX/LH2, etc.  There might also be
copyright hassles, though this seems unlikely.  In addition, they are
more a summary of what AW&ST printed than what happened. (E.g.,
commercial for United Tech, pictures of HOTOL, etc.)

	I would like: ONE PAGE describing what has happened lately in
terms of real progress (NASA releasing a "finding" is *not* news).  Side
politicking verboten.  E.g., no "space colonies must be run at a profit"
(whether it's true or not), no rallying for or against SDI, etc., etc.
A slick-looking postscript verion would be nice.

>> 	4. Sit-ins in sunny Florida could be a lot of fun, and
>> 		a good way to start preaching to the non-converted,
>> 		unlike a convention.

>I won't even say what I think of this idea.  But the media would
>certainly emphasize the "fun" part over the preaching part: "Today, a
>bunch of space fans decided to take advantage of the lovely Florida
>weather and sun themselves at Cape Canaveral...."

	I would be interested in an example of when the main-stream
media has emphasized the "fun" part over the preaching part.  Granted,
opposition people often do it (with no loss of credibility), but the
media, I think, will take any view presented to them at face value.
E.g., The anti-apartheid demonstrations at UCB were fun, and the
national media took it very seriously.

	I don't mean to slight the political motives of demonstrators.
I just want to point out that these things don't have to be the most
miserable experiences of your life.

> [...] If you think that sitting on the sidelines grumping about what
> we're trying to do is going to help, you're even more deluded than we
> are. [...]

	I insist that the speach and the speaker be treated seperately.
My criticisms of L5 are valid.  If you have suggestions for me, I'm all
ears, but criticizing me does not exculpate L5.

>I have no patience with people who insist that *someone else* should do
>all the work to get us into space, and even provide a worklist for
>them.  If you want to go into space, and you think these things are
>what need to be done, then, by God, get out there and do them!  Whining
>to the rest of us about how we're not doing what you want won't
>accomplish anything.

	Sorry if I came across as suggesting that L5 do something to
something for space.  :-) On the contrary, these were examples of what I
think would be routine acitvities conducted by a real space
organization.

	RE: "Get out there and do them!"  The suggestion about the
newsletter was an offer to get out there and do something.  The
suggestion about the score-card was for someone who might have access to
this sort of information.  The suggestion about the march was intended
to gauge enthusiasm for such an idea, a straw pole.

	I'm open to other suggestions.

>					Evelyn C. Leeper

	Here's a suggestion.   National referrendum:

		"Do you support the establishment of a
		 permament American city on the moon?"


	...Of course, a defeat would be the end of space, a victory
would be a new beginning.  So, you might have to play some real
hard-ball.  Spend the entire treasury and go into debt for sure.  This
would be a really good clincher after a lot of obnoxious behavior, like
marches, sit-ins, bill-boards, leafletting to the point of litter,
speaches, rallies, etc.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 87 18:41:52 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #298

in article <554585843.amon@h.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.CS.CMU.EDU says:
-- Bob Pendleton: If you are in Utah, the declaration is most likely the
-- work of J. David Baxter, Utah Space Associates L5. He has been working

I'm in Utah and I've met Mr. Baxter. Our space week observance was
bigger than ever. The planning committee has people from AIAA, L5,
Hansen Planetarium and several other organizations. The cash needed was
supplied by AIAA and the Crossroads Plaza, a shopping mall. Some labor
was provided by all the organizations that participated. Most of the
displays were cororate donations, but there were several private
donations.

-- on the National Space Observance since the early 70's. I don't think
-- the AIAA has gotten involved heavily in this. Most states (but not all)

I don't know whats going on at the national level, but in Utah AIAA is
the focal orgainzation for space week activities.

-- that declare Space Weeks do so because of the work of the local L5
-- chapters. The central push comes from an organization named
-- (appropriately) Spaceweek. This is run out of Houston Texas by some

Yes, these folks do a fine job. Call them up and ask them about Ken
Randle. Space week was being celebrated for quite a while before they
think they invented it.

What can I say, if there is any area of the country that has an L5
chapter and and AIAA chapter who don't work together on space week,
well... shame on them!

		Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 87 04:25:23 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5)

> >You want a real space newsletter?  Get AVIATION WEEK AND SPACE TECHNOLOGY.
> >It's on-line (at least Henry's summary).
> 
> 	This has been mentioned by another respondee too.  I thought
> about it before I posted.  There are problems with Henry Spencer's
> AW&ST postings.  You have to know what Mir is, where the throat of the
> nozzle is, why LOX/kerosine can win over LOX/LH2, etc.

There are a number of tradeoffs in this, but my terse style of
presentation ultimately boils down to three considerations:

1. I lack the time to expand it.

2. I frankly don't care for the constant repetition that would be needed
   to re-introduce definitions and background wherever needed.  I can
   live with it when reading, but I *don't* want to type it.  Now that
   I'm feeling pretty much caught up, I may throw in an *occasional*
   note about such things, but it won't be frequent.

3. Something that stood out very clearly in the poll I conducted a while
   ago about expanded vs. condensed format is that people want it
   *brief*.

> There might also be copyright hassles, though this seems unlikely.

Depends on whether you're thinking of me or AW&ST doing the hassling.
On my side of things, I have no objection to my summaries being
redistributed further provided they are intact and properly credited; I
have already okayed several requests along these lines.  On the AW&ST
side, I try to keep out of trouble with them: I print terse summaries
only, I credit them explicitly and publish AW&ST subscription info
regularly, and I run well behind their publication schedule.  (This is a
contributing factor to my decision that a month behind is "caught up",
although other considerations also enter.)

> In addition, they are more a summary of what AW&ST printed than what
> happened. (E.g., commercial for United Tech, pictures of HOTOL, etc.)

This is true, although people may have noticed some recent comments from
Flight International, and there will be more -- AW&ST does miss some
non-trivial things.

> 	I would like: ONE PAGE describing what has happened lately
> in terms of real progress (NASA releasing a "finding" is *not* news).

Obtain an empty sheet of paper.  Study it carefully for content.  That's
the real progress, on this side of the world at least.

> Side politicking verboten.  E.g., no "space colonies must be run at a
> profit" (whether it's true or not), no rallying for or against SDI,
> etc., etc.

The way I see it, even if my editorials weren't popular (which they are:
my poll included a lot of strongly positive comments about them, and no
negatives at all), reading them is the price you pay for reading the
rest of the summaries. :-) If I'm going to go to the work of typing the
news in, I'm going to do a bit of soapboxing at the same time, and
anyone who dislikes it can stop reading! :-) More to the point, it is
significant that my editorials are clearly separated from the factual
content, and are much terser than the sort of endless back-and-forth
flaming you refer to.

> A slick-looking postscript verion would be nice.

I wouldn't mind doing this, but I have neither the time nor the
facilities.  Postscript is also *less* readable to those who lack
Postscript devices.

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 87 18:42:45 GMT
From: jade!thoth5!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5)

Henry,
	I think your AW&ST summaries are great, wonderful, fantastic.
My posting which you responded to was about why I didn't think
they would be good for leafletting.

		--Adam

------------------------------

Date:     Tue, 4 Aug 87 8:15:45 EDT
From: Les Eastman <lreastma@crdec-vax4.arpa>
Subject:  Re: We can too help!


>>                                             there is still something
>>that can be done to further space exploration -- donate your time and
>>skills to some small start-up company's space project.

I'm willing.  Is there anyone in the Baltimore, MD - Wilmington, DE area
that needs chemistry and/or computing skills.  ( The degree of skill in 
both my be of dubious quality but I am willing to try. )

Les Eastman    lreastma@crdec.arpa
(301) 671-3873

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #308
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Aug 87 06:25:35 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA20963; Sun, 9 Aug 87 03:18:35 PDT
	id AA20963; Sun, 9 Aug 87 03:18:35 PDT
Date: Sun, 9 Aug 87 03:18:35 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708091018.AA20963@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #309

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 309

Today's Topics:
		       Re: Pro-Space Publicity
		 The Rocket Team #1 - First A4 Launch
			 SPOT Specifications
			  TTAPS, Sagan, etc.
		    Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING
	       Next ARIANE launch within the next month
	      Intermediate report on sci.space analysis
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 13:35 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Re: Pro-Space Publicity
To: wmartin@almsa-1.arpa, space@angband.s1.gov

The reason networks shy away from broadcasting controversial
advertisements is the so called Fairness Doctrine, which requires them
to broadcast opposing viewpoints.  Rather than having to do that, they
just don't broadcast any of it.  This happened a few years ago with a
commercial about the federal deficit.  Fortunately, the FCC wants to
throw out the Fairness Doctrine, on the grounds it violates the first
amendment.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 87 14:27:48 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: The Rocket Team #1 - First A4 Launch

[ This is the first in a series of excerpts from The Rocket Team, a book
  describing the experiences of the team that built the A4 (V-2).  A
  reference is included at the end of this article.  I think these bits
  of history will be of interest to many of the readers of this
  newsgroup. ]

    On March 23, 1942, Hitler once again shifted priorities to the
detriment of the A4, putting all Germany's resources into the invasion
of the USSR, while allowing the large rocket program to languish.

[The A4 was re-named the V2 just before it went into active service.
 -dcn]

    Despite this, on June 13, the A4 was ready for its first launching.
While the crew was busy preparing the missile in Test Stand 7, excited
members of the team, most of whom were illegally in the area or there
only under the flimsiest of reasons, gathered.  They did so at distances
from the `bird' in direct proportion to their faith in the rocket's
designers and builders or in inverse proportion to their ignorance of
what could very well happen upon ignition.  The more optimistic and
faithful (as well as some of the more ignorant) stood chatting shop in
front of the bunker located near Test Stand 1, only 250 meters from Test
Stand 7.  There was a fairly dense cloud cover, but the A4 lifted off
normally enough - or so it seemed.  There was a slight rolling about its
long axis as the rocket disappeared through the clouds; then, there was
a muffled rumble.  Thunder, perhaps?  No, sickeningly, back through the
clouds plunged the cart-wheeling rocket.  The A4 crashed in to the
Baltic little more than a kilometer away, sending up tremendous fountain
of water.  Then, just as suddenly, there was nothing more to be heard
but the gentle lapping of the Baltic upon the shore.

	Rocket No. 2 was no more successful than the first.  After
launching on August 16, it exploded at an altitude of 11.72 kilometers
and fell into the sea some 9 kilometers from the launch site. ...

    The third test, on October 3, was a different story, as Dornberger
recalled:

	It was an unforgettable sight.  In the full glare of the
	sunlight the rocket rose higher and higher.  The flame darting
	from the stern was almost as long as the rocket itself.  The
	fiery jet of gas was clear and self-contained.  The rocket kept
	on its course as though running on rails; the first critical
	moment had passed.  Missile A4 had shown itself to be stable
	about its longitudinal axis.  The projectile was not spinning;
	the black and white surface markings facing us did not change.

    The missile followed its programmed trajectory to the target point
192 kilometers down range in the Baltic.
    ...
   Following this successful launching, von Braun was awarded the
Kriegsverdienstkruez I mit Schwertern (War Service Cross, First Class,
with Swords), not the Iron Cross, which was a military decoration.

[from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT
Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4 (paper) ]

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 87 18:41:25 GMT
From: udel!thomson@princeton.edu  (Richard Thomson)
Subject: SPOT Specifications

After reading several pleas for more technical information on SPOT
(Satellite Pour l'Observation de la Terre), I ran across an article
titles "Spotlight On The World" published in the July 1987 issue of
Laser Focs/Electro-Optics.  This is one of those trade journals
available "free to qualified subscribers".  The following information is
taken from that article out of context and without permission:

Orbital Parameters of SPOT-1:
Launched:                                   February 21, 1986
Revolutions/day:                            14 + 5/6
Nodal period:                               101.46 min
Mean altitude (45 deg. N):                  832 km
Inclination (mean):                         98.37 degrees
Orbital (repeat) cycle:                     26 days
Number of tracks/orbital cycle:             369
Intertrack distance (equatorial):           108.4 km
Accessibility pattern at 45 deg. lattitude: 1,4,1,4,1,4,1,4,1,4,1 days
Mean local solar time at descending node:   10:30 AM

Design Specifications:
					Channels
Parameter			Pa	    XS1		XS2	    XS3
Spectral band, um		0.51-0.73   0.50-0.59   0.61-0.68   0.79-0.89
Detector IFOV, rad		1.2e-5	    2.4e-5	2.4e-5	    2.4e-5
Detector numbers/line		6000	    3000	3000	    3000
Modulation transfer function:
    to CCD line			0.26	    0.62	0.55	    0.52
    along CCD line		0.27	    0.43	0.38	    0.26
S/N at radiance, max		>233	    >212	>230	    >274
On-orbit calibration, %
    relative			1	    1		1	    1
    absolute			10	    10		10	    10
Number of gains			8	    8		8	    8
Signal encoding, bit		6/DPCM	    8		8	    8

Geometric Characteristics:
Ground swath width:				60 km (one HRV)
						117 km (two HRVs combined)
Off-nadir viewing capability (field center)	+/- 27 deg. covering 950 km
Gound resolution
    spectral band XS				20 m
    panchro band Pa				10 m
Band-to-band registration
    spectral band				3 m
    multidate registration			10 m
Image distortion, anisomorphism			1e-3

The article claims that information in it came from information supplied
by SPOT Image Corporation, 1897 Preston White Dr., Reston, VA 22091-4326
and "The SPOT Satellite System", Gilbert Weill and Michel Courtois, (C)
1985 by CNES and SPOT Image Corp.

If anyone would like more detailed explanations of some of these terms,
perhaps I can dig them out of the article, although there were
discussions of the optical portion of the spacecraft which were above my
level of understanding.
						Rich Thomson

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1987  19:12 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: TTAPS, Sagan, etc.

 JoSH asks,

  "How many papers in refereed publications and conferences have a
  public relations firm hired to tout them to the popular press?  If a
  paper is as scientifically compelling as TTAPS claimed to be, why
  would it *need* one?"

A strange question, since "scientifically compelling" is scarcely enough
gain public.  Consider Darwinian Evolution, which is popularly
unpopular.  Here, too, is his great work on Cosmos, Sagan managed to get
some public sympathy for this important issue.  Consider the liklihood
that the destruction of the Brazilian forest could have bad effects on
the world: this will need powerful promotion.  The extinction of
primates and other proto-intelligent mammals can be prevented only by
popular appeals.

As for calling the nuclear winter a hoax, my impression is that the
range of predicted effects of a major nuclear exchange is still 1quite
uncertain - but that no one had predicted even the currently accepted
minimal damage before Sagan's group's study.

On this whole planet, we have only a very few people gifted with the
abilities both to understand science and to communicate about their
possible consequences.  Sagan, Asimov, Morrison, - how many others can
one name.  I am grateful that there are any at all, and especially to
those generous enough to interrupt the excitement of a productive
scientific career to make that sacrifice to public service.  This superb
astronomer has exposed himself to public criticism and I interpret a lot
of what has been said about him as reflecting envy - from those who
simply don't appreciate the personal cost of that public loss of
privacy.

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 87 20:41:29 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxd!jody@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (JoLinda Ross)
Subject: Re: Carl Sagan, BRAINSTORMING

> I like Sagan OK, insofar as he certainly does more good than bad ( I
> think ) but I am deeply mistrustful of the Ooo - ah approach
> exemplified by COSMOS.  I remember coworkers talking about how
> spectacular the effects were and so on, but I don't think anybody was
> inspired to so much as look at a star through a pair of binoculars.  (
> Vega through 10X50's is sublime. ) The hard truth is that the beauties
> of astronomy are subtle, and it takes a little cerebration to achieve
> the breathtaking stage. A real astronomy show would be like a Zen
> instruction book - "Stop watching this show! Go outside!"
> 
> 		Lew Mammel, Jr.

Well someone was inspired, at least I was.  When Cosmos came on, I was
in high school, and a universe was open to me.  I always knew it was
there and I knew about star (in a kid sort of way) but I was just seeing
lights in the sky.  With Cosmos astronomy change from the science that
PhDs work on to a science where I could understand a little of the
universe.  Not only did I look through binoculars, but I took every
astronomy course offered in high school and college.  Now telescopes
were available to me.  And though it is also true that the universe has
subtle beauty I found it more spectacular then the special effects of
most SF movies.

                                       jody

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 03 Aug 87 13:51:48 MEZ
From: ES54%DFVLRGO1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Next ARIANE launch within the next month

From: jens-thomas meyer         0551/709-2325        ES54     at DFVLRGO1

During a symposium in UK I have heard that the date for the next ARIANE
launch is fixed to August, 20th. It will be a launch of an ARIANE-3. I
get from the launch-table that this ARIANE-3 should launch two
satellites (ECS-4, SPACENET F-3).  Yesterday I heard from the german
tv-news that the launch will be in the second half of September. As a
conclusion, I think, it is possible to say that there will be an ARIANE
launch within the next month.

Jens-Thomas Meyer   (ES54@DFVLRGO1.BITNET)

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 16:49:24 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Intermediate report on sci.space analysis


This is a brief on report of the network memory project several net
members are trying to organize.  I hope I answer some of the follow up
queries.  The majority of subject headings are one-time postings, follow
up (Re:) topics seem to be a minority (we concentrate only on a few topics).

The entire collection of back issues of the Space-digest constitute
18.1 MB dating back to 1980.  (This took several NASA VAX-hours to geen.)
This is a somewhat biased sample 1) due to the reliability and lack of
early gateways, 2) not all net.space mail made it to the ARPAnet during
the Challenger accident.  Possibly some minor editing on Ted's part.

Interesting Trivia Statistics (consider some of the things I say as
approximations)

Over 12,000 message were posted in the seven years of space-digest.
The average message length was around 40 lines (take note stat fans,
this is a very bi-modal distribution: many very short messages and
a good small lump of longer ones.

Some people are really tenacious.  Added some new words to English like:
aaaaaaaaarggghhh
As a sanity check, the word "the" appeared 146146 times.

The topic which got me thinking about this problems was the External
tank: posted 49 times.

Who posts the most?  (The following is not continous nor was it obvious
how I got all of this, it is an approximation)

1251 ted anderson (this is due to archiving on the ARPAnet side)
 524 robert elton maas (the real top poster)
 418 paul dietz
 418 henry spencer
 252 adam buchsbaum
 238 dale amon
 218 phil karn
 197 alice!sjb
 176 jerry pournelle
 152 eugene miya (don't mind the man behind the curtain)
 131 keith f. lynch
 127 david smith
 109 tom wadlow
 105 rick mcgeer
  99 hans moravec
  84 jim mcgrath
  81 st401385%brownvm.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
  80 richard m. king
  79 marvin minsky  (got me off my duff when I ran into him at ACM/SIGGRAPH)
  74 al globus
  69 esg7%dfvlrop1.bitnet@wiscvm.wisc.edu
  57 roger noe (ex-Rockwell)
  55 will martin
  53 dani eder (boeing)

What institutions post the most? (this includes gateways as well as real
postings?

MIT by a long shot.  Used 11473 times largely mail headers and contained
within other messages.  (There were quite a few from Berkeley [gateway
again], but far from 10K).

So what have been the [un]popular topics?  I checked via content as well
as subject, and the two are very consistent (removing articles and
other simple adjectives).
	nasa, the shuttle, and what I term short-term space objectives

I suspect a great deal of this is due to the Challenger accident which
resulted in me sending 3 inches of Versatec paper to Houston and getting
a note that I should not list so much during prime-time.

Also interesting to note are the absolute frequencies of some of the
words (like they were made with each other).

Frequency word
42893 space
8866 shuttle
5901 nasa
5100 earth
4100 orbit
4027 launch
3336 article
3263 system
3034 station
3010 program
2970 because
2780 energy
2580 sun
2516 solar
2449 moon
2358 high
2295 power
2261 satellite
2237 flight
2160 volume
2138 mass
2084 light
2084 before
1998 mission
1990 topics
1985 those
1964 off
1962 technology
1925 large
1918 around
1910 too
1903 back
1880 here
1865 few
1839 year
1834 mar
1823 need
1821 enthusiasts
1819 still
1792 cost
1788 another
1768 star
1749 going
1747 probably

By Subject field alone:
1093 shuttle
 250 nasa
 244 launch
 196 station
 184 solar
 156 program
 136 moon
 131 star
 128 paradox
 126 soviet
 124 sts
 121 comet
 118 voyager
 118 challenger
 116 what
 116 power
 116 light
 103 orbit
 100 why
  96 mars
  96 fermi
  95 satellite
  94 l5
  92 nuclear
  92 high
  91 question
  91 lunar
  89 how
  88 planet
  87 info
  87 halley

It is encouraging to see lots of questions, rather than answer flames.
I think in these words and topics we can see slight frequency trends,
but nothing which jumps out.  I can say more, but comment would be hunches.
I do read old random notes in their entire body.  Where to next?
Determine the most obvious and popular repeated questions.
Determine real sources of information.

Please don't post follow ups to this note, send me mail.  If you are
interested in helping out (not just flaming send mail to Dale.Amon who
is acting as Secretary.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #309
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Aug 87 06:19:59 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA22623; Mon, 10 Aug 87 03:18:55 PDT
	id AA22623; Mon, 10 Aug 87 03:18:55 PDT
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 87 03:18:55 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708101018.AA22623@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #310

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 310

Today's Topics:
			     TTAPS and PR
		  Re: Cheap ways into space please.
		  Re: Cheap ways into space please.
		  Re: Cheap ways into space please.
		  Re: Cheap ways into space please.
		  Australian Space News (forwarded)
		     Beamed energy for spacecraft
			Phoenix launch vehicle
		   Re: Beamed energy for spacecraft
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 87 16:02:34 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: TTAPS and PR

I don't really want to keep this discussion going on SPACE as it is
really only peripherally related to the subject that people are
interested in.  However I do feel that I was slightly misinterpreted and
would like to clear things up:

Minsky: ... "scientifically compelling" is scarcely enough gain public.
   Consider Darwinian Evolution, which is popularly unpopular.

Evolution caused a huge uproar when it was first introduced, and still
does.  This is because people took it seriously, because scientists
continued to push it even in the face of criticism, because it was
scientifically compelling.  TTAPS was a flash in the pan because it
isn't.

   As for calling the nuclear winter a hoax, my impression is that the
   range of predicted effects of a major nuclear exchange is still
   quite uncertain - but that no one had predicted even the currently
   accepted minimal damage before Sagan's group's study.

I believe that standard effects-of-nuclear-war studies included a
cooling phenomenon.  When I say "hoax" I'm talking about the popularly
written articles intended to convince the lay public that a nuclear war
must mean the end of life on earth.

   On this whole planet, we have only a very few people gifted with the
   abilities both to understand science and to communicate about their
   possible consequences.  Sagan, Asimov, Morrison, - how many others
   can one name.

In all seriousness, I would add Minsky.

   This superb astronomer has exposed himself to public criticism and I
   interpret a lot of what has been said about him as reflecting envy -
   from those who simply don't appreciate the personal cost of that
   public loss of privacy.

I'll believe that if you tell me that you can replace "Carl Sagan" in
that statement with "Edward Teller" and still say it with conviction.

* * *

As long as I'm writing to SPACE, let me add an unrelated note.  Recently
I toured the Mercury launch facilities at Canaveral.  Looking at the
rockets (and particularly the electronics!) I was struck with how
primitive it all was.  With 25 years added technology, any medium-sized
company should be able to duplicate that stuff *easily*.

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 87 04:54:09 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please.

Unfortunately, _altitude_ isn't the only requirement.  You also have to
be travelling in the correct velocity (right speed in the right
direction). For a low orbit, this is ~5 miles/sec parallel to the
ground.

Altitude is *easy*, a cheap sounding rocket could be launched to orbital
altitudes. (wouldn't stay there long). And anyone in oribt would go by
it at orbital velocity... far to fast to think of transferring anything
between them.

Beanstalks are a special case.

Leonard Erickson		...!tektronix!reed!percival!bucket!leonard

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 87 22:34:11 GMT
From: amdcad!amd!intelca!tymix!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please.

In article <453@bucket.UUCP> leonard@bucket.UUCP (Leonard Erickson) writes:
>Unfortunately, _altitude_ isn't the only requirement. 
>You also have to be travelling in the correct velocity (right speed in the
>right direction). For a low orbit, this is ~5 miles/sec parallel to the
>ground.
>
>Altitude is *easy*, a cheap sounding rocket could be launched to orbital
>altitudes. (wouldn't stay there long). And anyone in oribt would go by it
>at orbital velocity... far to fast to think of transferring anything
>between them.
>
>Beanstalks are a special case.

Although -- there was an article in *Analog* a couple of years ago on the
idea of launching cheap vehicles to orbital altitude, but with much, much
less than orbital velocity, and then *catching* them into a space station
using a "reverse mass driver."  Sounds scary, but perhaps the requisite
accuracy of aiming of both station and vehicle can be attained reliably.  
(If not, *blam*!)  I haven't heard much about the idea since, however....

(Yes, the station loses orbital velocity with each docking and would
eventually fall.  A balance between dockings and relaunchings -- or
an expenditure of fuel to make up the deficit -- would be necessary.)  

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Santa Clara, California
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	Life, even cellular life, may exist out yonder in the dark.  
	But high or low in nature, it will not wear the shape of man.  
	That shape is the evolutionary product of a strange, long
	wandering through the attics of the forest roof, and so
	great are the chances of failure, that nothing precisely
	and identically human is likely ever to come that way again.  
		Loren Eiseley, 1957, *The Immense Journey*

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 87 17:44:55 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please.

In article <757@3comvax.UUCP>, michaelm@3Com.COM (Michael McNeil) writes:
> Although -- there was an article in *Analog* a couple of years ago on
> the idea of launching cheap vehicles to orbital altitude, but with
> much, much less than orbital velocity, and then *catching* them into a
> space station using a "reverse mass driver."  Sounds scary, but
> perhaps the requisite accuracy of aiming of both station and vehicle
> can be attained reliably.  (If not, *blam*!)  I haven't heard much
> about the idea since, however....

The article you are referring to is "The Spaceport" by Roger Arnold
(roger@telesoft.UUCP) and Don Kingsbury, in the November and December
1979 Analog.  Roger's system was for small payloads (500Kg) initially.

This, like most low cost systems, is premature to build if you launch 6
missions a year.  As Roger and others have argued on the net, you have
to get the launch rate up to get the costs down.  When the market is
large enough to support large scale launch systems, they will appear.

There are systems that could launch for $5 per kilogram (see Paul
Birch's paper on "Orbital Rings..." in the November 1982 J.B.I.S., or my
"Launch Loop" article in the December 1983 Analog), but require launch
rates approaching a million tons per year to achieve such economies.  To
build such a system before the market develops would be economically and
operationally unsound; it would probably launch the wrong things to the
wrong orbits at the wrong rates from the wrong places.

The government would simply throw money at the problem; this isn't the
way to encourage frugality.  Right now they are spending billions and
launching nothing.  I don't see how private launch companies could do
much worse.  [misc. ranting deleted]

Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 87 04:01:52 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please.

> The article you are referring to is "The Spaceport" by Roger Arnold
> (roger@telesoft.UUCP) and Don Kingsbury, in the November and December
> 1979 Analog.  Roger's system was for small payloads (500Kg) initially.

A historical note on this:  Dandridge M. Cole thought of this one first,
ten or fifteen years earlier, although he had his catcher/accelerator
attached to a captured asteroid -- I don't think it occurred to him that
the asteroid wasn't really needed.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Subject: Australian Space News (forwarded)
Date: Mon, 03 Aug 87 15:31:45 EDT
From: LT Sheri Smith USN <ltsmith@mitre.arpa>

Am forwarding the following to the space.net as Raymond is unable to post:

From: munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!ray@uunet.UU.NET
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 87 20:43:02 EST
Subject: Re: Wash Post article

  >  From ltsmith@mitre.arpa@munnari Thu Jul 30 23:54:18 1987
  >  To: ray@basser.cs.su.oz
  >  
  >  ... how about keeping the net posted on what the Aussies are doing in
  >  the space fields?   Has a decision ever been reached on whether or not
  >  to build a spaceport down under??

Thanks for posting the WP article.

I've tried posting a couple of things to the net.  It seems that I'm
restricted to posting within Australia.

The decision on the Australian spaceport is still passing through
government channels.  We've just had an election down here, and I'm told
that the spaceport decision was slowed because some people felt that it
was too controversial a decision to be making at election time.  The
spaceport's chief advocate (one Joh Bjelke Peterson, the Premier of the
state of Queensland, and roughly equivalent to a US state governor) took
a bit of denting at the election (over other issues) and his support may
not be enough to carry it through.  We'll probably know in a couple of
months.

I don't really know what the Queensland government plans for this
spaceport.  All reports are terribly vague.  Australia simply doesn't
have a launch vehicle.  My best guess is that we'll supply some real
estate, and BASIC ground support (roads, buildings, schools etc) and a
foreign power or foreign company will supply the launch vehicle and most
of the high-tech support.  This would be similiar to the support we
offerred the British when the launched their Black Arrow and Blue Streak
rockets in the fifties and sixties from our "Woomerra" rocket range.
BUT I'm only guessing.

The proposed site is on Cape York Peninsula.  This is the long pointy
bit on the top right hand side of Australia.  Its nice and close to the
equator and it has good reliable weather all year round.  I understand
that Hawai is making a strong bid for a spaceport.  I'd imagine that
these two sites are going to be fighting it out head to head, and the
world can only support one of them.  Hawai has some disadvantages, but
unlike the area earmarked in Australia, its not wilderness, so it would
require less development.

Ironically, most of what I know about this proposal comes from Aviation
Week and Space Technology!

Raymond Lister
Basser Department of Computer Science
University of Sydney
NSW  2006
AUSTRALIA

ACSnet:  ray@basser
ARPANET: munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!ray@seismo.css.gov

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 87 18:46:47 GMT
From: imagen!atari!apratt@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Allan Pratt)
Subject: Beamed energy for spacecraft

In the August 2 San Francisco Examiner, I read an article on Canada's
upcoming attempt to fly a model (15' wingspan) airplane using microwave
energy beamed from an earth station.  Can anybody elaborate on this?

The article stated that the bottom of the plane was covered (mostly)
with rectennas for converting the A/C microwaves into DC for the
propeller motor, and that the plane could fly a tight figure-eight to
stay in the energy beam while climbing.  The illustration accompanying
the article showed the beam's diameter as 15', the same as the plane's
wingspan.  This can't have been right, unless the beam tracks the plane
through its flight path.

The article mentioned this as a way to get into space, and mentioned
that DOD was planning a similar experiment, possibly including a laser
as a second stage power source for better efficiency at higher
altitudes.

What about this?  At least you don't have to carry fuel enough to push
your fuel into orbit... A ground station can be as big and hairy as you
like, and the energy can come from any number of sources.  Can't it?  Is
there anything about this in the literature (Henry Spencer)?

Allan Pratt, Atari Corp.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 87 03:51:21 GMT
From: jade!web4h!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Phoenix launch vehicle

	I would like some informed criticism on Gary Hudson's _Phoenix_
launcher design.  What follows is my best recollection of it, refreshed
by a quick phone conversation with Tom Brosz (publishes the _Commercial
Space Report_).

	The _Phoenix_ bears a destinct visual resemblence to one of the
heavy launch vehicle designs that periodically pop up in magazines.  It
looks like a gigantic Gemini space capsule (actually, much more squat).
The lower funnel-shaped part holds a tank full of 50% liquid/50% solid
"slush" hydrogen, feeding a ring of forty-eight "combustors" (combustion
chambers and throats without nozzles?) imbedded in the bottom along with
a perspiring heat shield, which does not have to be that strong as that
the engines fire during reentry.  The upper cylinder holds a
triple-point (solid/liquid/gas) oxygen tank, electronics, and payload.

	I'm a bit hazy about how the ring of combustors work.  They are
supposed to form a single "aerospike." (Something that I really don't
understand.)  Surprisingly, everyone whom I've asked about the engine,
seems to be pretty confident that the "aerospike" is a well understood
technology, and are more concerned by other details like optimistic mass
ratios and exhaust velocities.

	As I understand things, the squat shape of the _Phoenix_ and the
extra density of slush hydrogen and triple-ponit oxygen, mean a smaller
craft, which means a better mass ratio.  In addition, the thing is
supposed to get a higher exhaust velocity by burning an oxygen-rich fuel
mix.

	I think that Hudson says it can be ready in five (?) years for
$200M.  Everyone whom I've talked to about this projection feels that it
is very optimistic.

	I've heard a number of criticisms, though I've never heard
numbers to back them up.  I've heard that there are problems with
pumping slush hydrogen at high speeds.  I've heard that there are
problems with reliably keeping combustion limited to the combustion
chamber when burning H2/O2 with extra O2.  Tom Brosz claims that
perspiring heat shields have been tested on airplaines, though this
seems a bit untried to me.

	So, how realistic is the _Phoenix_?  Can it be physically done?
How about from an engineering point of view?  How much $$$ for real?
How many communications satalites would you need to launch before it
exploded so you could afford to buy a replacement?  If I wanted Boeing
to build me one, how much would I have to cough up and when?

[Editorial:]

	Psychologically, the _Phoenix_ is a big win.  Everything about
it is innovative and new.  It is the sort of craft that you'd expect to
be designed by a country with an active moon colony and a few space
stations.  It is something the Soviets can't do.  It to the space
shuttle is as a design for a Sun-4 is to a punched-card machine.  It is
a refreshing distraction from our world, in which we can only hope that
someone might invest the resources to perhaps struggle to REGAIN THE
TECHNOLOGY OF TWO DECADES PAST.  It is a future, but the most we dare
hope for today is to return to a past.

Adam J. Richter
adamj@bartleby.berkeley.edu
...!ucbvax!bartleby!adamj
(609)734-6525

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 87 17:39:06 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Beamed energy for spacecraft

> ...upcoming attempt to fly a model (15' wingspan) airplane using microwave
> energy beamed from an earth station....
> What about this?  At least you don't have to carry fuel enough to push
> your fuel into orbit... A ground station can be as big and hairy as
> you like, and the energy can come from any number of sources.  Can't
> it?  Is there anything about this in the literature (Henry Spencer)?

I'm dimly aware of this project, but don't know details.

The general idea of beamed power for spaceships has been thought of
before.  About a decade ago, Jim Baen (!) thought of using beamed power
to run an ion drive, since the big problem with ion drives is the mass
of the power system.  Jerry Pournelle analyzed it in one of his Galaxy
columns (titled "Jim Baen and his Electric Spaceship" as I recall!) and
concluded that it wasn't fantastic but did seem to have potential.

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #310
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Aug 87 06:26:14 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA24936; Tue, 11 Aug 87 03:18:36 PDT
	id AA24936; Tue, 11 Aug 87 03:18:36 PDT
Date: Tue, 11 Aug 87 03:18:36 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708111018.AA24936@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #311

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 311

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
		      Re: Still more infighting
		  Why [not] air-breathing boosters?
	Re: Why [not]? {Getting experts in other areas in net}
		   Re: The rocky road to the stars
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 87 20:24:48 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

Some background: in 1985 Boeing was asked by the Air Force to evaluate
the Phoenix.  We understand that Hudson was asking the AF for use of
Vandenberg AFB as a launch site.  They asked us if the Phoenix concept
was 'for real'.

Our conclusions were:

(1) Hudson's weight growth margin of 5%, given the number of advanced
technologies in the Phoenix, was overly optimistic.  It should be in the
15-25% range.

(2) The weight statement in their baseline concept underestimates
certain components, such as the passenger door and cargo door.  These
are described as similar to airplane doors, but the weights used by
Hudson were much smaller than airline practice.

(3) The advanced technologies (aerospike, slush propellants) are
inconsistent with the idea '$200 million to develop'.  We estimated $2.2
billion total development cost for the Phoenix concept as described by
Hudson.

(4) The weight underestimates exceed the claimed payload.

---------

Now, there are ways to improve the performance of the Phoenix so that it
can be made to work.  One way is to get a bunch of fighter engines
(F-100), strap them onto the Phoenix, and use them as boosters up to
about Mach 2.5 in a vertical takeoff mode.  The jet engines then peel
off and land as RPVs.  A fighter engine can lift 8 times it's own weight
at sea level.

Method two is to turn the Phoenix into a two stage rocket, becoming a
1/20 weight version of the 'big dumb booster' heavy lift vehicle
described in the Solar Power Satellite Studies in 1979-1980.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 87 15:00:07 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Still more infighting

In article <3309@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes:
>How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them, and had
>to develop numerous highly complex systems that had never flown before,
>rather than designing with what was available at the time? They're not
>THAT much less expensive than a shuttle even as it stands - I suspect
>the learning curve alone accounts for a lot of the difference.

   Actually, 747s run an order of magnitude less expensive than a
Shuttle Orbiter.  Heck, a 747 costs less than a shuttle *launch*.  A 747
costs about $130million (or did a year ago).  An Orbiter is in the
$1-2billion range (replacement cost for Challenger), and a launch is
about $200million (not counting gov't subsidies).
   For all that, a Shuttle Orbiter is probably *less* complex than a
747.  The comparison I'd always made was with another large Rockwell
aerospace vehicle, the B-1B, built at the same place as the Orbiter.
The B-1 is perhaps more complicated than the shuttle, certainly *as*
complex - and built to Mil Spec besides.  In quantities of 100 (or
whatever the production run is) a B-1 costs about $200 million.  Anyone
doubt that 100 shuttles could be built for the same or lower unit cost?
   Not that that'd help much -- there are only 2 (3 if you count
Vandenburg) shuttle launch pads, only facilities to stack a couple of
'em at a time -- and that's a long, labor intensive process.  Capital
costs aside, the operational costs of shuttle are too high.
   ELV's are one alternative, useful in the near term.  Longer term
we've got to look at reusability and/or *very* low cost production
methods to bring price down.  Even ELVs are still largely handbuilt like
Rolls-Royces, at least in the US.  We need assembly lines,
computer-integrated manufacturing, the production methods of the 80's,
not the 50's.
    With known technology the cost of launches - on man-rateable
boosters - can be brought down to under $500/lb (vs current ~$2000/lb).
Gary Hudson of Pacific American Launch Systems thinks they can be
brought down to under $100/lb with reusable, ballistic SSTO like his
'Phoenix'.
    Private enterprise can do it, just as they built the commercial
aircraft fleets.  All it takes is for NASA and the feds to get out of
the way...

 Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al
                      UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair

(Why do they call it a signature file if I can't actually *sign* anything?)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 87 20:54:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Why [not] air-breathing boosters?


/* Written  3:24 pm  Aug  5, 1987 by eder@ssc-vax.UUCP in uiucdcsb:sci.space */
|Now, there are ways to improve the performance of the Phoenix so that
|it can be made to work.  One way is to get a bunch of fighter engines
|(F-100), strap them onto the Phoenix, and use them as boosters up to
|about Mach 2.5 in a vertical takeoff mode.  The jet engines then peel
|off and land as RPVs.  A fighter engine can lift 8 times it's own
|weight at sea level.
|
|Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:sci.space */

What are the technical problems with this approach?  Obviously, we
haven't tried an air-breathing first stage on orbital launchers before.
Forgive me if I'm rehashing old ground, but in the 3+ years I've been
reading this group, I haven't seen a really clear answer to this.  I
have seen a lot of statements about its being a good or bad idea, but
remarkable little data to back them up.

It strikes me that the major problem must be that the payoff just isn't
big enough; after all, Mach 2.5 is only one tenth (or so) of the
velocity that must be attained.  Nevertheless, a whopping amount of
propellant mass is consumed hoisting the rest of the vehicle while
gaining that ten per cent.  The idea ought to be workable if the rest of
the numbers work out, particularly if the gain in specific impulse
(through not having to carry oxidizer along) is great enough.

I don't have efficiency figures for any jet engines, though.  The
posting above gives me a rough idea of thrust: it appears from the
statement, ``a fighter engine can lift eight times its own weight,''
that they deliver about 80-90 Newtons of thrust per kilogram of engine
deadweight mass (or a specific thrust of 80-90 m/s**2).  At what rate do
they consume fuel when putting out that kind of thrust?  How long a burn
can they make (will the engine survive going from 0 to Mach 2.5 at full
afterburner, given the expected accelerations)?  How many missions can
they be expected to last (I hear, for instance, that SR-71 engines are
expected to fail after 25-50 operating hours)?  What sort of Isp can
they deliver?

Answers to questions like these are needed to back up the blanket
statement that a concept is ``infeasible'' (or, alternatively
``feasible'').  Sometimes a concept can be shown to be infeasible
because even a back-of-the-envelope calculation shows that the numbers
are obviously bogus.

Surely some aeronautics type out there has the numbers (for today's
engine technology, at least) that could bring the argument onto firmer
footing.  We've certainly been talking about air-breathers long enough
without the data!

kBk

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 9 Aug 87 16:25:35 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Why [not]? {Getting experts in other areas in net}
Newsgroups: sci.space

>Surely some aeronautics type out there has the numbers (for today's

Actually I wonder how many aeronautics types are out there reading this?
I have corresponded and relayed questions for maybe 3-4 students to some
real experts here.  I can't do this all the time, but I was wondering
how many of you (rhetorically, don't answer me) have communicated with
anyone other than computer people about space?  Perhaps you should
circulate among non-computer colleagues and set up contacts which you
introduce to these space postings and when you go further off in life,
these `seeds' help out space.  These people need to be scientists in
other disciplines: physics, biology, etc.  They need to be economists,
and other non-scientist types (you know future elected officials kind of
thing).  I am suggesting this as a lobbying activity.

--eugene

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 87 08:35:16 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars


This is a follow-up on my posting of a month ago.

>   ME: I have the impression that collisions with largish "dust
>   grains" may be a serious obstacle to interstellar travel.
>   At the speeds usually considered necessary for interstellar
>   trips, such collisions seem unavoidable and too energetic to be
>   shielded effectively.  Has anyone analyzed this problem before?  

>   EUGENE MIYA: ...  There are [2 solutions I can remember off the top]:
>   1) is the equivalent of armor plate.  ...  2) is to
>   use a thin layer of aluminum to dissipate energy (of small particles)...  

Thanks for the info, but these methods don't seem to be applicable to
speeds near the speed of light.  Because of the much higher collision
energies, plain shielding against 1 gram pebbles would require an armor
plate at least tens of miles thick (which would be quickly destroyed by
a few impacts).  As for the second method, at relativistic speeds there
is not much difference between hitting a 1 gram pebble or a 1 gram of
gas.

>   HENRY SPENCER: Check out the Project Daedalus report from the British
>   Interplanetary Society, for example.  Results are sensitive to
>   estimates of the density of interstellar debris of size X, but in
>   general the problem does not seem intractable.  The Daedalus report
>   studied a large unmanned probe at about 15% of the speed of light, and
>   concluded that some simple precautions would suffice.
>   Basically all that was necessary in interstellar space at those speeds
>   was a bit of armor on the leading face.  That cut the probability of
>   real trouble down to 0.1% or so.  [...] The solution was to maintain a
>   fine dust cloud some thousands of kilometers ahead of the probe;
>   incoming particles would hit the cloud and vaporize.  The distance
>   between cloud and probe was calculated so that the resulting fireballs
>   would expand to a safe density by the time they reached the probe.
>   While it looked possible to maintain the cloud from the probe itself, a
>   simpler method was to use a secondary probe, a "dust bug", flying in
>   the cloud itself.  Occasionally the dust bug itself would be destroyed,
>   so the main probe would have to carry several.  

Thanks for the reference; I will try to find it.  Meanwhile, may I ask
some questions?  For one thing, how did they propose to keep the
protective dust cloud plowing through the interstellar medium at 0.15c?
If I have not bungled my physics, a particle moving at 5e7 m/s through a
gas with 1e6 atoms/m^3 (1 per cubic centimeter) will encounter the same
resistance as one moving at 5 m/s through a gas with 1e20 atoms/m^3 ---
not impressive, but not negligible either.

Also note that interstellar particles will probably have proper motions
on the order of 1e4 m/s or more.  Therefore, if the dust shield is a
thousand km ahead of the ship, it would have to be about 1km wide to
give adequate protection.

>   ME: If the average density d(M) of particles with mass >M in
>   interstellar space is a bit more than 10^-17 per cubic meter,
>   the probability of colliding with one or more such particles
>   will be practically 1.  I dont have any idea of what is d(M)
>   for "large" M (say, 1 mg), but I expect 10^-17 particles/m^3 to
>   be far below the detection threshold.  

>   PAUL DIETZ: Is 10^17/m^3 too low to detect?  The way to detect
>   large (gram sized) particles from interstellar space is to look
>   for meteors with high velocity.  This has been done in the
>   midwest with multiple cameras (equiped with rotating disks to
>   chop the trails to measure velocity).  Interstellar grains
>   should have velocities in excess of solar escape velocity.
>   I don't believe any such grains have been detected.  
>   
>   Assuming extrasolar meteors are moving in parabolic orbits, a
>   10x10 km patch of sky will sample about 7x10^12 m^3/second, or
>   10^17 m^3 in about four hours.  
>   
>   This detection method will fail for very heat sensitive grains.
>   But grains can't be made of solid hydrogen, which would
>   evaporate even in interstellar space, and organic blobs would
>   get polymerized by cosmic rays.  

A couple of questions:

1) Suppose interstellar pebbles in the neighborhood of the solar system
move at about the same speed as comets in the Oort cloud, which I
believe is on the order of 1e3 m/s or less (Pluto's orbital speed is 5e3
m/s, right?) As they fall to the Earth orbit, their speed will increase
at least 70-fold, to some 7e4 m/s.  It is not obvious to me that their
density (particles/m^3) will remain unchanged; offhand, I would expect
it to be reduced by about the same factor.  If this is true, then, in
the experiment you described, a density of 1e-17 particles/m^3 (in
interstellar space) will give only one event every 280 hours.

2) I have read somewhere that interstellar dust grains (the ones we can
detect, 0.1 micron or so) probably consist of a silicate core covered by
a layer of water ice.  Large "pebbles", if they exist, will likely be
loose aggregates of such dust grains.  Think of them as very small
comets.  When such a pebble falls towards the inner solar system, it
will heat up and start to boil away, just like a comet.  Well before it
reaches Earth orbit, its ice will evaporate, and the puff of dust that
remains will be blown apart by the solar wind.

In other words, the experiment you describe may put a limit on the
density of refractory pebbles; however, it doesn't seem to say anything
about small dusty snowballs.

(Incidentally, it seems that estimates of the size and density of the
Oort cloud have been growing steadily in the last years.  Maybe it
extends all the way to Alpha Centauri?)

>   STEVE WILLNER: Present data on interstellar particles come from
>   three sources: 1) Observations of dimming, reddening, and
>   polarization of light of distant stars.  These observations ...
>   tell us directly about dust grains with radii of order 0.1 micron or
>   or mass ~1E-14 grams.  2) Knowledge of "heavy element" abundances
>   [which constitute] about 3% of the mass of most stars ...  3)
>   Depletion of heavy elements from the gas phase.
>   
>   In spite of the varieties of information, almost nothing is directly
>   known about dust grains larger than a couple of microns (~1E-10 g)
>   or so.  The best that can be done is to combine the limit from item
>   2 above with estimates of gas density [which range] from 1E-2 H
>   atoms per cm^3 inside the shell of supernova remnants to 1E5 in the
>   densest molecular clouds.  However, a typical density in regions
>   near the Sun is about 1 atom per cm^3.  Thus a typical density of
>   solid particles is 2E-26 g cm^-3.  ...

Thanks for your posting; I have long been looking for this information.
However, I still don't think the evidence is conclusive.  If I have not
bungled my algebra, it would seem that 0.1 micron is roughly the maximum
size for which the dust grains can be expected to be carried along by
the parent gas cloud.  Grains much larger than that seem able to lead an
independent life.  For example, they may remain behind when the gas
cloud dssipates or is blown away by stellar wind.  In a cloud that is
stable against collapse, embedded large grains still may collapse on
their own.  When two clouds collide and lose their kinetic energy into
heat, large dust grains may still keep going in their original
trajectoriy and speed.  And so on.

If this is true, then maybe there is an open cycle where the metal
content of stars and gas clouds is more or less stable at 3%, without
that posing any constraint on the pebble density:

     
    supernovas, stellar winds             dust aggregation & separation
     ---------------------->  gas clouds ---------------------
    |                         w/ fine dust                    |
    |                                |                        |
    |                                |                        V
 stars                               V                   Interstellar
    ^                                |                     Pebbles
    |                                |
     --------------------------------
      Collisions, compression, cooling,
      collapse

I agree that this is a bit far-fetched.  However, consider that
something like it happened in our solar system: most of the primeval gas
cloud was blown away, leaving behind a few metal-rich pebbles (such as
the Earth).  Why should we assume that this phenomenon happens only in
planetary systems, and not in interstellar space?

Also, I think I read somewhere that there has to be some process that
removes grains larger than 0.1 micron from gas clouds, to explain the
observed size distribution.  Could that be aggregation into much larger
pebbles?

I recall there was a theory suggesting that the mysterious "dark matter"
(aka "missing mass") required by galaxy dynamics consisted of "orphan"
planets (Jupiter-size and smaller) floating away in interstellar space.
What happened to that theory?

By the way, what happens to any planets that form around stars in dense
star clusters?  (Is that possible?) Do they remain tied to their parent
star?  Or will they eventually "boil" off the cluster?

Well, nuf said. Sorry for bothering you with my late night elucubrations...

  Jorge Stolfi   (stolfi@src.dec.com, ...decvax!decwrl!stolfi)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Barbicane could not help smiling at Michel's reply; then, returning
    to his theory, said ---

    ``Thus, in case of a shock, it would have been with our projectile
    as with a bullet which falls in a burning state after having struck
    a metal plate: it is its motion which is turned into heat.
    Consequently I affirm that, if our projectile had struck the meteor,
    its speed thus suddenly checked would have raised a heat great
    enough to turn it into vapour instantaneously.''
                                  ---Jules Verne, _Round the Moon_ (1870)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #311
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Aug 87 06:20:04 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA27325; Wed, 12 Aug 87 03:18:58 PDT
	id AA27325; Wed, 12 Aug 87 03:18:58 PDT
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 87 03:18:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708121018.AA27325@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #312

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 312

Today's Topics:
		    space news from June 29 AW&ST
			     Antigravity?
			   Re: Antigravity?
how to maintain cooperative info free-trading over interstellar dist.
		     Will people reach the stars?
	      Re: Subjective FTL & Conservation of Mass
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 23:09:06 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from June 29 AW&ST

[Well, I'm back from vacation and more-or-less caught up on crises, so
here I am again.  Once again I am slightly behind schedule, but I will
catch up on a more relaxed timetable than before, i.e. a catchup issue
when it's convenient rather than 2/week until caught up.  --HS]

[Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505,
Neptune NJ 07754 USA.  Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified"
or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the
ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial
or military interest.  Best write for a "qualification card" and try to
get the cheap rate.  US rates are $55 qualified, $70 unqualified at
present.  It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of
it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth
it to you. -- HS]

NASA's ITD Space Remote Sensing Center, one of its first Centers for
Commercial Development of Space, has received a two-year extension of
federal subsidies, after which it is predicted to be self-supporting.

Rockwell plans mission operations center for Navstar at company
facilities in Seal Beach, CA.

NASA Lewis plans serious research effort into hydrogen slush as rocket
propellant.

NASA to shut down the SSME test stand at Rocketdyne in favor of a third
test stand at the National Space Technology Lab labs in Mississippi.
NASA is also building an SRB joint-test stand at Marshall, similar to
facilities at Morton Thiokol.

China is again studying manned spaceflight.  The first Chinese
astronauts will be shuttle payload specialists, but a Gemini-class
Chinese spacecraft late in the 1990s.

The Chinese space program has strong government support despite China's
poverty, partly because the Ministry of Astronautics is one of the few
Chinese organizations with international recognition and a significant
record of drawing in foreign money and technology.

China is building its first Clarke-orbit metsat, for launch in early
1990s, and is preparing to launch a polar-orbit metsat next year.
Testing of the third Chinese comsat is underway, for launch in March.
Scheduled for 1991 or 1992 is a three-axis-stabilized TV broadcast
satellite.

DMSP (military metsat) launched from Vandenberg June 19 on Atlas E.
First DMSP to carry a microwave imager that can see into clouds for
better tropical-storm assessment.

Senior NASA officials believe a shuttle-derived heavylift launcher
comparable to Energia could be built for $900M; RFPs may be issued by
Marshall in July.  USAF agrees that this would be useful, but still
wants its own ALS heavylift launcher with newer technology (and a later
startup date -- NASA hopes for SDV [Shuttle-Derived Vehicle] launch in
1993, USAF ALS is slipping to late 1990s).  Marshall is waiting for
approval from NASA DepAdmin Myers, who is expected to approve if White
House and OMB concur.  The White House might balk at funding two
different heavylift launchers with different objectives and design
philosophies; the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting might balk at
funding SDV on top of the shuttle and the space station.  The July RFP
would be for a system study, two contractors for 18 months, leading to
one contractor getting a development contract in early 1989.  First
flight could be as early as June 1993.  Launch frequency would be
2-3/year, at about half shuttle costs per pound.  Several test launches
would precede use for the space station.  SDV will probably have the
same configuration as the current shuttle, with the orbiter tail section
retained and the rest of the orbiter replaced by a payload canister.

[This further development of the shuttle is long overdue.   -- HS]

SDV does not seem to have been coordinated well with ALS; one contractor
which is interested in both says that NASA and USAF both got annoyed
when each learned that the company planned to compete for the other
agency's launcher!

James Beggs, ex-NASA admin, cleared of fraud charges related to his
prior employment with General Dynamics.  He now feels free to speak out
about the Challenger accident.  In particular, he says he would fly on a
shuttle tomorrow with the old boosters, provided the temperature was
above 50F.

SSME ran 16m42s on test stand in June, longest shuttle-engine run to
date.

Boeing's electronics company has come up with a thin-film solar cell
with unusually high efficiency, 17.4%.  The cell is a two-layer device
with an orthodox GaAs top cell and a complex new bottom cell.  Thin-film
cells are particularly interesting for space applications because they
are lighter and more radiation-resistant than ordinary cells.

In non-AW&ST news, the Soviet Union is pushing Indonesia to launch its
next Palapa comsat on Proton instead of the Shuttle.  In particular,
Indonesia's now-grounded payload-specialist astronaut has been offered a
trip to Mir to sweeten the deal.  Ref: Flight International.

Flight International now admits its early guess on propellants for
Energia's strap-ons was wrong; the Soviets have officially stated that
the boosters use LOX/kerosene and the core uses LOX/LH2.

Canadian astronomers report that a sophisticated survey of 16 nearby
Sunlike stars shows clear signs of low-mass companions around two and
hints of them around five more.  "Low-mass" here means 1-10 times
Jupiter, i.e. a very large planet.  They worked out a way of measuring
Doppler shifts of the stars (which move slightly in response to planets'
gravity) with much greater accuracy than before, about 10 m/s.  Two
stars, one of them Epsilon Eridani, show evidence for motions at the
four-sigma level of confidence (pretty strong).  Given orbital periods
on the order of a decade, a long-term study will be needed to pin down
orbital elements of the planets.  One very significant thing that the
survey did *not* find was brown dwarfs (halfway between big planets and
small stars), which strongly supports other lines of evidence suggesting
they do not exist.  (The report a few years ago of a brown dwarf
orbiting van Biesbrock 8 is now thought to have been wrong.)  Ref:
Science, 26 June, p. 1623.

Letter of the Month, in the same issue of Science:

	"The galaxy-spanning luminous arcs reported by M. Mitchell
	Waldrop in Research News on 6 February have a very simple
	explanation.  They are part of the scaffolding that was not
	removed when the contractor went bankrupt owing to cost
	overruns."
					"Arthur C. Clarke, Sri Lanka"

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 87 05:10:39 GMT
From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
Subject: Antigravity?


For all the recent traffic on FTL travel, I'm suprised nobody brought
up antigravity. There is apparently an experiment being conducted in
Greenland to measure the gravitational constant with extreme accuracy
along a 3,000 foot hole in the ice cap. The intent is to determine whether
the discrepencies found in some old measurements of the speed of falling
objects are due to a weak repulsive force, rather than air currents or
some other pertubation. The discrepencies point to a repulsive force 
between masses, which varies according to atomic number, but is only
active over about 1,000 feet.

Do any physicists out there have more details? From what I understand,
this sounds like a "second order" effect in the Taylor expansion of
a basically nonlinear equation, heretofore ignored, but maybe I'm wrong.
How likely is it that the experiments will succeed? If they do, is it
likely to prove of any use (long term, of course) to making space travel
cheaper?

		Jim Kempf	kempf@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 31 Jul 87 20:20:23 GMT
From: robiner@oberon.usc.edu  (Steve Robiner)
Subject: Re: Antigravity?

In article <594@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> kempf@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Jim Kempf) writes:
>For all the recent traffic on FTL travel, I'm suprised nobody brought
>up antigravity. There is apparently an experiment being conducted in

>Do any physicists out there have more details? From what I understand,

There is a layman's article on this in the March 87 issure of Omni
magazine.  There is a guy named Fishbach ( or something like that ) who
noticed correlations in old data on gravity which supported what he
called a fifth fundamental force.

More recent research, I believe, has shown that the repulsive effect has
something to do with a previously unobserved baryon-baryon interaction.
It is not related to gravity.  They are still doing research on it and
you might be able to find details in Physical Review Letters ( after you
sift out all the superconductor articles. )

Or you might just post to sci.physics and ask them.

=Steve=

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 30 Jul 87 23:37:12
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: "munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!bruce%uunet.UU.NET"@relay.cs.net
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: how to maintain cooperative info free-trading over interstellar dist.

<B> From: munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!bruce@uunet.UU.NET
<B> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 87 23:02:44 EST
<B> Subject: Re: Why live in interstellar space (moving somewhere or not)?

>The only solution I see ..  is to have lots of trade-relay stations
>spaced (pun, sorry) close enough that each neighboring pair can have
>frequent interchanges to encourage cooperation and punish defaulting
>...

<B> Or equivalently, traders roam through space, buying 'on spec',
<B> carrying lots of stock and selling where they can.

This slows down transfer of new info immensely. Instead of nearly the
speed of light (exactly speed of light on each hop, with small delay
while it is assimilated and readied for re-transmission), only the speed
that traders can move about (less than one tenth the speed of light).

<B> The essential point of ".. trade-relay stations spaced .. close
<B> enough .."  is that the duration of any transaction (the time that
<B> elapses between when you give me your goods and then I give you my
<B> goods) is small.

Right, for maintaining cooperation, that is the key point.

<B> Closely spaced trade-relay stations and transactions with traders
<B> both have this property.

Right, but transactions with traders moves the goods too slowly to
compete with short-hop speed-of-light trading.

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  1 Aug 87 16:35:55 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Will people reach the stars?
To: JAACS%UNO.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From:     <JAACS@UNO.BITNET>

> I was wondering if you know of any POLI-SCI digest that can be
> subscribed to.

Yes.  POLI-SCI@RED.RUTGERS.EDU.  Send to POLI-SCI-REQUEST@RED.RUTGERS.EDU
to request being added to the list, or to request copies of the archives.
If you like, I will send you some recent archives.

Be sure to send them an address that can be replied to from the
Internet.  For instance JAACS%UNO.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU.

> about info-barter: How would you decide who's information was "good
> information"?

The same way it is done today.  Much of today's economy is based on
information rather than goods or non-information services.  Newspapers,
computer networks, churches, phone companies, science, math, art, TV,
radio, VCRs, advertising, Consumer Reports, lawyers, magazines, music,
books, software, video games, snail mail, blue prints, engineering
textbooks, assembly instructions, public relations, cookbooks, and
schematic diagrams, for instance.

If two groups had no physical contact, all trade would be information
trade.

> There are many people, like myself, who either don't have access to
> information that is worth exchanging or don't have the tallents to
> articulate that information.

Most individuals don't have any goods or services to sell, either,
except their time at whatever job someone is willing to offer.

> Would you suggest that such freeloaders be left to die.

I think you have lost the context.  I was suggesting that in the future
there might be large numbers of independant space colonies in the solar
system, perhaps mostly in the asteroid belt.  Each colony would be self
sufficient in food, water, air, and other necessities, just as the US
might be worse off but would certainly not collapse with no trade with
other countries.  Just as the Earth is (or could be) self sufficient in
goods and services, forming a closed economy with no trade with anyone
off Earth, because nobody IS off Earth, yet.

So, imagine hundreds or perhaps even millions of asteroids filled with
people.  The population of each one might be anywhere from one to
several billion (the Earth's current estimated population, five
billion, could comfortably fit in an asteroid ten kilometers on a
side).

The colonies, at least the larger ones, would be totally self
sufficient.  They may trade goods and information with other asteroids.
Probably mostly information.  So, why should one of these venture
outside the solar system?

On the negative side, trade of goods would become impossible.  But
probably few goods would have been traded anyway, if they have an ample
supply of all the natural elements, and devices with which anything
they want can be grown or built out of their raw materials, given only
the information as to how to build them.

On the negative side, solar energy would no longer be available.  So
lets say they use fusion or fission or some other source of energy.

On the positive side, they are exposed to less harmful radiation, being
further from the sun.

On the positive side, they would have unique information to trade.
Information only available from beyond the solar system.  And
ultimately, from other solar systems.  They may even meet aliens.
Even if the only aliens they find are primitive plants and animals,
enormous benefits can be gained by studying them, as any such living
things would have evolved completely independent ways of surviving
in this universe of Murphy's law, ways that people could harness for
their own benefit.

Also on the positive side, if they have any long term plans which
require truly immense amounts of mass and energy, these can be found
in other solar systems.

One common argument against people ever reaching the stars is that it
would take generations, and nobody is willing to leave home, friends,
and family, and spend life cooped up in a box.  But here I am speaking
of taking home with you.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 20:44:23 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: Re: Subjective FTL & Conservation of Mass

> yamauchi@speech2.cs.cmu.edu (Brian Yamauchi)

> 1) [question about energy requirements]

Let me rephrase this somewhat:

    How does the energy required to travel a given distance (distance
    measured from some at-rest frame) in a given time (time measured
    from the traveler's frame) compare, between a newtonian calculation
    and a special relativistic one.

The given distance is d.g, the given time is t.g, then the newtonian
case is easy, because the requred velocity v.r is just (d.g/t.g).

    v.r = (d.g/t.g)

    E = m (v.r)^2/2 = (m (d.g/t.g)^2) / 2

which is the energy needed to boost the vehicle to the required speed.
The calculation of the required speed under SR is a little trickier, but
(in units where c=1) we have:

    t.h = d.g / v.r

    t.g = t.h (1-(v.r))^.5 = d.g (1-(v.r))^.5 / v.r
    
    t.g^2 = d.g^2 (1 - v.r) / v.r^2 = (d.g^2  -  d.g^2 v.r) / v.r^2

    t.g^2 v.r^2 = d.g^2  -  d.g^2 v.r

    t.g^2 v.r^2 + d.g^2 v.r - d.g^2 = 0

    v.r = -d.g^2 (+/-) (d.g^4 + 4t.g^2 d.g^2)^.5  /  2t.g^2

and the energy needed

    E = m (v.r)^2 / 2(1-v.r^2)^.5  +  (m/(1-v.r^2)^.5 - m)

So, how does this compare?  Well, let's say you want to go 4 light years
in 2 subjective years, as originally proposed.  You get 2 units of
wenergy per unit mass required by the newtonian form, and about 1.3 units
of energy per unit mass required by the SR form.  Thus, you can go
further for less under SR.

(I'm sure this overly simple exposition will be heavily flamed.  So it
goes.)

> 2) How does relativistic mass increase conform to conservation of
> mass/energy in the universe?  Is the energy expended for acceleration
> being converted directly into the additional mass?

Yes. (more or less)

--
Fooled around enough with numbers.  Let's not be ourselves today.
Is it my imagination? Is it just someone's face pleasantly out of proportion?
                                --- Talking Heads from "Wild Gravity"
-- 
Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #312
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Aug 87 06:18:35 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA29554; Thu, 13 Aug 87 03:17:24 PDT
	id AA29554; Thu, 13 Aug 87 03:17:24 PDT
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 03:17:24 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708131017.AA29554@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #313

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 313

Today's Topics:
	       Newsweek Special Report: "Lost in Space"
		   Interstellar information trade.
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		    Re: Dry Ore Separation Device
		       Re: Pro-Space Publicity
     The Alternate Space Station - humor - please at least smile!
	      Re: McDonnell Douglas Pro-Space Publicity
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 10 Aug 87 21:51 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Newsweek Special Report: "Lost in Space"

The latest issue of Newsweek (8/17/87) has a special 18 page, two part
report on the state of the US space program.

The first article makes the standard argument that the US space program
is crippled by lack of long term goals, and suggests the space station
and new orbiter not be built.

The second article is longer than the first, and is all about launcher
technology (!) and the politics of procurement. The author champions the
Big Dumb Booster, and explains why the US instead has unreliable
expensive boosters.

The BDB is very big, very cheap, and very simple. No liquid hydrogen.
Big pressure fed engines. It is not made of advanced composites, nor
titanium, nor even aluminum, but mostly *steel*. Engine nozzles are not
cooled, and first stage engines aren't even steerable. The article
estimates it could lift 50 tons into orbit at a cost of $310/lb, vs
$6,800/lb for the shuttle (1987 dollars).

Buy this issue. The second article is fascinating. I hope it will make
you as angry as it made me. If it is correct, NASA could have developed
launchers that were cheaper, simpler, and more reliable than the
shuttle, and could have spent less time and money doing it. I'm going to
mail copies to Ronnie and my congresscritters.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: Sun,  9 Aug 87 00:00:47 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Interstellar information trade.
To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu

> From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>

> There's a problem maintaining trading over distances where radio takes
> a good fraction of a lifetime.

> Even if trade is desirable, defaulting on the agreement is profitable
> due to lack of repeated interactions.

Radio need not take a good fraction of a lifetime, and there is no limit
to the number of repeated interactions.

 o  Initially, people will move out only into the Oort (cometary) cloud,
    which is only a few hours or days away by radio.  Some will
    gradually move into near interstellar space, a few weeks to a few
    months away.

 o  Several solar systems are within ten light years.  Virtually every
    solar system is within ten light years of several others.  So at the
    least, each colony could trade only with its immediate neighbors,
    and information would still get everywhere at nearly the speed of
    light.

 o  Human lifetimes may be much longer than now, with advances in
    medical science and cybernetics.

 o  The relevant lifetime may be that of a corporation rather than that
    of an individual.  Management would never vote to stop sending,
    since that means they would stop receiving N years later, and since
    stockholders would know that the corporation would be worthless in N
    years, this would drive down the current value of the stock since
    nobody would want to buy it later since they would all know that it
    would be worth less and less later and later until becoming
    worthless after N years.

> It is a form of "prisoner's dilemma" game where you win in the short
> run by defaulting, and lose only if the game has enough cycles for the
> other party to retaliate enough.

Right.  But there are more than enough cycles.  Also, since gathering
information is of great value to the colony itself, they will do it
anyway.  Thus the only possible gain from defaulting is saving the
energy and hassle of transmitting the information you already have,
while the loss from defaulting is lack of all information that all other
colonies will ever generate, including works of art, cures for diseases,
books, movies, new recipes, lists of potential supernova explosions and
cosmic ray storms, new software, new inventions, news, and much more.
Thus the possible temporary gain from defaulting is much smaller than
the certain long term loss.

And if any colonies do decide to opt out of the information trade,
if they are able to thrive anyway, more power to them!  Perhaps they
will be the only survivors of the dreaded interstellar meme plague of
2987. :-)

Also note that a colony may contain more than one group engaged in
interstellar communication.  Signals from other solar systems could be
restricted to the appropriate group by means of encryption.

> See Axelrod's book ("The Evolution of Cooperation" I think is the
> title) for computer tournament of Prisoner's dilemma simulations and
> relationship to evolution etc., directly applicable to this distant-
> radio commerce.

You continue to confuse actions selected for by evolution with actions
freely decided upon by rational beings.  The two have nothing whatsoever
to do with eachother.

In evolution, creatures exist with certain instincts, all slightly
different.  Those instints held by creatures whose instincts happen to
lead them to produce more descendants tend to get preferentially passed
on to future generations.  Ultimately, creatures tend to behave in ways
that appear to be rational attempts to have as many offspring as
possible.  These instincts are NOT rational, however, as can be proven
by changing the environment and seeing that the creature continues to
behave in the old way, even though it is irrational and destructive in
the altered enviroment.  It can also be proven by the fact that these
behaviors are NOT always to the individual benefit of the creatures
holding them, but often cause the creatures to be quite miserable or
even dead, though generally causing more offspring to survive in the
long run.  And it isn't "altruism" either, since these same instincts
make the supposed beneficiaries, the offspring, equally miserable or
dead.

A rational being does what he does not because of any inherited
instincts, but because he is aware of the probable consequences of his
possible actions and able to choose the actions which he judges will
best benefit himself.  These actions need not involve having children,
and in general will NOT be altruistic.  They WILL generally be of great
benefit to others, but only because he expects them to supply things of
value to him in return.

If there could be technological non-rational beings (just barely
conceivable) and they colonize solar systems, they would tend to trade
information because creatures aboard colonies which did just happen to
trade information for no reason would tend to reproduce (and create new
colonies) faster than creatures aboard colonies which just happened to
not trade information.  Thus the interstellar information trading
instinct would be as universal in these creatures as the stinging
instinct in bees or the evasive-maneuvers instinct in flys.

If rational beings such as people have interstellar colonies, most of
them will rationally decide to trade information since it is to their
own individual benefit.  Not at all the same thing.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 20:09:08 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

In article <156@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>> kraml@trwrb.UUCP (Robert P. Kraml), >> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
>
>>> [...] FTL implies time travel.
> [...]
>> What I want to know are there any intrinsic differences between FTL
>> through space and FTL around space?  
>Not from the standpoint of the FTL implying time travel.  
>There may be others, of course.

I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock.
FT*I* (infinity) may imply time travel, but the possibility that
something could go faster than light (through space, I'm not discussing
'hyperspace') no more implies time travel than does the fact that you
see a lightning flash before you hear the thunder.
   Detecting an event is not the same as causing it, and the order in
which it is possible to detect cause in effect may be totally irrelevant
to the order in which they actually occured.

"Time is what keeps everything from happening at once."
"Space is what keeps it from all being in the same place."

 Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 16:07:20 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer)
> I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a
> crock.

And Alastair is still wrong, too.

> FT*I* (infinity) may imply time travel, but the possibility that
> something could go faster than light (through space, I'm not
> discussing 'hyperspace') no more implies time travel than does the
> fact that you see a lightning flash before you hear the thunder.

Actually that is just the point.  Under the assumptions of special
relativity, traveling faster than light is *equivalent* to traveling
faster than instantly, and *does* imply time travel (though of course,
the lightning example does *not* have these implications).  I have
pointed out that the lightning example is *NOT* analogous, and have
explained several times why special relativity implies that any FTL
message is also an instant message or pastward message.  

If y'all don't understand these points, I suggest reading elementary
texts on relativity, available in most Daltons and Waldens I've been in,
as well as most public libraries.  Work it out for yourself.  Assume a
spaceprobe departs earth with a Lorentz contraction of ten-to-one.
After ten years, send a message to this probe at ten times lightspeed.
Have the probe reply at ten times lightspeed.  Do the calculations
yourself, being careful to do the return calculations from the point of
view of the probe, and not from the point of view of the earth.  You'll
see that the message comes back before it left.

How often have I said to you that when you have eliminated the
impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.
    --- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle {The Sign of the Four}

Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 87 16:52:45 GMT
From: uunet!iscuva!jimk@seismo.css.gov  (Jim Kendall)
Subject: Re: Dry Ore Separation Device

In article <8708052231.AA14821@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
>Today's NY Times (8/5/87, page D6) has an article on a recently invented
>ore separation device.  The device separates mineral grains by density.
>Unlike other machines with this function, it uses no water.  Grains are

Can anyone post more information on this? Who makes it? How much?
E-mail is fine....

Jim Kendall
ISC Systems Corp.
E. 22425 Appleway
Liberty Lake, WA 99019

------------------------------

Date: 30 Jul 87 14:17:34 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Mack)
Subject: Re: Pro-Space Publicity

In article <8707282105.AA00528@angband.s1.gov>, wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA (Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI) writes:

[ABC & CBS refused to air a McDonnell Douglas ad about Mir]

In the July '87 issue of International Combat Arms (The Journal of
Defense Technology), McD-D took out a full page ad showing a photo
(painting?) of Mir in orbit (white module with two solar panels attached
to green module with prominent red star). Across the bottom of the ad,
it says, "Shouldn't we be there too?"

Pity about the TV spot. ICA isn't one of your more widely read journals.

I guess I can disclaim my disclaimer this time.

  Dave Mack  (from Mack's Bedroom :<)
  McDonnell Douglas-Inco, Inc. 		DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed
  8201 Greensboro Drive                 are my own and in no way reflect the
  McLean, VA 22102			views of McDonnell Douglas or its
  (703)883-3911				subsidiaries.
  ...!seismo!sundc!hadron!inco!mack

------------------------------

Date:  7 Aug 87 00:38 PDT
From: William Daul / McDonnell-Douglas / APD-ASD  <WBD.MDC@office-1.arpa>
Subject: The Alternate Space Station - humor - please at least smile!
Cc: SGK.MDC@office-1.arpa, RBC.COR@office-1.arpa
Cc: ipc.n/marsh%Ontyme.Tymnet@office-1.arpa

I think the administration just hasn't applied it's "forward" thinking
enough.  Sure, spend about 6 billion to remove a dam from Yosemite Park,
forget trying to prevent possible damage from a depleted ozone layer (if
it turns out to be a result of human activities), but there is another
cost cutting measure they are overlooking.  Why put the Space Station in
orbit?  We could save a lot of money just building it in one of our more
isolated deserts.  Sure, the micro-gravity experiments might be less
then perfect (do them in a swimming pool), the Hubble Space Telescope
might not see to the farthest reaches of our universe, but it does save
money.  Think of the advantages.  We won't need to build the Challenger
replacement.  We would have a better chance of preventing accidental
technology transfer.  We could easily expand the station's size to
include whatever space demands that NASA or DOD would require.  There is
plenty of sun (in the daytime, of course) for solar panels and what they
cannot supply we can get form the nearest power plant.  We can service
the space station with lower cost transport systems (jeeps, helicopters,
pick-up trucks).  We could let a contract out to UPS for a delivery
service.  The possiblities are endless and they all save money.

I suppose we do still have the issue of liability.  That is probably the
most formidable problem the country faces today.  I don't have a
solution for that.


-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

OK, I know someone is going to flame at me for this...I have my asbestos
PJs on.  I just couldn't resist sending this...let me have it.  I hope
some of you get a laugh out of it.

--Bi//

------------------------------

Date:  7 Aug 87 01:31 PDT
From: William Daul / McDonnell-Douglas / APD-ASD  <WBD.MDC@office-1.arpa>
Subject: Re: McDonnell Douglas Pro-Space Publicity
Cc: wmartin@almsa-1.arpa

I will see what I can find out from our publicity department.  More soon...  
--Bi//

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #313
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Aug 87 08:51:40 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02830; Fri, 14 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT
	id AA02830; Fri, 14 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT
Date: Fri, 14 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708141018.AA02830@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #314

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 314

Today's Topics:
		  News from CANOPUS - Space Station
			  Re: Space tourism
			  Re: Space tourism
			  Re: Space tourism
			   Re: size of moon
			  Stars in Collision
			   Re: size of moon
		      Less Interstellar Dust(?)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 87 22:26:34 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: News from CANOPUS - Space Station

The following articles are from CANOPUS, title registered and copyright
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.  (The articles are
not copyrighted.)  Executive editor is William W. L.  Taylor.  CANOPUS
is available on-line to users of SPAN (Space Physics and Astronomy
Network).  Depending on a number of factors, either Dr.  Taylor or I may
begin posting articles from CANOPUS in sci.space.  One factor is
response to this article - please e-mail to me one of the following
suggestions: a)post selected articles in full, b)post condensed versions
or summaries, c)forget it. (CANOPUS is far too long to post in full.)
This article is cross-posted to sci.physics because of its particular
relevance to a recent item in "What's New"; I have attempted to direct
followups to sci.space.

SPACE STATION TO BE ANALYZED -- AGAIN - can6873.txt - 6/9/87

National Research Council has initiated a study of the Space Station
program at the request of NASA, the Office of Management and Budget,
National Security council, and the White House Office of Science and
Technology Policy. Robert Seamans, former NASA associate administrator
for manned space flight in the 1960s and now a senior lecturer at MIT,
will chair the 13-member commission. Former Astronaut Owen Garriott, a
member of the Task Force on Scientific Uses of Space Station, is a
member.

An initial report is due in late June with a final report due in
September. The NRC commission will look at NASA's design methodology and
assumptions, assess priority functions for meeting scientific and other
goals, and consider alternative designs.

[First phase of report has now been widely publicized -- SW]

STOFAN DEFENDS SPACE STATION COST ESTIMATES - can7874.txt - 7/13/87

The National Research Council's estimates of the Space Station's
program's costs are accurate but have been misconstrued by the media,
according to NASA Associate Administrator Andrew Stofan.

"The cost of the Space Station has not varied $1 from 6 months ago to
now," he told a meeting of the Huntsville section of the National Space
Club on Friday, July 10. "Their numbers are all correct," but take in
all costs associated with the Station, not just its development and
building costs.

The original cost when the program started several years ago was $8
billion, "a very optimistic number" that someone had placed on a
viewgraph and which then assumed a life of its own. Instead, the program
now is limited to $8 billion (1984 $) total funding through the next 3
years, after which the next president can worry about how expansive he
wants the program to be. When the program was re-estimated last year the
price tag was $14.4 billion in fiscal 1988 dollars, or $12.2 billion in
fiscal 1984 dollars.

The NRC estimate was about double those figures but took in the cost of
launching and maintaining the station over a decade or so. This will
cost about $1 billion per year. The NRC, however, "was impressed with
and agreed on cost methodology," but noted that NASA's funding plans
allow for operations and other costs in different parts of its budget
plans.

Stofan noted that NASA has never included launch and operating costs in
its R&D costs for any space projects.

The NRC committee, chaired by Robert Seamans, now is conducting what
Stofan called " the 1,000th assessment of Space Station." He expects
that the report, due in September, "will be semi-critical in several
areas," and will request that NASA solve some problems. But Stofan noted
that NASA has often been criticized at the midpoint of various programs
as it faces issues that arise during the design process.

Although he sounded tired of the frequent reviews of the program, Stofan
said that he will pay attention to the NRC's conclusions: "I'm going to
take it very, very seriously. If I can't answer it, maybe we do have a
problem."

However, he also called the review a chance for opponents to commit
political mischief: "We are inside a fish bowl with a large magnifying
glass and everybody sticking their fingers inside and tickling the fish.
No, [the review process] will not go away."

Stofan had praise for the Soviet Union's Mir space station which he saw
displayed in full-scale mockup form at the Paris Air Show.

"I was very impressed with the hardware I saw," he said. "They have a
fantastic program." Mir now has an astrophysics module attached and will
be given a new science and applications module a year over the next 4 to
5 years and will have a crew of 6 to 8 persons in the early 1990s.
Perhaps because Mir was viewed as an extension of the Salyut space
station program started in 1971, the American public has remained
largely unaware of what the Soviets are doing in space. The launch of
the Energia superbooster, comparable to the U.S. Saturn V in size and
capability, "[may be] the shocker that will wake us up," Stofan said.
"Their program in a broad front is very ambitious and the infrastructure
they have in their country to support this is impressive."

Stofan believes that the American public is "very, very supportive of
Space Station" and that the program is needed "to qualify man for Mars
... [it is] absolutely essential to open that door to move out into
space."

Stofan criticized science populist Carl Sagan for his stand against the
Space Station, claiming that Sagan is "underinformed" about the
possibilities that the program offers.

"You cannot send a man to Mars ... unless you do the Space Station
first," Stofan said. He noted that the various science disciplines "look
at their own little narrow field and say, `Hey, maximize mine.'  The
rest of the science community in the United States does not look at
[Sagan and his colleagues] as the spokesmen."

Stofan said that the Space Station will be "the ideal piece of hardware"
for many space scientists.

"We have a terrible problem in the space sciences," he said. "We have a
lack of access to space." Space Station will allow "essentially
immediate access to space" with experiments being accommodated in as
little as 6 months rather than 10 to 15 years.  He did not describe how
NASA will shorten the selection and flight process which has become
drawn out for Space Shuttle and which is expected to take as long in the
Station era.

Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 14:08:31 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Mack)
Subject: Re: Space tourism

In article <4130001@hpclla.HP.COM>, rak@hpclla.HP.COM (Rajiv Kumar) writes:
> > Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat
> > of war.

Unless, of course, the government of the L4 colony decides to attack the
L5 colony, etc. There is no group of people on Earth who do not have a
de facto government. This is because the vast majority of people *want*
to be lead. The people who migrate into space will be no different.
Space colonies will not change the fundamentals of human nature.

> >Keith
> 
> Dream on! The moment any Earth Govt sees that its own nationalistic
> and military interests are at risk, it will not allow its citizens to
> go to space and build private colonies. Why do you think a bunch of

Once the mechanisms for relatively inexpensive launch are available, I
suspect that the people who really want to go will be able to. The
(only) advantage to having multiple national governments is that if you
don't like one, you can pick another one. (OK, some governments make the
move more difficult than others. Just build your own balloon and go over
the wall.) In the "free" world, there will be somebody who is willing to
put you in space for a price. Surviving once you get there is a separate
problem, of course.

How about Costa Rica? Anybody interested in building a launch facility
in Costa Rica? I bet they wouldn't go out of their way to prevent people
from going into space.

> people cannot just claim some land in Antarctica and live free. 

It couldn't have anything to do with the climate, could it? Actually, I
don't think there is anything to prevent people from setting up a colony
in Antarctica, although no one would recognize a claim to sovereignty.

> Rajiv Kumar
> rajiv@hplabs or hplabs!rajiv

  Dave Mack

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 20:27:04 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Space tourism

In article <350@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
>Unless, of course, the government of the L4 colony decides to attack
>the L5 colony, etc. There is no group of people on Earth who do not
>have a de facto government. This is because the vast majority of people
>*want* to be lead. The people who migrate into space will be no
>different. Space colonies will not change the fundamentals of human
>nature.

    It's too early to say that. I believe that in the long term
(centuries?  more likely millenia), space colonization will result in
speciation of the human race. Consider one of Gould's suggestions for
the mechanism of punctuated equilibria: a small population becomes
isolated, usually geographically (read: in the Oort cloud or further).
The population evolves rapidly, due both to a limited gene pool and
different environmental pressures. When it eventually mixes back, a new
species has evolved.

    Speciation certainly could change the fundamentals of human nature.
Here's another possible path: it seems reasonable that space colonies,
especially in the early days, will select very strongly for intelligent
and cooperative colonists. The colonists might end up as anarchists or
socialists. By the time selection pressures die off, from better
knowledge and designs, cultural pressure for such traits may be strong
enough to freeze the behavior pattern.

    Hopefully there will be many small colonies with different forms of
government.  The opportunity to create many different cultures and let
them compete is very exciting. Let the people who KNOW they have the
answers go out and prove it, and the unambitious can stay here.
Humanity will benefit.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 87 00:47:15 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Space tourism

In article <350@inco.UUCP> mack@inco.UUCP (Dave Mack) writes:
>... There is no group of people on Earth who do not have a de facto
>government. This is because the vast majority of people *want* to be
>lead.

That is one factor, but another factor is the annoying minority who want
to lead, coupled with sufficient apathy by those who don't want to be
lead.  (For apathy, you may substitute respect for society, etc.)  In
addition, the act of eliminating leadership is in itself an act of
leadership, since there is (in most systems) no way of privately opting
out of a governmental system. You can call this "The Anarchists'
Paradox" if you want.

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer

------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 87 17:01:11 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: size of moon

In article <554536175.hoey@nrl-aic> hoey@NRL-AIC.ARPA (Dan Hoey) writes:
>Amazingly, though, surface gravity *is* proportional to escape
>velocity, assuming spheres of equal uniform density and Newtonian
>physics.

The equal uniform density assumption is a bad one.  Earth is denser than
the Moon which is denser than a gas giant.  Jupiter has a much, much higher
escape velocity than Earth (exercise left to the reader, I'm snowed under
with work right now (which is why I am posting to the net :-)) even though
its gravity is <only> 2.6g.

			David Palmer
			palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 1 Aug 87 22:29 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Stars in Collision

The recent discussion of nearby supernovas got me thinking about an even
more violent phenomenon: collisions between neutron stars. Such
collisions are more common than one might think, since closely orbiting
neutron stars will spiral into one another as they emit gravity waves.
The binary pulsar, discovered in 1974, will, for example, decay in 100
million years.

A neutron star collision will liberate a lot of energy -- roughly the
gravitational binding energy (about 10^53 ergs). That's about the energy
of a supernova. However, there would be no overlying blanket of matter
to soften the explosion, so much of the energy will come off as a short
burst of energetic gamma rays rather than being converted into kinetic
energy of outflung debris. Energy that might be emitted over weeks or
months in a normal supernova is radiated away in seconds, at much
shorter wavelengths.  That's probably bad news for any planets near the
event.

How frequent are these events? I've seen a claim that we should see one
every few thousand years per galaxy. There *are* unexplained gamma ray
bursts that have been observed by spacecraft for going on 20 years now
(see Sci. Amer. 2/85), but they probably have many causes. To find out
if the bursts are extragalactic we could place gamma ray detectors
aboard spacecraft about 100 AU out from the sun. By carefully measuring
the arrival time of bursts at the spacecraft (one burst, the 3/5/79
event, had a rise time of <0.2 milliseconds) we could determine the
distance to the source. Roughly, if the spacecraft are a distance S
apart, and the rise time of the pulse is t, we can determine the
distance of the source out to S^2/(ct). For S = 200 AU and t = .2
milliseconds, that's 1.5 million light years.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 87 15:49:30 GMT
From: fluke!inc@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Gary Benson)
Subject: Re: size of moon

Amazing that surface gravity is proportional to escape velocity?

[Given Newtonian physics]

Come on! There's nothing amazing about that at all!! They are not only
proportional, but equivalent! Don't they *_MEAN_* the same thing?

Where were you when we talked about this in "101"?

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 87 19:25:08 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Less Interstellar Dust(?)

Several weeks ago, I posted an article on the amount of interstellar
dust in "average" regions of our Galaxy.  Since then, I've run across
two research papers about the dust content in the local Solar
neighborhood, which appears to differ somewhat from the average.
Both papers were published in 1982, so there may well be more recent
information that I have not seen.

One article reports reddening measurements toward about 300 stars in
the northern hemisphere within a distance of 100pc.  The second
article reports polarimetry of 180 stars within 35pc over the whole
sky.  Both types of observation are sensitive to dust particles in
the size range 0.1 to 1 micron, but the second also requires the dust
grains to be aligned by the Galactic magnetic field.  (The grains
probably are fairly well aligned over this small distance, but there
are no guarantees.)  Neither investigation found any dust at all
within a distance of 75pc for the first and 35pc for the second.  The
upper limits correspond to average gas densities averaged over the
appropriate paths of about 1/3 and 1/30 H atom cm^-3 respectively,
provided the standard gas to dust ratio applies.  These may be
compared to the "average" value ~1 H atom cm^-3.  The Sun thus
appears to be in region where dust (and gas) are considerably below
their usual density.  Taken at face value, this would appear to be
good news for high speed interstellar travel but bad news for
interstellar ramjets.

However, Jorge Stolfi (stolfi@jumbo.uucp) writes: 
> If I have not bungled my algebra, it would seem that 0.1 micron is 
> roughly the maximum size for which the dust grains can be expected to 
> be carried along by the parent gas cloud.  Grains much larger than 
> that seem able to lead an independent life.  For example, they may 
> remain behind when the gas cloud dssipates or is blown away by 
> stellar wind.  

This idea is certainly right, though the size is too small.  There is
fair evidence that the grains we see (up to 1 micron or so) follow
the gas pretty well (except where conditions get so severe the grains
are destroyed).  I get about the same size as Stolfi if I neglect
grain charge, but real grains will always be charged, and Coulomb
forces will dominate.  On the other hand, boulders clearly will not
get pushed around by the gas, no matter how much charge they carry.
Where in the range of ~20 orders of magnitude in mass is the
changeover from being coupled to the gas to being independent?  I've
looked into this just enough to be convinced that it is a hard
problem, and even with perfect theory, we may not know enough about
the history of the local interstellar medium to give a believable
answer.  (Grain charge depends on local physical conditions and to
some extent on grain properties, and the interaction with gas depends
on exactly what dust-removal process one is considering.)  My _guess_
is that milligram particles (the largest expected to hit a small
interstellar ship based on average interstellar density) are _not_
coupled to the gas; if this is right, it would be more reasonable
make estimates using the average interstellar density rather than the
actual local density.  But _any_ estimates based on present data are
very uncertain.  By the time people seriously consider building
interstellar ships, I'm sure much better data will be available.

References:
Perry, Johnston, and Crawford 1982, Astron. J. vol. 87, p. 1751.
Tinbergen 1982, Astron. & Astrophys. vol. 105, p. 53.
-- 
Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #314
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Aug 87 06:18:55 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04554; Sat, 15 Aug 87 03:17:49 PDT
	id AA04554; Sat, 15 Aug 87 03:17:49 PDT
Date: Sat, 15 Aug 87 03:17:49 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708151017.AA04554@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #315

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 315

Today's Topics:
			Supernova Information
				Sagans
		     Repost: A galactic Calendar
			     SETI Project
		Please quash the one-shot Mars canard
		Suggestions on names for Mars Observer
	      Re: Suggestions on names for Mars Observer
		     Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle
		     Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle
		     Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle
		     Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle
			Re: space shuttle bbs
		       Re: Government in space
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 87 18:52:04 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Supernova Information

Since there was discussion of supernovae in this newsgroup, some readers
may wish to look at the paper by Arnett in the August 1 Astrophys. J.
Arnett's paper contains a reasonable "first cut" model of SN 1987A.
I've posted a summary of the paper in sci.astro.

Steve Willner              Phone 617-495-7123        Bitnet: willner@cfa1
60 Garden St.              FTS:      830-7123         UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA  Telex:  921428 satellite cam

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 15:49:17 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Sagans

Let me be the 51st to say this
In article <8708111200.AA25402@angband.s1.gov> FSCHAS@NERVM.BITNET (Charlie Hofacker) writes:
>I have 3 questions for anyone who might care to indulge me... 
>1) How many stars are there in the universe,

One Sagan :-)

>2) How do we know this,

We multiply the density of stars locally, assume that we are nowhere
special (the cosmological principle) and multiply by the volume
of the Universe, which is simply obtained from the age of the Universe

>3) How can we ever know that there aren't more stores beyond the range
> of our sensing devices?

One of the theories popular this week is the "Inflationary Scenario".
This allows for the possibility (and anything not forbidden is
compulsory) of what are technically called BEMEUs (bug-eyed monster
external universes.  I kid you not).  If these exist, then they
are beyond range of our sensing devices.  They are also
outside of this universe, so they have no relevance to your question.
Unfortunately, the phrase "Sagans and Sagans of stars" may be useful,
although the Sagans need not be all the same size.

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 87 18:58:57 GMT
From: ur-tut!gfox@cs.rochester.edu  (Gregory Fox)
Subject: Repost: A galactic Calendar

Say, I hate to divert anyone's time from anything more important, but if
someone who knows what they're talking about could bring their brain to
bear on this little hypothetical problem of mine, I'd be much obliged...

Has a calendar ever been developed that uses the rotation of the galaxy
as the basic unit of measurement?  If not, mightn't it be possible from
dividing the rotational period by some cosmically significant number?
Or perhaps something based on hydrogen or the speed of light or pi or
some subatomic particle, etc., etc...

Needless to say, I don't have two brain cells to rub together on this subject,
but maybe someone else does, and I love the sound of brain cells rubbing
together...

Thanks,                 "Beneath the wind-turned wave,
                         Infinite peace...
-GS                      Islands join hands,
                         'Neath Heaven's sea..."
                                                 -King Crimson, Islands

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 13:54:02 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu  (Stephen P. Masticola)
Subject: SETI Project

Does anyone know the current status of the SETI project? Does it still
have funding? I hope so - in contrast to many other space projects
(space station, manned-mission-to-Mars races, and especially SDI), it
has a very modest budget and a high potential for benefit (or at least
social change) if its results are positive. It also has a high potential
of being viewed as a crackpot project.

Has there been any effort to protect the "water hole" band? (I know
there's been some effort - what I mean is, has it succeeded?)

Also, it's occurred to me that technology is being developed for SETI
which can be used for signal intelligence applications (million-channel
receivers, specifically.) Is this connection being exploited by the
usual users of those kinds of things?

By the way, thanks for the mail about names for Mars Observer. A few
years back, someone suggested combining this mission with a cometary
flyby and calling the result "Halley's M.O." 8~)

Steve Masticola

------------------------------

Date:     Tue,  4 Aug 87 11:22 CDT
From: <HIGGINS%FNALB.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  Please quash the one-shot Mars canard
Original_To:  SPACE

I'd like to dispose of one canard that keeps popping up in our
discussions of Mars exploration.  It goes like this: "The Planetary
Society is advocating a dash to Mars as soon as possible, which is
stupid because after a trip or two there, we'll have nothing left but
our Mars rocks and our memories, *just like Apollo*."

I've seen a lot of postings which presume that Lou Friedman, Carl Sagan,
and their buddies are SO DUMB that the "Apollo Problem" HASN'T OCCURRED
TO THEM YET.  I take strenuous objection to this; those guys are as
smart as you are, and are quite aware of the danger that Mars could
become another dead end.  The truth is that they are pushing for an
*extended* program of Martian exploration, up to and including
permanently manned Mars bases which use local resources for most of
their consumables.  This goal makes perfect sense, because as planetary
scientists they'd want to study Mars intensively, returning over and
over again to examine a broad range of phenomena.  (How long did it take
before the Earth was adequately "explored?")

So, please, let's not have any more criticism of Mars initiatives on the
assumption that their advocates are idiots looking for one-shot
missions.

There is, however, a difficulty their position runs into (and the same
one Apollo and the Apollo Applications Program met): Continuing manned
and unmanned Mars exploration won't happen unless there is political
support for it.  It would be very expensive by current space-budget
standards.  And many of the arguments put forward in favor of a piloted
trip to Mars lose their appeal when applied to a continuing program.  So
it would be a tough problem to maintain support over the decades
necessary to carry out such a program, and one does have to worry about
a jaded Congress (or Politburo) pulling the plug in the wake of the
first success.

I attended the Case for Mars III conference, I hope without losing my
objectivity on these questions (-:, and expect to work up a summary soon
for your reading pleasure and enlightenment.  But it will take some
time.

                                       Bill Higgins
                                       Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
                                       HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: Fri,  7 Aug 87 00:42:36 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Suggestions on names for Mars Observer
To: masticol@topaz.rutgers.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

Kepler?  Lowell?  Hale?  Shiaparelli?

Bradbury?  Heinlein?  Weinbaum?  Wells?  Burroughs?

Anything but Sagan. :-)
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 22:19:06 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Suggestions on names for Mars Observer


  How about Stickney???

  (Anybody recognize the reference?)

  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU>

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 87 02:57:45 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle

In article <1354@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>In article <3309@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes:
>>     How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them,
>> and had to develop numerous highly complex systems that had never
>> flown before, rather than designing with what was available at the
>> time?
>In today's dollars at least $1 billion apiece if we had only built 4.
>It is not correct that a 747 is comparable to a Space Shuttle in cost.
>...
>According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter
>will cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars.

    250 million is within one order of magnitude of 2100 million. This
is comparable in my book, given the great difference in what the
craft are to accomplish. The point is clear - spacecraft need not
cost outrageously more than aircraft, if they are produced in
quantity. We just have to have uses for quantities first. The usual
Catch-22.

--
    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

Down with Mars! Back to the Moon first.

------------------------------

Date: 1 Aug 87 04:07:12 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle

In article <1354@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter
>will cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars.

I just heard a blipnews item that said that a new shuttle had been
approved to be built by Rockwell for $1.2G

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 87 08:27:17 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle

In article <3423@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes:
> In article <1354@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
> >According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter
> >will cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars.
> 
> I just heard a blipnews item that said that a new shuttle had been approved
> to be built by Rockwell for $1.2G
> 
> 		David Palmer
> 		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu

That report refers to a contract dollar value that Rockwell International
received recently.  In prior years, NASA purchased 'structural spares'
in case an orbiter got dinged up real bad.  These parts, which cost
$300 million total, consist of a forward fuselage (crew cabin in english),
mid fuselage (cargo bay), aft fuselage (engine compartment), and a set
of wings.  Put these together and you have all the primary structure
for Orbiter 105.  The new contract Rockwell got is to buy all the
other parts (tiles, life support, cargo bay doors, etc., etc.

Part not included in this order are: 3 Space Shuttle Main Engines,
Remote Manipulator Arm, Space Suits, other crew equipment detachable
from orbiter, and a replacement for the payload that was onboard the
Challenger.  This is because of the NASA bookkeeping system.  These other
parts are managed by different NASA centers, and appear as different
line items in the budget.

Dani Eder/Advanced Launch System/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: 3 Aug 87 15:27:52 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle

I remember reading, and you know how good memory is when you can't find
the reference, that if a production line had been built the cost for one
more shuttle would have been about $500 million. The break even point
was something like 1 more shuttle than was built. I also remember that
the author claimed that congress picked the number of shuttles to make
sure that a production line would not be built.

Would someone who actually KNOWS why a production line was not built
please straighten me out on this?

		Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 87 19:34:20 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!steve@AMES.ARPA  (Steve Nuchia)
Subject: Re: space shuttle bbs

In article <434@uop.UUCP>, (Robert McCaul--The Equalizer) writes:
> there used to be two bbs systems i logged into for info on the shuttle
> projects...the one in the 301 area used to be:

> then there was one i guessed was a news feed in houston..

> will they come back?
> can someone put me onto them again?
> are there any such other systems run to keep us informed?

I don't know what happened to the original system, but I could take up
the slack pretty easily.  My wife works in a group that has routine
access to schedules and (unclassified) manifests.  It would be pretty
easy to keep an online version of all that.

I'm public access here anyway, though the BBS software is in a state of
disrepair.  If there's enough interrest I'd be happy to clean out a
board section for space mission info, or whatever is wanted.

	Steve Nuchia
	(713) 334 6720 voice  (713) 334 1204  2400N81 login "trouble"
							or "newuser"

------------------------------

Date: Sat,  1 Aug 87 16:12:57 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Government in space
To: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, Poli-Sci@red.rutgers.edu

> From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu

> *Assuming* slavery or taxation exist, it is better to build graceful
> mansions than ugly ones; it is better to promote space exploration
> than, say, population control.

By that reasoning, one could justify ANY government program on the
grounds that the money COULD have been spent for something worse.

> another argument - that government space programs actually retard
> private ones - may still hold. I am open to conviction.

It is pretty clear that they do.  Government launch services are
provided at a financial loss, which may get more stuff into space in
the short term, at great expense to taxpayers.  But they stifle the
development of cost effective alternatives which could REALLY open the
space frontier, in a way that the Space Shuttle never could.  Even if
there was no subsidy, the fact that NASA does not have to pay taxes,
unlike a private company, causes an implicit subsidy.  (Of course
taxation also generates an equal drag (given equal taxation) on all
other parts of the economy.)

Also, government wants to keep private companies out of space for
several other reasons, chiefly "national security".

> But it would be naive to expect the government to tax less because
> people stop pressuring it for space programs.  They'd just spend it
> on something else.

That's not the point.  I cannot self consistently advocate something I
oppose.

> There is nothing inconsistent in resisting taxation *and* arguing for
> greater space budgets.

That's not true.  This IS the position almost everyone takes, including
most members of congress.  Strongly advocating one or two taxpayer
financed programs while weakly opposing all the rest.  We have seen
that it doesn't work.  When the farm lobby and the oil lobby and the
space lobby go to Washington, they aren't competing against eachother.
They are competing against the taxpayer.  The lobbyist has millions to
gain, while the taxpayer has only ten dollars to lose - on that one
project.  Is it any wonder that government spending, taxation, and debt
are all at record levels?  Is it any wonder that people in the US today
are only a little better off than 60 years ago, even though
productivity is enormously higher?

One CANNOT consider programs on a case by case basis.  Every possible
way of spending taxpayer money has SOME vocal and wealthy advocates,
who can make it sound like we are purchasing utopia for a dime.  Of
course we are purchasing trash for trillions of dollars.  And it is
time we stopped.

No government spending on space could ever lead to anything useful.  If
a use of space is worth more than it costs, individuals and companies
will voluntarily invest in it.  If a use of space is worth less than it
costs, nobody should spend anything.  And if there is any doubt as to
whether a use of space is worth as much as it costs, let only those who
consent risk their money on it, by investing in whatever company.

The only legitimate function of government is protecting individual
rights.  This means police, courts, and domestic national defense.
These can be paid for without a tax or any other coercive method.

								...Keith

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #315
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Aug 87 06:27:40 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05945; Sun, 16 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT
	id AA05945; Sun, 16 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT
Date: Sun, 16 Aug 87 03:18:11 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708161018.AA05945@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #316

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 316

Today's Topics:
	   What politics? (Re: Keep Space safe for Space?)
		    Re: The Cost of Space Tourism
		      The Cost of Space Tourism
		    Re: The Cost of Space Tourism
			    Space tourism
		    Re: The Cost of Space Tourism
		 Citizens in space = more NASA fraud
		 Re: Look like an astronaut, sort of
	       Re: Citizens in space = more NASA fraud
			   Apollo lefovers
			   Astronaut Wings
		       Re: Picking up the Eagle
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 29 Jul 87 03:40:11 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: What politics? (Re: Keep Space safe for Space?)

... I just couldn't resist the title...

Yeh, I do have a dogma. The government shouldn't be doing anything that
can be done by the public sector. That's all.

Right now my personal feeling is that Space is just beginning to be
something that private enterprise can get heavily involved in. The
government should start by reducing the barriers to private launches.
When it becomes feasible to do private launches this will allow them to
happen. I have this feeling that private launches will start taking off
(um... increasing) within 6 months to a year from the date the
government gets out of the way.

I think a private, eficcient, spaceplane will show up no more than 5
years after that.

-- Peter da Silva `-_-' ...!seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (I said, NO PHOTOS!)

------------------------------

Date: 2 Aug 87 08:11:24 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: The Cost of Space Tourism

The definition of 'astronaut' in the US is a human who has been more
than 50 miles above the surface of the Earth.  Thus two of the X-15
Spaceplane pilots earned their 'Astronaut wings' during high altitude
ballistic flights.

I can envision a lively business in taking passengers up to 50+ miles on
a similar trip, just so they can go home and claim they've been in space
and are 'astronauts', which they would legitimately be.

If I were asked to design such a system, I would begin by using a 747 as
a carrier plane.  It would carry a spaceplane on its' back that would
have some Aerojet Air-Turbo-Ramjet engines.  These can go up to about
Mach 6 and 140,000 ft (28 miles).  A small rocket boost would get you up
to over 50 miles.  At a guess, I would expect you could carry at least
20 people at a time, with a per flight cost of $500,000, or $25,000 per
passenger.  These figures have no calculation behind them, just informed
guesswork.

If anyone out there knows a cruise-line operator or similar tourist-type
operator, I'm sure my employer would design such a system for them.

Dani Eder/Advanced Launch System/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  3 Aug 87 01:22:22 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: The Cost of Space Tourism
To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

At least some of what is being called space tourism is ten minute
suborbital flights.  These would be a LOT cheaper than a stay in
a space station.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 3 Aug 87 09:14 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Re: The Cost of Space Tourism
To: KFL@mc.lcs.mit.edu, space@angband.s1.gov


Keith said:

 > At least some of what is being called space tourism is ten minute
 > suborbital flights.  These would be a LOT cheaper than a stay in
 > a space station.

I'm reminded of Tom Heppenheimer's comment about people who want to
go into space.  He suggested flying the Concorde instead.  You are high
enough so the sky becomes very dark, and instead of ending up in
a cramped tin can, you end up in Paris.

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: Mon,  3 Aug 87 22:12:02 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Space tourism
To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

If I want to see a dark sky, I will just travel to the countryside at
night (which is long overdue).  What I personally want out of space
travel is:

1) To experience weightlessness, preferably for several days.  I can get
   several seconds by riding in a "demon drop" at an amusement park.  I
   wonder if they sell rides in the "vomit comet" or the equivalent?
   Too bad nobody has found a way to cause weightlessness in a
   stationary room on Earth.  They DO have skydiving rooms, in which
   fans suspend you in a fierce vertical wind, but that isn't the same.

2) To see the Earth from far above.  Preferably from well beyond low
   Earth orbit, like the Apollo Astronauts.

3) To see other sights from nearby, such as Saturn.

4) Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat
   of war.

5) (Fantasy mode (?)) To see what, and who, is around other stars.

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 4 Aug 87 02:11:43 GMT
From: jade!web4h!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: The Cost of Space Tourism

In article <1362@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>I can envision a lively business in taking passengers up to 50+ miles
>on a similar trip, just so they can go home and claim they've been in
>space and are 'astronauts', which they would legitimately be.

	I'm not sure the market would be all that big....

>[...]  At a guess, I would expect you could carry at least 20 people at
>a time, with a per flight cost of $500,000, or $25,000 per passenger.
>These figures have no calculation behind them, just informed guesswork.
>
>If anyone out there knows a cruise-line operator or similar
>tourist-type operator, I'm sure my employer would design such a system
>for them.

	Society Expeditions.  I was under the impression that they were
committed to buying one of Gary Hudson's _Phoenix_ single-stage-
to-orbit craft for $200M, if he could ever build one.  However, I called
Tom Brosz (publisher of _The Commercial Space Report_) and he said that
SE never signed such an agreement, although they remain interested in
the Phoenix.

	[The Phoenix is the subject of my next posting.]
Adam J. Richter
adamj@bartleby.berkeley.edu
...!ucbvax!bartleby!adamj
(609)734-6525

------------------------------

Reply-To: seismo!sdcsvax!pnet01!jim@mordor.s1.gov
Date: Tue, 4 Aug 87 21:55:29 PDT
From: seismo!scubed!sdcsvax!pnet01.CTS.COM!jim@mordor.s1.gov (Jim Bowery)
To: crash!space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Citizens in space = more NASA fraud

Alcestis R. Oberg wrote an article promoting more "citizens in space" as
a way of making NASA less of an "elitist" organization so that the
American people would support NASA.  This article appeared in the August
4 issue of the LA Times.  Here is my reply to that article:

Editor:

Alecestis R. Oberg's article "Let 'We the People' Have Role in Space
Flight, Too" (August 4) is a perfect example of why I do not expect
space to be a genuine frontier for this generation, nor for our
children.  Ever since the Apollo program's magnificent accomplishments
were discarded by the Nixon administration, via the then and current
NASA administrator James Fletcher, our "space program" has been living
on that accomplishment while growing progressively more sophisticated in
its corrupt and even criminal activities.  The "teacher in space"
program, along with all other programs involving unqualified citizens
being blasted into orbit, are desgined to sustain the flimsy image that
NASA is bringing the space frontier to the average american.  Alecestis
Oberg is culpably ignorant in promoting this fraud on the citizens of
the United States.  Anyone who writes books, let alone articles, about
the potential of the space frontier, cannot be forgiven such errors.

Sadly, these errors are rampant in the failings of the news media to
uncover the corrupt and criminal activities of the NASA bureaucracy even
after such a clear signal as the senseless explosion of the space
shuttle Challenger.  Criminal violations of the Hatch Act are occurring
almost day by day at Johnson Spaceflight Center in Houston, among other
centers, and the Justice Department simply looks the other way.  Where
is the news media?  How can we expect NASA corruption to be exposed when
even blatent felonies go unnoticed by those who are supposed to protect
'We the People'?

How many years before the news media finds the technical competence to
go after these stories?  How many years after that before repeated
stories of NASA corruption motivate a successful presidential candidate
to adopt an appropriate space policy?  How many years after that until
NASA is either disbanded because it is beyond fixing, or is put back on
the road to discovery and basic scientific research, instead of
inhibiting the engines of free enterprise from making access to space
affordable to 'We the People'?

As a long time space activist and enthusiast, I call on the government
and the news media to recognize that the NASA of the Apollo years is no
longer with us and cannot be resurected.  The best we can hope for now,
is that NASA's monopoly on space activity will be broken up by breaking
the organization up, just as we would break up any monopoly.  Let the
various NASA centers exist independent of each other and eliminate NASA
as an organization by eliminating NASA Headquarters.  Productive
centers, such as Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Ames Research Center,
will survive and be even more productive freed of the weight of
parasitic centers such as JSC.  Most important of all, getting NASA out
of the way will let us play the space game by the American rules of
competition in the free market, rather than by the Soviet rules of long
range planning by a centralized government bureaucracy.

With a truly Americanized space program, we may finally find ourselves
facing the true potential of the space frontier.

Sincerely,

James Bowery, Vice President
San Diego L5 -- A chapter of the National Space Society

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 5 Aug 87 11:39:53 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Re: Look like an astronaut, sort of

I'm not sure the astronauts do this, but in the Air Force the idea is to
have your flight suit be a little too long on you.  This way, when you
are sitting down, the cuffs of the suit do not creep up above the top of
the flight boots.  If it did creep up too high, there would be flesh
exposed, unprotected by the flame resistant Nomex in the suit or by the
flight boots.  Thus, the nickname "bag" for a flight suit.  Smart AF
types also wear their Nomex gloves during take-off & landing.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 87 04:42:30 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Citizens in space = more NASA fraud

I am astounded that Mr. Bowery's unconstructive and opinionated letter
could come from anyone active in the the L5 Society or the NSS.

> James Fletcher, our "space program" has been living on that
> accomplishment while growing progressively more sophisticated
> in its corrupt and even criminal activities.  The "teacher

This is an extremely serious claim, backed up by not the slightest
fact. Mr. Bowery merely asserts that NASA is guilty of corrupt and
criminal activities. 

> Anyone who writes books, let alone articles, about the potential of
> the space frontier, cannot be forgiven such errors.

Alecestis Oberg scarcely needs to be forgiven for anything. The
promotional efforts Mr. Bowery dislikes so much are the reasonable
efforts of a funding-starved agency to gain support.

> Sadly, these errors are rampant in the failings of the news
> media to uncover the corrupt and criminal activities of the

If you have facts, send them to the New York Times. They have "exposed"
NASA corruption in the past (very unconvincingly, in my opinion), and
I'm sure they'll be willing to listen to you as well. If you don't have
any facts, why are you publically attacking NASA while using the L5/NSS
name?

> As a long time space activist and enthusiast, I call on the government
> and the news media to recognize that the NASA of the Apollo years is
> no longer with us and cannot be resurected.

I don't think there is a person in the US who fails to realize this.

> is that NASA's monopoly on space activity will be broken

The real monopoly in space is the Pentagon, not NASA.

> Productive centers, such as Jet Propulsion Laboratory and Ames
> Research Center, will survive and be even more productive freed of the
> weight of parasitic centers such as JSC.

Do you have some personal grudge against JSC? What's the story here?

> NASA out of the way will let us play the space game by the American
> rules of competition in the free market, rather than by the Soviet
> rules of long range planning by a centralized government bureaucracy.

This libertarian fantasy about the benefits of breaking NASA up ignores
the reality that for many decades to come any private US firms in space
must compete against heavily subsidized foreign national spaceflight
monopolies. Given the US industry is getting kicked to pieces by "Japan
INC" I see little prospect that it will do any better in space.

At some point in the distant future, the amount of money needed to enter
the space business and the associated risk will be low enough to allow
the removal of NASA from large-scale technological projects.  That day
is decades away.  We need to get good at the large scale, long term
project approach, not avoid it. NASA may not be the proper vehicle, but
my experience as an engineer working for a major hi-tech corporation
indicates that neither are the short-term focused American companies.

> Sincerely,
> 
> James Bowery, Vice President
> San Diego L5 -- A chapter of the National Space Society

Dale Skran
former President, NJL5

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 87 21:11:43 GMT
From: sundc!rlgvax!russ@seismo.css.gov  (Russ Olsen)
Subject: Apollo lefovers

I've been reading _First to the Moon_, a book by the Apollo 11 astronauts
(and ghost writter) about the first Moon mission.  Somewhere along the way
someone from NASA says that the ascent stage of lunar module was left in
an orbit around the Moon which should last about 20 years.

Let's see... 1969 + 20 = 1989.

Does anyone know if the ascent stage of Eagle is still in orbit?  If so,
does anyone have an idea of when it will hit?

As an aside the same guy quoted in the book said that in 20 years we could
probably just go out there and pick Eagle up.  Fat chance.  Maybe we could
ask the Russians to do it.

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 87 19:45:08 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Astronaut Wings

In article <4223@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
>In article <1362@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>> The definition of 'astronaut' in the US is  a human who has been
>> more than 50 miles above the surface of the Earth.  Thus two of the
>> X-15 Spaceplane pilots earned their 'Astronaut wings' during
>> high altitude ballistic flights. 
>
>That's the military's definition for military pilots.  Civilian X-15 pilots
>did not get astronaut wings.
>
>			David Smith

  I thought the official definition was 100 km (62 miles)?

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 13:30:23 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Picking up the Eagle

I know it is not good form to follow up my own postings but...

********

The scene: Tranquillity Base Museum.
The time:  the 21st century.

... and this is the bottom half of the Eagle, the craft which first took
men to the surface of the moon.

But where did the people sit?

Oh they were in the top bit. It was left in orbit and it eventually came
down and smashed to bits because no-one came back to get it.

Didn't come back? Why not?

No-one knows Comrade.

*******

Add as many :-) as you think it needs.

	Bob Gray.
	Edinburgh University Computing Service, IT school
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British National Space Centre: one of this country's better kept secrets.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #316
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Aug 87 06:17:45 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07392; Mon, 17 Aug 87 03:16:19 PDT
	id AA07392; Mon, 17 Aug 87 03:16:19 PDT
Date: Mon, 17 Aug 87 03:16:19 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708171016.AA07392@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #317

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 317

Today's Topics:
	  Picking up the Eagle (Was Re: SPOT Specifications)
		   Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands
		  7-day Adult Space Academy for 1988
		   Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands
			       Telstar
			      NET SPACE
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 12:29:37 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (Bob Gray)
Subject: Picking up the Eagle (Was Re: SPOT Specifications)

In article <596@rlgvax.UUCP> russ@rlgvax.UUCP (Russ Olsen) writes:
>someone from NASA says that the ascent stage of lunar module was left in
>an orbit around the Moon which should last about 20 years.
>
>Let's see... 1969 + 20 = 1989.
>
>Does anyone know if the ascent stage of Eagle is still in orbit?  If so,
>does anyone have an idea of when it will hit?

The ascent stage of the first lunar lander should surely be classified
as one of the USA's important vehicles and should be on display in the
museum (I forget which one) next to the Apollo 11 command module.

The news that part of America's greatest achievment in space is about to
smash into the moon and be lost if fed to the general public in the
right way might be the spur needed to get NASA or someone else to do
something.

Eight years to go from putting a man in orbit to puting a man on the
moon the first time. How long to go back to the moon (either manned or
unmanned) and recover Eagle?

You have two years.

On second thoughts, everything else is disposable, why not national
treasures?
	Bob Gray.
	Edinburgh University Computing Service, IT school
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The British National Space Centre: one of this country's better kept secrets.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 87 02:20:49 GMT
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Wanna C. DeSupernova)
Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands

In article <4228@hplabsb.UUCP>, dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
> Oops.  Komarov was not the first man to return to space.  Grissom went
> into space for the 2nd time two years before, on Gemini 3.  Cooper
> went into orbit for the 2nd time aboard Gemini 5.

Suborbital "flight" is not serious. Cooper, therefore, was the first to
execute a second orbital flight (Mercury 9 and Gemini 5). He was
followed by Schirra (Mercury 8 and Gemini 6). Thereafter other
space-veterans were Stafford, Young, Conrad, Lovell, and Komarov.

Yaron Sheffer

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 17:47:30 GMT
From: clyde!wayback!atux01!jlc@rutgers.edu  (J. Collymore)
Subject: 7-day Adult Space Academy for 1988

I received a letter from Deb Barnhart (Deputy for Space Camp) in
response to my recommendations for a seven-day Adult Space Adcdemy Level
II session(s).  She stated that they liked my suggestions and WILL
implement such a program next year in 1988!

She did not mention what the price would be, or the week(s) that it
would be offered.  However, for those of you who want more than the
three-day sessions offer, and a week at Space Academy fits comfortably
into your vacation schedule, keep those days free in September-October
of 1988!

Hope to see you there!


						Jim Collymore

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 22:07:33 GMT
From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu  (Omega.Mosley`)
Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands

In article <2030@utastro.UUCP>, yaron@utastro.UUCP (Wanna C. DeSupernova) writes:
> Suborbital "flight" is not serious. Cooper, therefore, was the first
> to execute a second orbital flight (Mercury 9 and Gemini 5).
  
...sorry, Yaron, but NASA, not to mention Jane's, counts Suborbs in the
Mercury class as serious flights. Therefor, Gus Grissom was the first to
return as far as the records go.

						Omega.Mosley

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 20:40:06 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Telstar

July 10, 1987 was the 25th anniversary of the launch of Telstar.

Telstar was the first communications satellite and the first commercial
venture into space. Telstar, weighing in at 170 pounds, was launched
using a two stage Delta liquid fueled rocket with a solid fueled third
stage.  The third stage was derived from the third stage used on the
Vanguard launchers.

I thought you might want to know.

		Bob Pendleton

------------------------------

Date:     Thursday 06 Aug 87 3:15 PM CT
From: GREGG COHEN FSTCGAPG@UIAMVS <FSTCGAPG@uiamvs>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject:  NET SPACE

This was sent to me by a friend who is now in Houston.  It was in the
Houston Chronicle several weeks ago (I didn't get the date or page
number) I think that it is indicative of the political stance where
space program is concerned.

"DEMS BAILED OUT OVER 'SPACE CITY'" by Nicholas C. Chriss

   Bill Buckley, Bob Strauss and seven Democratic presidential
contenders rattled on for two hours at the Wortham Center last week
about the nation's future and the nation's problems- the deficit, tax
reform, nuclear weapons, oil prices, AIDS, and yes, even Cuba- but never
once mentioned the nations faltering, trouble plagued space program.
    It wasn't as if these people were in Dubuque, Iowa [What is wrong
with Dubuque? -GC].  They were in 'Space City' -Houston.
  It was if the Chalenger accident had never happened, as if the shuttle
spaceship had never disintegrated in flight 74 seconds after launch in
January 1986, resulting in the deaths of 7 crew members; as if the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration's plans were not on hold,
with the $16 billion space-station program buried in so much confusion
it is called the "space station of the month project"; as if launches
weren't in a hiatus; and as if NASA had more than just its one
heavy-lift rocket left.
   The American space program today has so little heavy-lift strength
that several companies have gone into the business of trying to place
multimillion dollar, two ton U. S. commercial satellites on Soviet
rockets because this country doesn't have the rockets to launch them.
   And right here in Space City, where much of the trouble is, not a
word from these people who want to be president.  [goes on to discuss
how Houston is Space City, with astronauts' homes, JSC, Lunar and
Planetary Institute, and fledgling companies]
  But there was no mention of any of this at the debate, or in any of
the news conferences some of the contenders held prior to and after the
debate.
   With all his wit and wisdom, columnist Buckley never brought it up,
and Democratic baron Strauss, a Texan, did not in their questions
  Sen. Albert Gore of Tennessee, a member of the Committee on Commerce,
Science and Transportation, which has dealt with the space program,
including the failure of quality assurance, neglected to even mention
NASA, the Challenger, or anything about space goals of the future.
Instead, Gore chose to cite the "young, restless spirit of our pioneer
nation" as embodied by Andrew Jackson more than 100 years ago [maybe
Albert has been listening to Tippy's choice of records, instead of the
news -GC].
  Former Arizona Gov. Bruce Babbitt enumerated nine items the country
must have to save itself, including leadership, but the space program
was not among them.  Joe Biden bragged about his experience in Congress,
as did Paul Simon.  Jesse Jackson explained his presence in cuba some
years ago.  Dick Gephardt wants to put a picture of the Constitution in
the Oval Office.
  The closest these distinguished and polished politicians came to space
was the Strategic Defense Initiative, but apparently even the discussion
of "Star Wars" didn't ring a bell in their minds concerning the present
problems of space exploration.
   None had a word to say about where the United States is going in
space, or the fact that we are at least 10 years behind the Soviet Union
in space achievements and dropping further behind each year.
  "We have a bipartisan non-policy on space," said a somewhat cynical
and long-time observer of NASA and the nation's space program.  "It's
very typical of politicians since the payoffs are always beyond the
election after next."
  In other word, it takes longer than two or four years to implement a
NASA policy and get a voting return on the investment.
    [end of article]

       I have a few questions and observations about this.

   1.  Why does it take so long to implement 'policy'?

   2.  Are the politicians telling us something the general population
       feels by going to Houston and neglecting to even acknowledge the
       largest single industry in the area (other than oil)?

   3.  Maybe this is where we can have a voice.  By pointing out to our
       colleagues that one little slip and a whole political party
       decides that it is not worth discussing, we should take more
       control of the 'politics' of the situation ourselves, . (I know
       that this is hard to do other than vote for someone who 'says'
       they want the same things we do)


       I would also like to know if this road show has
        been anywhere else that the lack of discussion of
      a direction for space exploration has occurred.

I agree, there is only one space-faring nation
       that is why I took Russian as a foreign language

Gregg Cohen

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #317
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Aug 87 06:21:08 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09199; Tue, 18 Aug 87 03:20:03 PDT
	id AA09199; Tue, 18 Aug 87 03:20:03 PDT
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 87 03:20:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708181020.AA09199@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #318

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 318

Today's Topics:
		      Mars Survey results (long)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 87 02:16:16 GMT
From: jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jonathan P. Leech)
Subject: Mars Survey results (long)

    Well, the responses to my Mars survey have finally stopped trickling
in, and here are the results. Enjoy.

    First, the numbers: 40 people sent in responses. Of those, we had:

	35  In favor of a Lunar base
	3   In favor of a Mars mission
	9   In favor of other major goals

    as the next major project after the Space Station.	The totals
exceed 40 as several people said we should do it all.

    The 'other major goals' fell into 3 categories:

		      *
	Major unmanned	planetary science initiatives (Mars sample
	    return, Mars surface rover, Io & Titan landers were all
	    mentioned by different people)

	Initiatives to make access to low Earth orbit routine & cheap
	    (5 responses said basically the same thing).

	One person suggested new propulsion mechanisms for fast &
	    reliable interplanetary travel, & exploitation of asteroids.

    5 people identified themselves as space scientists. 2 of those were
in favor of the Moon base, 1 of Mars sample return, 1 of a combined Mars
orbiter & surface rover, and 1 of doing Mars, the Moon, and lots of
planetary science at the same time. I was expecting more pro-Mars
sentiment from the space scientists.

    It's interesting that these responses cover 3 of the 4 areas that
Sally Ride's report on future NASA goals is supposed to address.  Nobody
mentioned the intensive 'Mission to Earth' program supposedly in that
report (how do we get a copy?).

    It is of course invalid to draw any broad conclusions from this
data. People who read sci.space/SPACE DIGEST are a biased population,
and there was a strong selection effect in who chose to respond.

    I thank everyone who responded. Following are the comments sent in
by many of those people (over 400 lines worth). If you followup this
article, please make sure to remove all that stuff!

    -- Jon
    __@/

(*) OK, 'piloted' is a reasonable gender-neutral word to use in place
    of 'manned'. But 'unpiloted' gives entirely the wrong impression.
    Better suggestions solicited...

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENTS RECEIVED IN SURVEY (in order of reception):
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: rmeyer@CCA.CCA.COM (Richard Meyer)

    I am very much in favor of a grand program with the final goal of
    sending a piloted mission to Mars.	My hope is that in the
    course of this mission, worthwhile intermediate goals will also be
    set as major milestones (the goal being as it is, very ambitious),
    thus keeping the enthusiasm and support of the public alive over a
    long period.

From: seismo!harvard!cfa!willner (Steve Willner)

    No one goal should exclude all other activities.  We need a variety
    of scientific missions to prepare for the future, to encourage
    technology development, and to learn about the Universe.

From: kpmancus@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Keith P. Mancus)

      ...I want to establish a long-term many-person prescence in space
    as soon as possible, and I want to go up myself as soon as possible
    for an extended stay (not a hit-and-run Shuttle mission!)
      I don't want to have to say, at age 50 or so, that I was born too
    soon.

From: web@brahms.Berkeley.EDU (William Baxter)

    One can hardly claim that half a dozen visits to the moon constitute
    complete exploration in any sense.  There is much more to understand
    there.

    Routine access to space will be necessary for either a permanent
    lunar base or a manned mission to mars, but the former is a less
    costly, less risky scheme for development of this capability.

    A Mars mission is the appropriate goal for manned space exploration
    immediately after establishing a permanent presence on the moon.
    When we goes to Mars it should not be to visit, but to stay.

From: Joel Swank <joels@tekred.tek.com>

    I favor a perminant lunar base as the best way to move into space.
    I am not against a Mars trip.  The best option would be manned use
    of near space AND robot exploration of distant space.  But the most
    important thing is to get off our butts and do something.

From: blia.UUCP!heather@cgl.ucsf.edu (Heather Mackinnon)

    A space station is certainly the next step.  After that, I think we
    need to consider a colony either in earth orbit or on the Moon.  The
    colony could be small but should attempt to grow its own food and
    manufacture many of the goods it needs.  It should be a colony as
    opposed to a base, a place where people (men, women and children)
    live as opposed to a place where a young military inductee does hir
    time.  I think a colony would both capture the public imagination
    and give us invaluable insights as to what is necessary to move
    further from Earth.  As trips grow longer, the need for vessels to
    be both farms and factories increases.  In the long run, the
    commercial opportunities in space will be a deciding factor in how
    fast human presence grows in space.  I think both a lunar base and a
    personned flight to Mars lack scope and commitment.  The flight to
    Mars is a throwaway; a lunar base would be military in nature rather
    than exploratory.

From: gb74219@scgvaxd.SCG.HAC.COM (Gordon Barbay)

    I grew up with space program and am a supporter of a strong manned
    effort.  I feel that the support for unmanned missions will wane if
    the mannned program lapses.  However I do think we should have a
    strong unmanned program to compliment the manned program.  Bottom
    line here is we shouldn't be squabbling over what size piece of the
    pie each area gets but should all be trying to get a bigger pie.

From: Ken Arnold <apollo!arnold@EDDIE.MIT.EDU>

    The Mars mission is the Apollo debacle all over again on a larger
    scale.  Once we get there, we're finished, so disinterest sets in.
    A permanent Lunar base as a goal is not so cut-and-dry.

From: seismo!swatsun!scott (Jay Scott)

    What's really most important is to have a coherent plan that people
    agree on.  Even a kind of mooshy vague one, as long as it will stick
    around and not go poof like a certain past one.

    Here's my reasoning about my particular choice of plan:

    Companies trying automate their operations are more likely to
    succeed if they take it a step at a time, applying what they learn
    at each stage in the next one.  I think that's true when doing
    anything big and risky, especially if you hope for great benefit in
    the long run: Go slow and build up.

    In exploring an object in space, the build-up steps are somewhat
    agreed on:

    1) flyby		    done for all planets but Neptune and Pluto,
			    and for active comets, but not for asteroids
			    or comets far from the Sun

    1.5) hard land	    (sometimes)

    2) soft land	    done for the Moon, Mars, and Venus

    3) fetch samples back   done for the Moon

    4) visit in person	    done for the Moon (Apollo did 3 and 4 at the
			    same time)

    5) set up housekeeping  not done

    (There are other possibilities, for example building an intermittently-
    tended base.)

    The argument is between doing steps 3 and 4 for Mars, though not
    necessarily all at once like Apollo, and doing step 5 for the Moon.
    (Step 4 for Venus looks impossible.  Good thing, or we'd have a
    worse argument. :-)

    The Moon is cheaper, easier, quicker, and less risky, and it's
    roughly as important as Mars.  (More important if you believe humans
    belong in space, and that having a permanent presence will help
    build the infrastructure; maybe less important if you believe only
    in gathering information.)  So by this argument it should be next.

    Some people don't think step 5 makes sense for any planet.  (I guess
    they'll stay home. :-) I don't know what to do about that.  It
    strikes me as incaution, but no doubt they see it as caution.

From: dennis@cod.nosc.mil (Dennis Cottel)

    Get people permanently living and building in space, even in LEO,
    then the rest will follow.	Let the Soviets make the spectacular
    trip to Mars at enormous expense, while we build up a longer term
    foundation for the future.

From: John Hogg <hogg@csri.toronto.edu>

    Go cheap, go stupid, go risky if required, but go now.

From: seismo!cbmvax!hutch!rabbit1!tom

    More money for observation:  earth, space, and lunar based.

From: Brad Miller <miller@DOUGHNUT.CS.ROCHESTER.EDU>

		_x_ (Other, describe here)
		    Tests of new propulsion mechanisms for fast/reliable
    interplanetary travel; and/or exploitation of asteroids.

    I also think unmanned exploration is the way to go for now: it's a
    *lot* cheaper.

    Keep the gov out of space. All of the above done w/private $$,
    thank you.

From: ota@galileo.s1.gov

	_X_ (Other, describe here)

    Some kind of a national project to reduce the cost of reaching LEO
    would be best, like building the transcon railroad.  Probably that
    will require some kind of a "use" for all that stuff which is better
    a Lunar base than a Mars mission.

From: DAVID%penndrls.BITnet@Hamlet.caltech.edu (R. David Murray)

    I don't really care what we do in space, so long as we are doing
    something.	The only thing I object to is asking for more money
    for project X at the expense of project Y.  All the projects that
    survived the initial evaluation phase have vast merit.  All should
    be funded.	They won't be, but the ***last*** thing we (space
    enthusiasts of all kinds) should do is present a case to congress
    why one (or more) of the projects is not a good idea.

From: RETANTS%sunrise.BITnet@Hamlet.caltech.edu (Rebecca Tants)

    I think that it is important to work toward both goals, but I feel
    that the moon is our first priority.  We have already started by
    putting a man up there, now we must continue.  I do not feel,
    however, that the two goals are mutually exclusive.	I belive
    that we can begin building that base, while preparing and launching
    a manned flight to mars.  Both can be worked on if we can get the
    money.  Private industry getting involved in the space exploration
    program could help this problem.  NASA is not getting the budget
    they need to do both, and are not effectively useing what they are
    getting.  This has to be worked out before anything is completed.

From: RON PICARD <PICARD@gmr.com>

    Any reason to go to Mars applies towards going to the moon.

From: Hank.Walker@taurus.ece.cmu.edu

    Make money and send robots, then send people.

From: David Waitzman <djw@galley.ece.cmu.edu>

    wait for mars- we don't yet have propulsion systems that make it
    viable to go there.  a moon base will provide positive returns.

From: ~  Victor Von Doom  ~   <J.JBRENNER@MACBETH.STANFORD.EDU>

    Would like to see government programs that encourage or at least
    don't interfere with private space development.

From: Jacob Hugart <GWCHUGPG%UIAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>

    Whatever we will do to/on Mars, we have/can achieve on the Moon.  We
    could use the practice -- and the patience.  Besides, it isn't
    really a question of which comes first, but of when do we begin?

From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ@sdr.slb.com>

    The major goal should be reduction of the cost of getting to orbit.
    Even if the moon wasn't there, $100B for a manned Mars exploration
    program would be difficult to justify scientifically -- why spend
    such a large fraction of the US scientific budget on such an
    esoteric subject?  This argument will remain valid until launch
    costs are reduced dramatically.

    Assuming we've decided to spend money on space science, that money
    should be allocated purely on the basis of scientific merit, not for
    political reasons.  I would personally like to see much more spent
    on telescopes in earth orbit -- observations from such instruments
    would be enormously important scientifically, and they'll be cheap
    relative to manned Mars exploration or a lunar base (although one
    may eventually want to place observatories on the moon, several
    decades hence).  The current lack of US telescopes in space is, in
    my opinion, a greater scandal than the lack of planetary probes.

    NASA should spend more money on basic technological development --
    materials, new engine technologies, components, etc. That sort of
    development isn't all that expensive at first, has the highest
    spin-off potential, and is important for the long term health of the
    space program.

From: Dale.Amon@h.cs.cmu.edu

    I am not against going to Mars, only against doing it in a manner
    that leads to a one shot program. It is entirely appropriate to plan
    a program that includes both Mars and a lunar base as components.

From: Tim Shimeall <tim%temple.uci.edu@ROME.UCI.EDU>

    I) Next goal in space:
       Permanent lunar base
	-- note that this is NEXT, not FINAL goal
	   I think we should try for mars immediately after that & use
	   the lunar base as a gateway for exploration of both the moon
	   and the other solar system planets...

    III) I sat through a very interesting presentation about a year ago,
	 given by a guy from NASA Ames.  He talked about how to go to
	 Mars by the year 2000, using almost-current technology, with
	 continuous exploration for the next 10 years.  He had a LOT of
	 good reasons for putting a base on mars rather than the moon:
	  -- closer to outer solar system (and beyond)
	  -- atmosphere (protection, fewer pressure problems)
	  -- availability of bio resources (water, etc) which
	     simplifies base-building
	  -- can manufacture propellant (CO->CO2) in site

    In short, I'm torn between the moon and mars: I think the moon is a
    more easily acheivable near term goal -- but Mars is where I really
    want to get to.

    Hiking trips up Olympus Mons, anyone?

From: Russ Williams <CS.RWILLIAMS@R20.UTEXAS.EDU>

    Hi, I think that a lunar base should be done before visiting mars, I
    don't work in space science, and I would comment that manned
    exploration seems far costlier and less reliable; it seems much more
    sensible to use robot probes, and I would like to see exploration of
    the solar system stepped up using probes.  If in addition, the
    manned program gets rolling again, so much the better!  But don't
    sacrifice our proven ability to succesfully explore for risky
    premature manned efforts.

From: "PAT REIFF" <reiff@spacvax.rice.edu>

    1.	Mars:yes
	Moon:yes (can be used as a way station for Mars mission -
    coattail effect)
    	Other: unmanned Io and/or Titan landers (to go with Jupiter or
    Saturn orbiters, respectively).  Need to keep unmanned program
    active - still the cheapest way to gather scientific data; also best
    for training of graduate students.

    3.	In an international COSPAR meeting, summer '84 in Graz,
    Austria, they had a public session in which Russian, U.S., and
    European astronauts talked about their experiences (they even had an
    Indian who had done meditiation to forestall space sickness - it
    apparently worked, since he didn't get sick).  Anyway, I almost
    raised my hand at that meeting to suggest a joint US/Soviet Mars
    mission, but I chickened out.  The neat thing about such a mission
    is that it gives our two countries a major project to work on
    peaceably - not just the Apollo/Soyuz which was an afterthought -
    this one will take real planning and a lot a cooperative work.  My
    personal dealings with Russian scientists have been very friendly
    and productive, and this would be a terrific way to excite the young
    people of both countries again.

From: Lynn.ES@Xerox.COM (Donald S. Lynn)

    The Mars mission isn't a bad idea.  Lunar base is just better.  I
    think we will get more for the bucks if we do the moon first.  Lots
    of things we learn about long term stays off earth for the moon will
    apply to Mars missions when we do them later.

From: ROSENTHAL@ames-pluto.ARPA (Don Rosenthal)

    I. The wording of your first question assumes an agreement on the
    validity of the planned space station for space science. There is
    hardly general agreement on that, but as it's not the main focus of
    your survey, I'll leave that topic for now--be happy to discuss that
    issue with you some other time.

    	My first priority is getting through the backlog of grounded
    astronomical missions: HST (which I worked on for four years),
    Gallileo (which should win a place in the Guiness book of records
    for mission delays), etc.  But that's not really what you were
    looking for either.

    	To answer your question most directly, I would have to say
    that from the point of view of space science, a combined Mars
    Observer and semi-autonomous roving vehicle is extremely exciting.
    More so (again, from a scientific perspective) than a return to the
    moon. Although one never wants to be in a position of judging
    scientific importance of one group's interests over another, I would
    say that the reason for my special interest in Mars comes from the
    evidence that seems to show that for their first half billion years
    or so, the Earth and Mars were remarkably similar, and evolved away
    from each other. That leaves a tremendous number of intriguing
    questions open for investigation.

    	I would have to state that the best science is done when
    people, rather than only machines, were conducting the science.  For
    that reason, I feel that eventually, a pilotted mission to Mars is
    appropriate. Before or after returning to the moon? For purely
    scientific reasons, I would say before. For other, more "practical"
    reasons (especially economy and travel time, but also from the point
    of view of developing the technology and infrastructure for
    planetary exploration) the moon makes more sense.

    III. There is much doom and gloom presented in the discussion group
    with respect to NASA. Much of it is true. But I'm also encouraged by
    the fact that at many levels there is now a true committment to
    changing the Agency for the better. I would not have signed up if I
    felt it was an unchangeable bureaucracy.  There's a new management
    attitude of "give the techies enough rope to hang themselves with".
    That's all I ask for.

From: seismo!soma!uhnix1!sugar!peter (Peter da Silva)

    	A permanent lunar base should include at least a pilot plant
    to test the feasibility of using lunar aluminum as a building
    material in cislunar space.

From: "Michael J. Scudder" <seismo!RELAY.CS.NET!SCUDDER@cs.umass.edu>

    I would agree with Dale Skran and not directly oppose a manned Mars
    mission.  Instead, try to direct the Mars effort toward building up
    easy access to space and opening up the moon for peaceful uses.

    From the viewpoint of capturing the public's imagination, a
    permament Lunar base should be (almost?) as good as putting a man on
    Mars.  When people realize that going for a moon base brings closer
    the day their kids and perhaps little sisters and brothers can go
    into space, the moon looks much more attractive.

    I was at the Boskone Science Fiction convention in February and
    listened to an L5 sponsered panel on a joint US-Soviet mission to
    Mars.  The Audience was 80+% in favor when polled.	I also was
    in favor, although that was before I was reading the SPACE notes
    file.  The arguments were: (1) The Soviets are going anyway.  They
    want (perhaps mostly for public relations purposes) us to go with
    them.  We might as well take advantage of the opprtunity.	(2)
    The effort could divert the super-powers from the arms race.  (3) We
    would get the infrastructure we want as a necessary consequence of
    preparing to go to Mars.  [Reflecting on the Apollo experience I
    suspect we would find some way to go without building much
    infrastructure.  Having decided to go to Mars, we would naturally
    want to find the cheapest way to do this.  For a lunar base, the
    impetuous would be toward reducing the cost of getting out of our
    gravity well even at the expense of considerable capital
    investment.]

    A sustained commitment by the goverment to purchase payload
    transport to space, as in Keith Lofstrom's proposal, sounds like a
    very good station'.

From: Christopher Joerg <CFJ@XX.LCS.MIT.EDU>

    A mission to Mars is too much of a 'one shot deal'.  It would be
    nice to do but once it's over we are right back where we started
    from. (and heading no place)

    A permanent moon base would be more useful scientifically, and it
    would help us develop a space technology that would make space more
    accessible in the long run.

From: seismo!ai.toronto.edu!utzoo!henry (Henry Spencer)

    Actually, low-cost Earth-to-orbit is far higher priority than any of
    these, but I increasingly believe that a deliberate government
    effort to achieve this is doomed to fail.  The preferred government
    role is as a customer -- a long-term steady major-volume customer --
    which will encourage private industry to get costs down.  Apart from
    its desirability for other reasons, the Lunar base is an *ongoing*
    operation rather than a one-shot.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #318
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Aug 87 06:19:39 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01467; Wed, 19 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT
	id AA01467; Wed, 19 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT
Date: Wed, 19 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708191018.AA01467@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #319

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 319

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Still more infighting
	      Re: Please quash the one-shot Mars canard
		   Re: Sagan == Death of the Future
		   Re: Sagan == Death of the Future
		    (Inter)National Moon Colonies
		      Re: Still more infighting
	     Re: RIGHT STUFF misquote (but true anyway!)
		    Re: Mars Survey results (long)
			      Lunar City
		   Re: Sagan == Death of the Future
			    Re: NET SPACE
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 87 00:18:02 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Still more infighting

> The Apollo program was a "one-shot" exploration program.  And it was a
> remarkable success ... Then... what happened?  We turned our space
> program over to the "infrastructure" people, that's what...

"Those who do not learn from history are condemned to repeat it."  The
Apollo program was not, repeat NOT, conceived as or meant as a one-shot
exploration program.  The men who built the Apollo spacecraft thought they
were building the first version of something that would evolve into more
capable lunar spacecraft, unmanned cargo landers, etc... not to mention
non-Apollo uses.  The men who built the Saturn V, although they had the
needs of an ongoing Apollo program in mind, thought they were building
the booster that would be NASA's heavylift launcher well into the 1980s,
at which time it would presumably be superseded by something still better.
These men were very definitely trying to build infrastructure; the first
landings on the Moon were just the first step.

> The people who promised us "routine" access to space (as if once-
> a-month flights to the moon weren't routine access...).

Once a month?  Please recheck your reference books.  Apollo never
reached that level of activity, although one day it might have if it had
been allowed to.

> The people who foresaw long-term space stations (as if Skylab, which
> had been tossed up almost as an afterthought, was something else...).

Skylab, for all its virtues, really *was* a one-shot.  In particular,
its major consumables (oxygen, attitude-control gas, etc.) could not be
replenished in orbit.  I would guess that at least one Soviet cosmonaut
has, by now, more time in space than all nine Skylab astronauts put
together.  A space station, yes, but "long-term" is stretching it a bit.

> I think it's time to give space back to the dreamers...

On the whole I agree... provided the dreams aren't one-shots and can't
easily be perverted into one-shots.  Note the word "sustained" in my
signature.

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 8 Aug 87 00:28:33 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Please quash the one-shot Mars canard

> I've seen a lot of postings which presume that Lou Friedman, Carl
> Sagan, and their buddies are SO DUMB that the "Apollo Problem" HASN'T
> OCCURRED TO THEM YET.  I take strenuous objection to this; those guys
> are as smart as you are, and are quite aware of the danger that Mars
> could become another dead end...

Yet they press ahead, disregarding it.  (If they have a plan -- a
*plan*, not just wishful thinking -- for dealing with this problem, I
sure haven't seen any sign of it.)  Sure does make one wonder about
their motives, doesn't it?

> The truth is that they are pushing for an *extended* program of
> Martian exploration, up to and including permanently manned Mars bases
> which use local resources for most of their consumables.  This goal
> makes perfect sense, because as planetary scientists they'd want to
> study Mars intensively, returning over and over again to examine a
> broad range of phenomena.  (How long did it take before the Earth was
> adequately "explored?")

Tell them their lunar-specialist friends can explain what happened to
the extended exploration planned by the Apollo project.  For that
matter, ask them whether six brief visits are an adequate way to explore
a planet, and if the answer is "no", ask them why they think a return to
the Moon is of no real importance.  (They have said so, in writing.)

> So, please, let's not have any more criticism of Mars initiatives on
> the assumption that their advocates are idiots looking for one-shot
> missions.

Not idiots looking for one-shot missions.  Just short-sighted people who
see a Mars program, even if it gets cut to a one-shot mission, as being
more important than building an *ongoing* space program which will take
a bit longer to reach Mars.

> And many of the arguments put forward in favor of a piloted trip to
> Mars lose their appeal when applied to a continuing program.  So it
> would be a tough problem to maintain support over the decades
> necessary to carry out such a program, and one does have to worry
> about a jaded Congress (or Politburo) pulling the plug in the wake of
> the first success.

But we must press on nevertheless, ignoring this fatal flaw?  Or hoping
that it will magically go away somehow?  Or, perhaps, ignoring it...
because making the first trip AS SOON AS POSSIBLE is the only thing that
certain planetary scientists really care about right now?

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 21:12:55 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future

> However, Sagan is quite explicit and up-front in stating his
> reasoning.  It would force the US and USSR to divert some of the
> enormous resources they waste each year on self-destructive persuits
> towards something that, while certainly not the most cost-effective
> way to spend such sums of money, is at least more benign...

Unfortunately, this is the same misguided zero-sum argument that says
that the only way to support unmanned planetary exploration is to attack
manned spaceflight.  The idea that Mars funding would come out of the
DoD budget is laughable; if it were funded at all, it would be funded
*in addition* to whatever level of defence spending was fashionable at
the time.  If one or the other had to give because total spending was
too high, it would be the space budget that would get the axe.  I'm
afraid Sagan is letting his political obsessions blind him to fiscal
realities.

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 5 Aug 87 15:27:01 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future

In article <704@faline.bellcore.com> karn@faline.UUCP writes:
 >I think it is the height of unfairness to say that the Planetary
 >Society wants to "steal" your dream. Let's face facts. If anything,
 >our bloated overemphasis on manned space flight has not only "stolen
 >dreams" from the less glamorous but scientifically far more worthwhile
 >unmanned planetary exploration program, it has killed the dreamers
 >through attrition.  Everybody here knows what the Challenger disaster
 >and the

The dream *IS* manned (personned) space flight, not just flight, but a
spacefaring civilization.  Ask the average Joe Taxpayer why he supports
the space program -- is it because he sees himself or his kids someday
travelling out there, or is it because he wants to make the solar system
safe for robots?  As the man said in _The_Right_Stuff_, "no Buck Rogers,
no bucks".

 >that there are rational reasons for SDI, instead of its real purpose
 >being to guarantee full employment and exponential growth for the
 >weapons industry.
 >
 >Phil

This comment is so stupid it's not worth the net traffic to flame it.
-- 
 Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al
                      UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair

(Why do they call it a signature file if I can't actually *sign* anything?)

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 08 Aug 87 14:55:06 GMT
From: "Michael J. Hammel" <SNHAM%TTUVM1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: (Inter)National Moon Colonies

Evelyn C. Leeper writes:

> Do you support the establishment of a permanent American city on the
> moon?

By all means, yes. But I was wondering why it should be American only? An
undertaking such as this must be quite expensive.  Wouldn't it be to our
advantage to do a joint project, say with the European's and maybe Japan?
The expense would be lessened, as might the time it would take to complete.
I don't keep a watchful eye on the world much these days, to busy trying to
pay the bills I guess, so maybe this sort of thing isn't really possible,
politically I mean. I was just curious what you thought.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 15:34:38 GMT
From: cfa!mink@husc6.harvard.edu  (Doug Mink)
Subject: Re: Still more infighting

I came across a September 1969 copy of Space/Aeronautics magazine (I
have no idea whether or not it's still published).  It is a special
issue assessing the past and future of Man in Space following the moon
landing.  On page 57 is a fascinating time table of the future through
1985.  Some highlights of what was definitely a wish list even then
include:
   - Apollo lunar exploration through 1977, followed by a lunar orbit
     base.
   - An Apollo Applications Orbiting Workshop in the early 70's leading
     to a prototype station in 1976, operating stations in 1978, and an
     earth-orbitin space base in 1980.
   - An interim shuttle in 1973 and advanced shuttles in 1977.
   - A nuclear rocket for use in space by 1975 with earth-orbit to lunar
     orbit shuttles in 1979 as well as a planetary "tug".
   - Post-Saturn and Titan 3 "cheap" boosters in 1976.
   - Manned planetary missions in 1984.

The caption read:
    "The existing technology and the plans NASA has for developing it
    will phase toward families of stations, bases, and shuttlecraft,
    operating in earth orbit, and with possible manned missions to the
    near planets."

Other than the Apollo Applications Workshop which became Skylab, NONE of
this exists (for all practical purposes, the shuttle doesn't exist now).
An alternate present based on what could have happened it NASA had
maintained level funding after its budget peaked (in 1966, I believe)
would make an interesting setting for an SF story.  It was the world I
thought I was growing up into.

Doug Mink, aging hippy astronomer
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
Cambridge, Massachusetts
UUCP:      {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!mink
Internet:  mink@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 16:25:50 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!ecl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: RIGHT STUFF misquote (but true anyway!)

In article <825@thumperbellcore.com>, mike@thumper.UUCP writes:
> > safe for robots?  As the man said in _The_Right_Stuff_, "no Buck
> > Rogers, no bucks".
> 
> The correct quote (from the movie; I'm not sure if this phrase occurs
> in the book at all) is "No bucks, no Buck Rogers".

True, but as my husband has pointed out in relation to whether or not
one should oppose the manned Mars mission, the converse *is* true: "No
Buck Rogers, no bucks."  Congress (and the mass of the American public)
will not spend a lot of money on a non-flashy program.  If they can't
have their "Buck Rogers," we can't have the bucks.  A quiet step-by-step
approach may be the best, but realistically, we have to give the public
they can understand--like a person on Mars.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 16:07:51 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Mack)
Subject: Re: Mars Survey results (long)

I missed this survey but I'd like to drop in my 2 cents anyhow.

The planetary scientists have their own agenda. They want the
instruments they need to do their research, so it's no surprise that
they favor unmanned missions to Mars, etc. Unfortunately, this doesn't
contribute to a permanent human presence in space. (Neither would a
one-shot manned Mars mission.) I regard that permanent presence in space
as important for a variety of reasons.

The greatest problem in accomplishing this is lifting matter out of the
Earth's gravity well. We should do as little of this as possible.
Ideally, the only payload going from Earth should be people. Everything
else should be manufactured in space. The most reasonable nearby source
of raw materials is the Moon.

The first priority would be to establish mining, smelting, and
manufacturing facilities on the Moon, together with specialized
manufacturing capabilities in circumlunar orbit. The facility would be
permanently manned but highly automated. This facility would then
manufacture its own extensions, a lunar launch facility, and launch
vehicles. Ultimately, it would deliver preformed components and some raw
materials to circumlunar orbit for assembly into large space structures
as needed.

In retrospect, this is pretty ambitious for a citizen of a nation that
can't even get satellites into orbit anymore. Sigh.

  Dave Mack

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 22:32:03 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject:  Lunar City

>But why should it be American only?  [discusses joint projects]

  I don't like this idea at all.  Having all the different government
departments and agencies agree on an idea is difficult enough; getting
the equivalent agencies of other countries to agree too is hilarious!
Look at the current status of the joint ESA/NASA space station!
  By all means let the colony (?) be open to qualified individuals of
other nations.  Part of America's strength has always been her mix of
different nationalities, cultures, religions, etc.  I have many friends
who are not American citizens.  So let's make the colony a mix, but
DON'T SHARE THE OWNERSHIP of it.  I have no use for foreign
*governments* (our own gives us enough trouble!)

  -Keith Mancus <kpmancus@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU>

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 19:49:23 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!ems!rosevax!pwcs!dennisg@speedy.wisc.edu  (Dennis Grittner)
Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future

In article <8391@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> However, Sagan is quite explicit and up-front in stating his
>> reasoning.  It would force the US and USSR to divert some of the
>> enormous resources they waste each year on self-destructive persuits
>> towards something that, while certainly not the most cost-effective
>> way to spend such sums of money, is at least more benign...

>the space budget that would get the axe.  I'm afraid Sagan is letting
>his political obsessions blind him to fiscal realities.

Well gee whiz Harry. I think that it is admirable to have the GOAL of
the US and the USSR devoting more of their money and energy to
spaceflight than to weapons and other military expenditures. I think
it's a bit silly on your part to attack such an admirable goal, and
darned pessimistic to assume that Reagan's stupid military priorities
will reign forever.

I, for one, think that the goal of having MORE money spent on space and
less wasted on military trash is a wonderful one. A move toward JOINT,
peaceful exploration of space with the USSR wouldn't bother me either.

I'm just not ready to accept the reality that almost none of the
electorate is ready to STOP wasting money, and start having vision. I
think that somebody like Carl Sagan CAN have a positive effect, and we
ought to be helping him - even if we don't agree with everything he says
or does.

Dennis Grittner		City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
(612) 298-4402		Room 700, 25 W. 4th St. 55102
"Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!"

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 19:37:06 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!ems!rosevax!pwcs!dennisg@speedy.wisc.edu  (Dennis Grittner)
Subject: Re: NET SPACE

In article <8708062017.AA16514@angband.s1.gov> FSTCGAPG@uiamvs (GREGG COHEN FSTCGAPG@UIAMVS) writes:
>This was sent to me by a friend who is now in Houston.  It was in the
>Houston Chronicle several weeks ago (I didn't get the date or page
>number) I think that it is indicative of the political stance where
>space program is concerned.
>
>"DEMS BAILED OUT OVER 'SPACE CITY'" by Nicholas C. Chriss
>
>Bill Buckley, Bob Strauss and seven Democratic presidential contenders
>rattled on for two hours at the Wortham Center last week about the
>nation's future and the nation's problems- the deficit, tax reform,
>nuclear weapons, oil prices, AIDS, and yes, even Cuba- but never once
>mentioned the nations faltering, trouble plagued space program.

Flame ON!

Is it really surprising that candidates for President should have
priorities OTHER than Space when the average voter doesn't give much of
a darn about space?

Is it surprising that this condition exists when many of the posters to
this newsgroup argue about the direction of 'space policy' and present
no united front on the subject?

It it really surprising when many of the posters to this group attack
the intentions of everyone who disagrees with their viewpoint even if
the person(s) they attack so vigorously have a great deal of credibility
in the 'real , political world'??

When ( and IF ) the proponents of Space travel and exploration put aside
their petty differences and create an intelligent, united front with
sound proposals that many people can understand and support, then the
people who would be President will pay attention to 'Space'.

I've also noticed that ideas for the expenditure of funds do much better
when they are sold on their own merit and not compared to everything
else 'on the agenda' with comments about how food stamps are to blame
for the problems with the space program.

Flame OFF!

Let's talk POSITIVELY about the benefits to ALL PERSONKIND from space
exploration , and how the USA can benefit along with the rest of the
world by being a part of this exploration.

Dennis Grittner

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #319
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Aug 87 06:18:16 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03654; Thu, 20 Aug 87 03:17:12 PDT
	id AA03654; Thu, 20 Aug 87 03:17:12 PDT
Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 03:17:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708201017.AA03654@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #320

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 320

Today's Topics:
		      HELP WANTED: Lunar Orbiter
			  Asteroid Collision
			 Our future in space
			   Re: Alan Sheperd
		       Re: Our future in space
		       Re: Our future in space
			The Media and Science
    Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 1987 22:22-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: HELP WANTED: Lunar Orbiter

NSS, AMSAT and SSI are involved in a project to design, build and
launch a lunar orbiter. (No we won't design the launcher. Probably
would be an Ariane flight.)

A few weeks ago some people were asking about volunteering to do 'real'
work. Here is your chance.

We are looking for experienced professionals who are willing to assist
gratis.

Contact the S. David Eisenberg, the Lunar Orbiter project engineer, at
212-580-2952 if you feel you can make a significant contribution to
this effort.

As you know, AMSAT has been building embarassingly cheap satellites for
many years. L5 began working very closely with them some time before
the merger in which we became NSS.

Gordon Woodcock (Boeing Space Station group, NSS Exec Committee
Chairman) has run the calculations on the burns required, and
discovered that a planned AMSAT Geosync satellite attempt could make
lunar orbit with a different burn program.

For those who may wonder how this may be so, the key is the delta v
required for the plane change and circularization burns.

Mr. Eisenberg also needs to get network access. If anyone here has the
power to grant guest accounts, please contact him. Preference is an
account in the New York City area. The ability to transmit design info
and to contact experts via EMAIL is critically important.

					Ad Astra,
					Dale Amon
				NSS Board of Directors

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 22:09 +0600
From: Kerry Stevenson <kerry%cc.uofm.cdn%ubc.csnet@relay.cs.net>
Mmdf-Warning:  Parse error in original version of preceding line at RELAY.CS.NET
Subject: Asteroid Collision

In the last couple of days I've read two newspaper articles about an
asteroid named 1983-TV.  The first article says that Soviet astronomers
say this body will crash on Earth in 128 years (2115).  For some reason,
our local newspaper decided that an article on this subject was worth
only one paragraph, and the information I've got is sketchy at best.
A couple of days later a followup article (another paragraph) stated that
West German astronomers have dismissed the whole thing as pap.  So,
does anyone out there in netland have any more info on this potentially
important event?  I suspect that it is in fact pap, since it does not
seem widely reported.  If there is any truth to this, what schemes might
be used to deflect and/or destroy the object?  Should we even bother?

                                              Kerry

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 87 05:10:51 GMT
From: nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Our future in space

	I am trying to take as neutral a position as possible on the
issue of the Planetary Society, good or evil.  Let me just add a few
things I think a lot of people have been saying or trying to say.

	The human race does not have a very promising future in space
from today's standpoint.  Forget the Soviets, if there is going to be a
free society in space it must be the west (US, w. europe, australia,
japan, who knows).  This I think we all agree on.

	We have one common goal: Improve drastically the state of our
space program.  Not necessarily NASA, but the ongoing process of putting
things and people into space.  There are a lot of people in all the
space groups, yet we are completely ineffective in getting our
government to take notice.  Why?  Because we don't do anything together.
I think the L5/NSI merger was the right idea.  We need more of this.

	Right now, the entire space program is in jepordy.  This is no
time to be carrying a banner for one specific project, the government
needs to realize that SPACE is important - right now, THEY DON'T.  There
is no way they will budget mars or lunar missions if they don't think
space is important.  This is the common ground we must join upon.  The
space groups should forget for the moment their pet projects, they are
reaching for the very top while the base is crumbling.

	I propose a sort of summit between all the pro space
organizations (I'll even moderate), the purpose being to unite, and
combine all our resources for one massive, all out assault on
congress/the white house.  I am totally serious.

	Let's get off our damn butts.  Bickering amongst ourselves
accomplishes nothing whatsoever.  Some people don't like L5, NSS, PS,
whatever. Fine, don't argue about it - work at a lower level, because
somewhere below the affiliations there is a basic desire to go into
space, or see space developed as it should be.

				-Chris
			"Think before you flame"

PS One final observation, something I've noticed on the net, and now
much more prominently in trying to start a local chapter of a space
group.  Space "enthusiasts" are like the mythical Brooklyn Dodger Fans.
"No one more loyal than a Brooklyn Dodger Fan" you would hear.  "Packed
every game to capacity", "Couldn't hear a damn thing in Kaminsky Park
when there was a game on".  I just read a book that reveals the truth.
In actuality, even in the season when they won it all, they never sold
out during the regular season, and the avg attendance was under 50%.
Even when the rumor began to spread that if more people didn't show up
for games the Dodgers would leave, attendance kept dropping.  Oh, there
were still plenty of loyal fans, who would hit you if you bad-mouthed
the Dodgers, but when it came to game time, where were they????

Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 11 Aug 87 18:37:25 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Alan Sheperd
Newsgroups: sci.space

>class as serious flights. Therefor, Gus Grissom was the first to return as far

I'm real busy.  And I thought Alan was first? 

P.S. On the subject of goals and stuff, I would what would have happened
if we had not had reacted to Sputnik they way we did: create NASA, IGY,
the temporary trend in education, etc.  I think we still would have
gotten men (generic) into space, on the moon (1980s?), but the schedule
would have been slower and also more driven by the military and
scientists rather than political results.  Particle accelerators
(esoteric fun) do get funded, so it is possible.

--eugene

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 87 06:30:07 GMT
From: oddhack!jon@csvax.caltech.edu  (Jon Leech)
Subject: Re: Our future in space

In article <366@nysernic> weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
>putting things and people into space.	There are a lot of people in
>all the space groups, yet we are completely ineffective in getting our
>government to take notice.  Why?  Because we don't do anything
>together.

    My best information (which is out of date) gives ~125000 in the
Planetary Society, ~20000 in NSS. I don't know about AIAA's membership,
but they are a professional society, not a pro-space group per se.
These kind of numbers are pretty insignificant (<.1% of US population)
when, as you point out later, so few of them actually DO anything like
lobbying their congresscritters. Scientists and engineers who are high
up in the leadership of pro-space organizations do deliver testimony
before Congressional subcommittees reasonably often, but that's not
because of the affiliations with PS/NSS/whatever.

>	I propose a sort of summit between all the pro space
>organizations (I'll even moderate), the purpose being to unite, and

    There was an organization called, I believe, the National
Coordinating Committee for Space, that attempted to mediate between
the major groups.  I think it is defunct, unable to get any
cooperation.

>combine all our resources for one massive, all out assault on
>congress/the white house.  I am totally serious.

    Yep, Reagan is 'pro-space' all right. So much so that Congresspeople
have been asking the White House for a formal response to the NCOS
report for months now. Better return for lobbying effort would probably
be obtained by expending it on the likely presidential candidates, one
of whom will be in a position to initiate new projects.  Reagan is not,
unless he's got something planned between now and the State of the Union
address in January. There is no sign of this.

    Jon Leech (jon@csvax.caltech.edu || ...seismo!cit-vax!jon)
    Caltech Computer Science Graphics Group
    __@/

Down with Mars! Back to the Moon first.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 87 12:39:16 GMT
From: udel!thomson@princeton.edu  (Richard Thomson)
Subject: Re: Our future in space

In article <366@nysernic> weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes:
>I propose a sort of summit between all the pro space organizations
>(I'll even moderate), the purpose being to unite, and combine all our
>resources for one massive, all out assault on congress/the white house.
>I am totally serious.
>				-Chris
>			"Think before you flame"

This is exactly what we need!  We all agree that space is a worthwhile
goal and I think Chris has hit the nail on the head here.  The
politicians don't think its a worthwhile goal.  Just look at the
policies of our current president and you see how high space ranks on
the platform (it's in there somewhere, I think :-).

I disagree that the average person doesn't want to pursue space
development.  They may not understand alot of the reasons why Apollo
looked like a one-shot deal, but if you ask them if they'd like to be
orbiting the Earth in a space station they'll most likely say yes.
People also think that NASA gets just oodles of money every year.  They,
like us, are ready to believe.  They need a politician who has a sense
of vision to lead them.  We should make ourselves heard to make the
politicians 'see' with this kind of vision.

Count me in!
							Rich

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 87 22:34:34 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!yetti!geac!chris@seismo.css.gov  (Chris Syed)
Subject: The Media and Science

      "Science forges ahead by pursuing preconceptions...even
       mistaken ones."    - W.V.Quine.

In a recent article in the Toronto _Globe & Mail_, Canadian biologist
David Suzuki, (whose TV series may have made it to PBS), discussed
pseudo science's hold over the popular imagination, and concluded:

      "The public's need for mystery suggests that scientists have
      failed miserably to convey the essence of science itself. It is
      not just cut-and-dried facts.... The reason scientists devote
      their lives so fanatically to research is that they are immersed
      in mystery and wonder every day. If there were more scientists
      like Dr. Sagan and Stephen Gould, who could share that with the
      public, there would be no need [to debunk pseudo science]."

I have been reading recent discussions of two sorts in this newsgroup:
one flaming Carl, or the media in general, and the other citing personal
experiences that kindled the senders' interests in space, science, or
eventually, I suppose, computing. It strikes me that the experiences
which initally motivated everyone were aesthetic or emotional ones-
somehow, everyone got "turned on" to science.

Instead of lamenting that the media misreport or glamorize science,
perhaps we should exploit the particular excellences of radio, TV and
film.  "The nice thing about moving pictures", my film prof used to say,
"is that they move." (yeah, I know all about flicker fusion). That they
do, and quickly. An educational length film is usually 27 min 30 sec,
and rarely do TV shot lengths exceed 10 sec. TV is not suited to
presenting in-depth treatments of academic disciplines. But it is
admirably suited to kindling enthusiasm through aesthetic experiences.

The problem with science is that it is mostly a combination of cerebral
things and tedious, lengthy, nitpicky analysis of data - neither of
which are right for TV. I once tried to portray astronomy "as it
happens" on film. What I got was a bunch of people sitting around in a
visually exciting radio observatory, doing boring things. Would you
watch a half- hour show of someone looking at squiggles on paper or
chewing a pencil?  TV is great at compressing time. TV is great at
visually exciting things.  Maybe you can't give 'em Buck Rogers all the
time - but those Voyager pix everyone seems to want are rather nice,
don't you think? (NASA, by the way, has reel upon reel of space
footage).

Now this does not mean that you must present things untrue, nor things
glamorous but divorced from people's experience to do a good show. The
British series _Don't Ask Me_, with physicist Magnus Pike and a crew of
experts from many fields, is a case in point. Magnus, a gesticulating,
engaging fellow, got ordinary people to ask questions such as: "Why does
a peanut bob up and down in my beer?", and gave them elegant, brief,
physical explanations. The motive was to turn people on to the physics
of everyday life- to make science come alive. This accords with what we
know of adult education - ya gotta hit 'em where they live, and you
can't scare 'em off with things they don't understand.  "Milk before
meat", as the medievals would say. Another example is David Stringer's
_Not Another Science Show_, a TV Ontario production.

A proposition:
 Product Recognition, Wider Footprint etc.  One way to get space bucks
is to get a lot of people excited about science.  Since sagans and
sagans of people watch the tube every night, we ought to be happy when
they turn to series like _The Botanic Man_, (which may have made it to
PBS). But more importantly, it would be nice to figure out how to get
stuff _regularly_ on computing, space, astronomy, anything scientific or
technological, onto prime time network feed.  At least, it seems like a
reasonable course to me. And I'd hazard a guess that production-value -
flashy visuals, something like an unfolding story, would be prime
requirements. Oh yes, and cost, of course.

A counter argument: 
 Great Britain produces elevated stuff all the time, but it dosen't seem
to have affected Maggie! (At least, it didn't hit her in her
pocketbook).

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 13:43:35
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 13 13:43:35 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 13 13:43:57 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: "ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET"@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want

<B> Date:         Wed, 29 Jul 87 21:08:55 EDT
<B> From: ST401385%BROWNVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
<B> Subject:      Mars, nyet.

<B> I feel very uneasy about the anti-Mars sentiment expressed on the
<B> net.  I fervently hope that these expressions against Mars
<B> exploration are "in the family" squabbles, and that they are not
<B> being broadcast further. You all do realize, I hope, that to
<B> outsiders (i.e., politicians) the detailed arguments will blur into
<B> obscurity and all that will be heard will be a vague anti-space
<B> sentiment.

I think I agree. Instead of knocking the Mars/Apollo mission, we should
push hard at our pet projects. If somebody interrupts us to ask "what
about the manned Mars landing" we simply say it isn't cost effective,
there are plenty of other projects that have better payback at lower
cost, and given that we don't have enough money to do them all, we'd
prefer to get more payback via these other projects.

<B> If there is one lesson that must be learned if space advocates are
<B> to have any level of success, it is that such criticisms must be
<B> kept internal, and a united front presented to the outside.

I'd like to amend that. We should be united in that we say only
pro-space things in our major statements, anything negative being
restricted to relative statements such as I proposed above and only in
respose to a specific question about that project we don't like. But we
needn't be united in what we ask for. If some of us beg for manned Mars
landing, some beg for unmanned Mars rovers, some beg for lunar mining,
some beg for asteroid rendezvous and sample return, some beg for lunar
polar orbiter, and some beg for LEO space station, the impression will
be that there are an awful lot of good things to do in space, whereas if
we restrict ourselves to one concensus "best project" the impression
will be there's only one thing worth doing in space, it's that or
nothing. Of course at some point we must reach a compromise of what will
actually be funded and what won't, but let's leave that for later, and
let our public posturing be "we want this and this and this and that and
that and that etc., why can't we get it all?" and maybe they'll increase
the total budget when they realize how many good things aren't currently
funded but should be.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #320
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Aug 87 09:04:51 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05598; Fri, 21 Aug 87 03:18:21 PDT
	id AA05598; Fri, 21 Aug 87 03:18:21 PDT
Date: Fri, 21 Aug 87 03:18:21 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708211018.AA05598@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #321

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 321

Today's Topics:
	     Re: Newsweek Special Report: "Lost in Space"
		   Re: Sagan == Death of the Future
			   Re: Alan Sheperd
  Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want
		    Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"
			     leafletting
		       Re: Pro-Space Publicity
			   Re: leafletting
		       Re: Our future in space
			    Space Treaties
		     Congresscritter contact info
			       various
		   Re: Sagan == Death of the Future
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 87 18:09:12 GMT
From: gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@rutgers.edu  (Michael Lodman)
Subject: Re: Newsweek Special Report: "Lost in Space"

These articles made me very angry as well. Between the " space pilots "
of the air force and the deep pocket funding of high tech hardware by
the government our space program is almost destroyed. We don't need to
have men in space. We don't need the government launching commercial
payloads.

The Air Force should be limited to what they can prove is neccessary for
our defence. NASA should be limited to research missions only and they
should be unmanned.

When it becomes economicaly feasible to have a space station, some
company or consortium of companies will build it, launch it, and
maintain it. When it becomes essential that a man be in space, one will
be there.

As for the "No Buck Rogers, no bucks" quote, this is unproven and in
fact if you told the man on the street you were going to save a few
billion bucks and do the same job, he would probably support you
whole-heartedly.

Here's for a cheap, simple heavy lifter. No more space-boondogles er
shuttles, no Advanced Lifting Vehicles based on shuttle technology, and
no bloody space planes. We don't need them.

Michael Lodman  (619) 485-3335
Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego
mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM 
{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!ivory!lodman

When you die, if you've been very, very good, you'll go to ... Montana.

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 87 16:58:33 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future

> >the space budget that would get the axe.  I'm afraid Sagan is letting
> >his political obsessions blind him to fiscal realities.
> 
> Well gee whiz Harry. I think that it is admirable to have the GOAL of
> the US and the USSR devoting more of their money and energy to
> spaceflight than to weapons and other military expenditures. I think
> it's a bit silly on your part to attack such an admirable goal, and
> darned pessimistic to assume that Reagan's stupid military priorities
> will reign forever.

I didn't say the goal was wrong, just that it was hopelessly
unrealistic, and that people who claim it is realistic are either lying
or self-deluded.  I'm quite aware that Reagan leaves office in early
1989, but what has that to do with the problem?  Reagan did not create
DoD's sacred-cow status; at most he enhanced it slightly.  DoD budgets
*never* get cut -- *seriously* cut -- because it's better to spend money
on something else; they get cut only when everything is getting cut,
when the objective is to reduce the total expenditures, not to direct
them more wisely.  If asked to choose between the safety of the country
and a Mars expedition, the bulk of the public (and Congress) will
unhesitatingly opt for the former -- and you bet your booties that's how
DoD will present the question if it ever comes to a real fight over the
issue.

(Before you cite the use of DoD money for the replacement orbiter,
remember the large number of military Shuttle missions that are planned
and the widespread feeling that the USAF is not paying its fair share of
Shuttle costs.  That's a very different story, not to be confused with
spending DoD money on things with no military application at all.)

As for it being silly on my part to attack such an admirable goal, doing
so is no more silly than attacking a project to spend much time and
great effort investigating the biochemistry of the Easter Bunny.  It
diverts resources from attainable goals, and discredits the movement.

> I , for one, think that the goal of having MORE money spent on space
> and less wasted on military trash is a wonderful one...

I agree.  I also think it would be a wonderful goal to have free
elections held in the Soviet Union next Thursday.

> A move toward JOINT, peaceful exploration of space with the USSR
> wouldn't bother me either.

I think it would be great, but the Soviets would be fools to go very far
in that direction -- what have they possibly got to gain from such a
backward and unreliable partner?
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 87 20:38:45 GMT
From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (G.Gleason)
Subject: Re: Alan Sheperd

In article <8708120137.AA08786@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>P.S. On the subject of goals and stuff, I would what would have
>happened if we had not had reacted to Sputnik they way we did: create
>NASA, IGY, the temporary trend in education, etc.  I think we still
>would have gotten men (generic) into space, on the moon (1980s?), . . .

Anyone care to speculate where we would be on many basic technologies
without the research prompted by the needs of the Apollo program.  I
know that IC's would have come along because they are an obvious advance
on discrete circuits, but it would have taken longer.  Apple II like
machines might just be coming out now.

There are studies that indicate that the Apollo program has paid back
the economy many times over, even if you don't look at spin-off
technologies.  What we need is a strong program in basic technologies
which will make working in space routine.  If we could only get SDI
funding levels for basic space research.

Gerry Gleason

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 87 16:25:14 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want

The trouble with this idea is getting everyone to go along with it.
Sagan and Van Allen, to name two, have been knocking space projects they
don't like for twenty years now.  Like it or not, this *is* an adversary
process at the moment.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 15:03:00 GMT
From: irwin@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"


I subscribe to the Newsweek magazine. The latest issue has a large
portion devoted to our space effort. I spent last evening reading
and by the time I was through, it had made my blood "boil".

It tells why we spend millions instead of thousands, billions instead
of millions, why cost per pound is $6,000 to $8,000 as opposed to
$300 to $500 to LEO.

It compares liquid as opposed to solid boosters on the shuttle, goes
into detail about the "big dumb booster" as compared to the "high tech
state of the art" (there is where our billions went) rockets that we
now use. The reason the space telescope is still on the ground, lack
of long term space goals, and many other things are covered. If you
want for good reading, I suggest this one to open your eyes.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 8 Aug 87 14:36:29
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 08 14:36:29 PST (=GMT-8hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 08 14:37:48 PST (=GMT-8hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: leafletting

I'd like to volunteer to help with preparing a leaflet which briefly
lists the major recent progress in space (mostly MIR of course, at
present), if several others also volunteer. One possibility is that
people send me info about what is going on, I collect it, delete
duplications (picking best wording from alternate submitters), trim it
down to about 60 lines (one page), and present the resultant file to the
rest of the committee for review. Somebody else cleans up the file for
public consumption, then I do final proofreading for typos and broadcast
the online file to Space-Enthusiasts for anyone to turn into paper.

My local public library (East Palo Alto) has a fancy display of SPACE,
which is 100% USA, no mention of MIR or anything, so I would volunteer
to post a few copies of our leaflet there to combat the yankeecentric
half-truth they are promulgating. Anywhere more than one person in the
same geographic area volunteers, actual leafletting of a shopping center
or bus stop etc. could occur (it's awful lonely and dangerous for one
isolated person to leaflet, especially when somebody starts an argument
or discussion which prevents that one person from giving attention to
passing out leaflets), providing some way is available to mass-produce
nicely-printed copies of the leaflet. But posting copies on bulletin
boards or distributing to libraries could be done by isolated
individuals.

Regarding content of the leaflet: It'll take too long to create for a
"one-week" summary to be meaningful, maybe even a "one-month" summary
would be out of date by the time it is distributed. I suggest that the
leaflet is mostly "this-past-month" but includes background of each such
project (when MIR was launched, previous major crews, precursor Salut
7), and includes a few major events of the past couple years that didn't
overlap into this current past month. We might include known contracts
granted and work started if they are really major steps forward, such as
"space tug" being built by TRW (announced in Peninsula Times Tribune a
couple days ago, to be first launched into space in only 4 years from
now) in addition to actual accomplished missions. We should be sure to
include Voyager/Uranus flyby 1.5 years ago, Giotto et al, in the
before-this-month summary because many people seeing this leaflet are
decades out of date with space and would be seeing such info for the
first time, or at least seeing it all together in perspective for the
very first time.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Aug 87 20:19:29 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Pro-Space Publicity

Someone had a videotape of that Mac-DAC ad showing in one of the
hospitality suites at the Space Development Conf. in Pittsburgh last
spring.  *Great* ad, complete with (inaudible at first) Russian radio
chatter in the background.
  One thing, though.  The station isn't "Battlestar Galactica" sized,
though it may look that way because of the camera angle on that scene
(similar to the opening scene of Star Wars 4: A New Hope, with the
Imperial Cruiser coming into view from overhead).  It was actually a
model of Mir/Salyut.

   (BTW, how many people know that "mir" also means "outpost" or "fort"?
The fortified settlements on the Siberian frontier in the last century
(analogous to the old western frontier in North America) were called
mirs.)

 Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al
                      UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair

(Why do they call it a signature file if I can't actually *sign* anything?)

------------------------------

Date: 9 Aug 87 17:49:07 GMT
From: nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: leafletting

	Count me in.  My original idea was to send copies of this
"newsletter" to congress, as well as posting it in public places, and
sending copies to local news stations.  Enough info is here on the net
(like Glenn's postings and Henry's AWST summaries).  Anyone else know
how to get the addresses of people in congress?  Do you want to start a
small mailing list of volunteers who would like to help in this project?

Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 87 14:52:18 GMT
From: nysernic!b.nyser.net!weltyc@rutgers.edu  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Re: Our future in space

In article <3590@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> jon@oddhack.Caltech.EDU (Jon Leech) writes:
>    My best information (which is out of date) gives ~125000 in the
>Planetary Society, ~20000 in NSS. I don't know about AIAA's
>membership, but they are a professional society, not a pro-space group
>per se.  These kind of numbers are pretty insignificant (<.1% of US
>population) when, as you point out later, so few of them actually DO
>anything like lobbying their congresscritters. Scientists and
>engineers who are high up in the leadership of pro-space organizations
>do deliver testimony before Congressional subcommittees reasonably
>often, but that's not because of the affiliations with
>PS/NSS/whatever.

	I neglected to mention that phase 1 of my proposed alliance
would involve a massive assault on the people/news media, phase 2 would
be government.  I really believe that there a lot of Americans who
think we SHOULD have a strong space program, and also think we DO.
They should be educated.

>    There was an organization called, I believe, the National
>Coordinating Committee for Space, that attempted to mediate between
>the major groups.  I think it is defunct, unable to get any
>cooperation.

	This is the attitude I'm talking about...."*sigh* someone
tried that already and it didn't work".  So what, let's try again.


Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 13 Aug 87 08:11 EST
From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Space Treaties

I've seen references on the net about the 'Moon Treaty' and the 'Outer
Space Treaty'.  I wrote my congressman to obtain copies of them but
was told they have nothing on file with these names.

Are these the correct (official) names?  Are they UN treaties and if so
what do I need to do to get copies?

Thanks for the help.

Ron Picard   (PICARD@GMR.COM)
General Motors Research Labs

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 87 13:46:05 GMT
From: udel!thomson@princeton.edu  (Richard Thomson)
Subject: Congresscritter contact info

People often post to this group about 'telling your congressperson'.  I wanted
to do this kind of thing as well but had a problem.  I wasn't legal to vote the
last time around and I don't know where my congresspeople are (I was even a
little shaky on their exact names...).  Then I discovered the BLUE pages in our
telephone book.  I don't know if you have blue pages in your t.b., but in ours
they are between the white and yellow pages.  Under a heading like 'Congress'
in the government service section was the phone numbers for our two senators
and (sigh) one representative.  This is the quickest way to get in contact
with the people who count in these matters!  Call them up!  Let them know what
you think!

I know, I know.  You're thinking 'yeah, but what does Delaware (Dela-where?)
do for the space program?'.  Actually the space suits for EVA are made in
Dover, Delaware.  So there.
						Rich
-- 
Rich Thomson		Aspiring Grad Student	  ARPA: thomson@louie.udel.edu
Forget Mars, we've got business on the Moon.	  UUCP: don't know
OS/2: Yesterday's software tomorrow

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 87 08:55:34 EDT
From: rachiele@NADC.ARPA (J. Rachiele)
Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov
Subject: various

While we're talking about politics:

Can someone post a list of the various congressional committees which
make decisions on the space program, and the members of these
committees?  If by some chance a senator was from my state, or a rep
from my district, I would be happy to pepper him with letters,
telegrams, and phone calls to encourage him to support the space
program, and point out to him what a one-issue voter I am.  I'm sure
there are many on this list who feel the same way I do.....

I will add my name to the list of people willing to help out a space
race company with computer programming assistance.  But think about it:
If such a company has people who read this mailing list, they most
likely don't need help from computer people.

This came up before, does anyone know where the various candidates for
president stand on the space program?  Is John Glenn running again?

         Jim Rachiele
         rachiele@nadc.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 87 13:21:08 GMT
From: rlgvax!russ@seismo.css.gov  (Russ Olsen)
Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future

In article <1980@ihlpf.ATT.COM>, mhw@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Marc Weinstein) writes:
> In fact, there is a way we can help him.  I dunno exactly where to get
> information, but the Planetary Society, of which good ol' Carl is the
> Chairman (or at least the spokesperson), is looking to further the
> cause of space exploration in United States spending.  I will try to
> dig something up on the Society, but for a (cheap) $20 "contribution"
> and a simple survey which you fill out, you can become a member of the
> Society and receive the Planetary Report on a monthly basis.
> 
> Marc Weinstein
> Bell Labs - Indian Hill
> ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw

The Address of the Planetary Society is

    P.O. Box 91687
    Pasadena, CA 91109

Russ Olsen @ Computer Consoles, Reston VA
russ@rlgvax

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #321
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Aug 87 23:40:17 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00363; Sat, 22 Aug 87 18:19:12 PDT
	id AA00363; Sat, 22 Aug 87 18:19:12 PDT
Date: Sat, 22 Aug 87 18:19:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708230119.AA00363@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #322

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 322

Today's Topics:
		     space news from July 6 AW&ST
		   Re: Sagan == Death of the Future
		     Re: Space group cooperation
	     Re: political support for space colonization
		Re: Why [not] air-breathing boosters?
		  Re: space news from June 29 AW&ST
		     Re #308 (postscript devices)
       RIGHT STUFF misquote (was Sagan == Death of the Future)
		 Re: JUGGLING: how to break a record.
			     Space Debris
		 Re: JUGGLING: how to break a record.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 23:08:04 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from July 6 AW&ST

Commerce Dept will run a quick assessment of the commercial space market
as input to a revision of US commercial space policy.

Japan will start flight tests next year of a flyback-booster design for
sounding rockets.  Could be relevant to the Japanese spaceplane work.

NASA says NRC's space-station cost estimates match NASA's own after an
adjustment for different accounting methods.

USSR steps up space marketing campaign: an organization has been formed
to market images from Soviet spacecraft.  Wide interest is claimed.  The
images are said to have 6m resolution, better even than Spot.

Orbiter Discovery will be powered up Aug 3 for the start of formal
checkout for STS-26.  Rollout is set for March 7, engine firing could be
April 7.

Development of the tractor-rocket crew-escape system is going well, with
rocket-firing tests starting.  NASA says that a final decision on
whether it will fly on STS-26 can be delayed until May without schedule
impact; the working assumption is that it will be included.

Revised Shuttle schedule for first six missions:

26	TDRS aboard Discovery, 2 June 1988
27	DoD to Clarke orbit [military comsat?] on Atlantis, Sept 8
28	DoD/CIA imaging spysat on Columbia, set for Nov 10 but KSC would
		like to move it to Dec 1
29	another TDRS on Discovery, Feb 2 1989
30	Magellan (bumping Hubble telescope) April 25
31	Hubble Telescope (bumping Astro-1 UV telescope package) June 1

The rest of the new manifest is still being revised; a particular area
of uncertainty is how many more DoD payloads will move to expendables.
Up to six full shuttle-loads could be moved through 1994.  DoD flight
rate could drop to 1-2 a year, which would be good news for civilian
missions.

NASA is now trying to be firm about late changes in flight planning.
Major cargo decisions will freeze at T-18 months, detailed flight
planning will freeze at T-11mo, and secondary payloads and crew issues
will freeze at T-7mo.

NASA picks Grumman as space station program support contractor, with
major role in systems engineering and integration.  Lockheed gets the
software support contract.

DMSP (military weather satellite) launched June 19 from Vandenberg on an
Atlas-E, to replace an earlier DMSP launched five years ago.

Congress gets off its behind about Landsat commercialization subsidy:
$62.5M provided, subject to Congress and DoC clearing up their squabble
about whether one or two satellites will be included.  Eosat says that
foreign Landsat customers are unable to understand what's going on.
Landsat business continues brisk; Eosat is now distributor for data from
the new Chinese receiving station, and reports great interest.  US
remote sensing users are getting worried that if Landsat is abandoned,
the US will no longer have clout in remote-sensing policymaking, and the
Japanese or the French may start restricting access to data from their
satellites.  "Will open skies be open without a US presence in those
skies?"

Japanese study recommends immediate start on work on a small unmanned
spaceplane, for first launch 1993 on an H-2.  Hope (H-2 orbiting plane)
will be 12m long, 10m wingspan, delta with two small canards, 3000kg
payload.  This is seen as a useful precursor to a more advanced manned
spaceplane.

NOAA and FAA are getting together on a satellite-based system to warn
air traffic of volcanic ash clouds.  NOAA weather satellites can track
the clouds using infrared imagers, but aircraft radar can't.  The main
effort needed is to set up a system to get the data to the pilots; it
could be operational by the end of the year.

Precision tracking of Pioneer 10 and 11 has strengthened the theory that
the solar system has a tenth planet in a highly eccentric orbit.  Exotic
solar companions like brown dwarfs or black holes are definitely ruled
out; their effects on the Pioneers' paths would have been seen by now.
A tenth planet in a circular orbit would likewise have had detectable
effects.  The guess is something with about 5 Earth masses in a highly
inclined and eccentric orbit, period 700-1000 years.  Anything smaller
could not account for the known perturbations in the orbits of the other
outer planets, while anything bigger would have shown up in the Pioneer
data.

Harris Corp repays $1.26M to NASA after Justice Dept. alleges
"extraordinary profits" on the TDRS ground station at White Sands.

Pictures of the Hermes flight-deck mockup displayed at the Paris
airshow.  Predictably, there is heavy emphasis on CRTs and side-stick
controllers (two per pilot, for multi-axis control).

Pictures of the outside of the Hermes mockup, differing from the US
shuttle in various ways, notably upturned wingtips rather than a fin on
the fuselage and a "cargo bay" that isn't: what look like bay doors do
open, but only to expose thermal radiators.

(From the latest Astronomy:) The two nearby stars which almost certainly
have planets around them, based on the recent Canadian report, are
Epsilon Eridani and Gamma Cephei.  There is enough data on the one
orbiting Gamma Cephei to indicate that its orbital period is 2.7 years
and its mass is about 1.7 times Jupiter.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 15:48:47 GMT
From: necntc!linus!utzoo!henry@eddie.mit.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Sagan == Death of the Future

> ... the Planetary Society... is looking to further the
> cause of space exploration in United States spending...

Slight correction: the Planetary Society is looking to further the cause
of planetary science... at the expense of all other forms of space
exploration, if necessary.  Opinions vary on whether this is a good
thing.  Consider how you feel about it before joining.

You might also want to review Sagan's last few episodes of Congressional
testimony before joining, because you are supporting that testimony by
joining -- he often cites the size of the Planetary Society as support
for his views.

(For that matter, you might want to ask about how officers and spokesmen
for the Planetary Society are chosen, and whether they can be changed by
member vote.)
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 1987 15:45-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Space group cooperation

This is not a new issue. The Coordinating Committee that was mentioned
was put together by Dr. David Webb a few years back. It had some
successes but in some ways was ahead of it's time: all the groups were
so lean and hungry and distrustful that it was hard to get anything
done.

A great deal has changed since then, mostly for the better.

Most of the space organizations DO cooperate at a high level. There is a
great deal of cameraderie between NSS(L5), SSI, AMSAT, SEDS, ASF, USSF,
Sunsat Energy Council, Spaceweek, WSF, ISRG, Women's Space Network,
Teacher in Space Foundation, and others. We often work together with
amateur astronomy groups, amateur rocket people, NRRL, and others. Joint
events with local AIAA sections and AAS are common.  Young Astronauts is
mostly aloof from everyone, but there has been cooperation, particularly
on the local level.

NSI, L5, Planetary Society and others cooperated on the national NCOS
seminar series.

Planetary Society and L5 were both involved in the Voyager and Galileo
defense some years back.

So it is not true to say that the organizations do not work together.
It is also not to say that even more cooperation would not be good, or
that reviving the Coordinating Council would not be a good idea. You
will not find any disagreement from me on this issue!

The real truth of the matter is that the world of space organizations
'sort of' breaks down into two 'political' groupings. One contains most
of the organizations; the other contains Planetary Society, a few minor
organizations and a few major science oriented ones (like WSF) that work
with everyone equally well.

There are some very real differences of opinion between the 'Space
Science' and the 'Frontier/Commercial' oriented groups, but I believe
that the solar system is big enough for the both of us. We needn't love
each other, we just need to not stop on each other's toes.

						Dale Amon
					NSS Board of Directors

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 00:32:20 GMT
From: xanth!kent@ames.arpa  (Kent Paul Dolan)
Subject: Re: political support for space colonization


Then again, if you like the idea, but hate the proponent, I'm sure
among you all there could be found another lunatic enough to
volunteer.  For sure, the idea of a pro-space candidate has more to
recommend it than the idea of me as that candidate, unless no other
appears.

Now, I really must get to work!

Kent, the man from xanth.

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 87 20:30:39 GMT
From: fluke!ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Why [not] air-breathing boosters?

Data on airbreathing engines in production can be found in an annual
'specifications' issue of Aviation Week.  I don't have this year's
handy, but the issue date shouldn't be too hard to find.  Just look for
the perfect bound (square edged) issues as opposed to the normal staple
bound issues.  It's one of the two or three such per year.

>From memory, a typical fighter engine has a maximum speed of about Mach
2.5 (750 meters/sec) at an altitude of 75,000 feet (22 km).  Slightly
lower speed limit at sea level.  A engine weight might be 3000 pounds,
producing 24,000 lb sea level thrust.  The specific fuel consumption at
max thrust and sea level is about 1 lb/hr/lb thrust.  This is equivalent
to a specific impulse of 3600 seconds.

The real advantage of a fighter engine lies not in the performance.  A
fighter engine weighs 10 times as much as a rocket engine for the same
thrust, and gets about ten times the fuel efficiency.  The real gain
comes from the long engine life compared to rocket engines.

Dani Eder

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 87 05:56:00 GMT
From: uxc.cso.uiuc.edu!uicsrd!mcdaniel@a.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: space news from June 29 AW&ST

What's a metsat?

Tim McDaniel
mcdaniel%uicsrd@a.cs.uiuc.edu

[A meteorological Satelite -Ed]

------------------------------

Date:  Saturday, 8 August 1987  2:10pm
From: AOVS752@uta3081.cc.utexas.edu (PETER.HALAMEK)
Subject: Re #308 (postscript devices)

What is a postscript device ?
My comment on AW&St summaries by Henry Spencer:
They are very useful to those who have some background.
A complete novice simply must do some "outside reading".
Peter Halamek    (AOVS752@UTA3081.BITNET)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 21:48:57 GMT
From: faline!thumper!mike@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Mike A. Caplinger)
Subject: RIGHT STUFF misquote (was Sagan == Death of the Future)

> safe for robots?  As the man said in _The_Right_Stuff_, "no Buck
> Rogers, no bucks".

The correct quote (from the movie; I'm not sure if this phrase occurs
in the book at all) is "No bucks, no Buck Rogers".  This is in
reference to the cost of the space program and of manned spaceflight in
particular.  I'm not saying one thing or another about the
manned/unmanned spaceflight controversy -- and neither does this quote
from THE RIGHT STUFF.  I hate to see mangled quotes shift in meaning.

	Mike Caplinger, mike@bellcore.com

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 22:14:29 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Subject: Re: JUGGLING: how to break a record.

In article <7095@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
 >> ... I believe that the world record is currently 19 [rings] juggled
 >> for over a minute...

 >Sergei Ignatov has done 13 rings.  There is no hope of anyone doing 19
 >rings at this point in human evolution.  You can't throw them high
 >enough to get enough time to do them.

All right, folks!
What say we get organized here and SEND A JUGGLER TO THE MOON!

Or Mars.  I'd be satisfied with Mars.
This could be a new goal for our space program.

What's the record for number of objects juggled underwater?

Andre Guirard

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 05:26:58 GMT
From: hao!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!itsgw!nysernic!nic.nyser.net!weltyc@ames.arpa  (Christopher A. Welty)
Subject: Space Debris

	In the August issue of Astronmy, the cover story is on space
debris, something discussed here a while ago.  Apparently NASA has
sponsored numerous studies on the topic, and the problem is even more
serious than I seem to remember was implied by comments made here.
Apparently, LEO is full of debris - here's some numbers:

	1,582 payloads (working and defunct satellites) - trackable
	4,488 objects of debris larger than a softball - trackable
	30,000 (est) marble to softball sized objects - untrackable
	"trillions" of paint flakes - untrackable
	"tens of hundreds of trillions" of dust particles - untrackable

One of the biggest worries in this respect is the Space Telescope.
These experts estimate a 1% chance that it will be struck by one of the
untrackable marble to softball size objects, which would destroy it
during it's 17 year lifetime.  There is little doubt that after a few
years the mirrors will become so full of dust that it will be no better
than a ground based telescope.  Another problem is the fact that the
telescopre is not steerable, so even an imminent collision with a
trackable object would be unavoidable.

And then there's the paint flakes.  Chances are apparently pretty good
that the telescope will be struck by paint flakes.  If the mirrors take
too many hits, they will be too cratered to be of any use.  A
"postage-stamp sized" paint flake struck one of the windows of the
Challenger in 1983, creating a 2.4 millimter wide crater in the window.
Hmmm this don't sound too good.  I wonder if the Ruskies are having any
problems with this stuff...

Christopher Welty - Asst. Director, RPI CS Labs
weltyc@cs.rpi.edu       ...!seismo!rpics!weltyc

------------------------------

Resent-Message-Id: <8708111200.AA25402@angband.s1.gov>
Resent-Date:  Tue, 11 Aug 87 07:56:39 EDT
Resent-From: Harold C Pritchett <HAROLD%UGA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Resent-To: SPACE@angband.s1.gov
Date:         10 August 1987, 16:51:08 LCL
From: Charlie Hofacker <FSCHAS%NERVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>

A short while ago, a new word was introduced to the English language, a
sagan.  It originally meant, "billions and billions," but like many
words, its meaning changed to mean "the number of stars in the
universe."  I have 3 questions for anyone who might care to indulge
me... 1) How many stars are there in the universe, 2) How do we know
this, and 3) How can we ever know that there aren't more stores beyond
the range of our sensing devices?  I suppose the finite age of the
universe helps to get around question 3) but I am not so sure.

"Lets not go to Atlanta,                  Charlie Hofacker
 we have unfinished business              FSU College of Business
 in Tallahassee."

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 17:01:37 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!ubc-vision!majka@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Marc Majka)
Subject: Re: JUGGLING: how to break a record.

In article <1404@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>What's the record for number of objects juggled underwater?

I've tried several times to juggle underwater.  It is *hard*!  The
trouble is the viscosity of the water.  Try throwing a rock up in water
- even with all your strength, it only goes about 6 or 8 inches.  I've
managed a few throws and catches, but I would hardly call it juggling.
The next experiment will be with neutral or slightly positive objects.

Marc Majka

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #322
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Aug 87 18:49:36 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01213; Sun, 23 Aug 87 03:21:51 PDT
	id AA01213; Sun, 23 Aug 87 03:21:51 PDT
Date: Sun, 23 Aug 87 03:21:51 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708231021.AA01213@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #323

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 323

Today's Topics:
			    "Clarke orbit"
			   Re: Space Debris
	      Re: The Rocket Team #2 - V2's in New York?
			   Re: Space Debris
			  Re: "Clarke orbit"
			   Re: Space Debris
			  Re: "Clarke orbit"
			   Re: Space Debris
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Wed, 12 Aug 87 14:30:22 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: "Clarke orbit"


Every once in a while on the net someone will make a reference to
"Clarke orbit."  What is the advantage of this term over
"geosynchronous" or "geosync" orbit?  I can think of at least two
*disadvantages*:
   (1) the meaning of the term is not deducible from the term itself;
   (2) although Clarke was the first to recognize the important uses to
       which the orbit could be put, he was not the first to discover
       its geosynchronous nature (was it Lagrange?)

I don't care much about (2), but point (1) is a serious disadvantage,
which should be obvious to computer types: you have stepped out of the
kernel or your language (for English: Greek & Latin) and have
constructed a special case (a.k.a. "hack").  Bad coding style, no?, made
worse by the fact that a good alternative exists.  (And for those who
dislike typing, note that "geosync" has only one more letter than
"Clarke".)

Sure, Clarke is a good man and deserves to be remembered for his
contribution, but not at the cost of obfuscation.

	John Sotos
	President, SKEOPS
		   (Society to Keep Eponyms Out of the Physical Sciences)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 87 05:44:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Space Debris

/* Written 12:26 am  Aug 11, 1987 by weltyc@nic.nyser.net in uiucdcsb:sci.space */
/* ---------- "Space Debris" ---------- */
[...]
	1,582 payloads (working and defunct satellites) - trackable
	4,488 objects of debris larger than a softball - trackable
	30,000 (est) marble to softball sized objects - untrackable
	"trillions" of paint flakes - untrackable
	"tens of hundreds of trillions" of dust particles - untrackable
[...]
And then there's the paint flakes.  Chances are apparently pretty good
that the telescope will be struck by paint flakes.  If the mirrors
take too many hits, they will be too cratered to be of any use.  A
"postage-stamp sized" paint flake struck one of the windows of the
Challenger in 1983, creating a 2.4 millimter wide crater in the
window.  Hmmm this don't sound too good.  I wonder if the Ruskies are
having any problems with this stuff...
/* End of text from uiucdcsb:sci.space */

Uh, wait a minute.  Paint flakes and dust particles in LEO are going to
get blown out of orbit pretty quickly, between solar charger particle
interactions, light pressure, and upper atmosphere drag effects.  What
is the source that replenishes these ``trillions'' of particles?

The Challenger had its windshield struck by something MICROSCOPIC that
left a 2.4 millimeter LONG track in the glass.  It wouldn't have been
noticed at all except for the fact that the windshields are regularly
inspected because a micrometeoroid impact is a source of a sample of
extraterrestrial material.  I'm not even sure that the track was visible
to the naked eye; it certainly wasn't a 2.4 millimeter crater.
Moreover, a ``postage-stamp-sized'' object would do a LOT more damage
than that!

Back-of-the-envelope calculations for the larger objects, suggest that
the calculated probability of being hit by one is off by several orders
of magnitude.  Remember, except for when it was being done deliberately,
no large object in LEO has ever hit another.  None.  Ever.  There's a
LOT of space up there and a vanishingly small probability that two
objects will occupy the same part of it at the same time.  The orbital
spacing requirements even for geosynchronous orbit are mandated by the
accuracy of the radio antennas, not by the safety of the spacecraft.

I expect better from _Astronomy_'s editorial department.

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 87 21:56:16 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: The Rocket Team #2 - V2's in New York?

In article <1323@ihlpm.ATT.COM>, dcn@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Dave Newkirk) writes:

> <details about Ludwig Roth's 'far out' Peenemunde design team> 

> 	One project certainly not stopped was proposed in the fall of
> 1943.  It was suggested that a submarine

(the highly advanced Type XXI U-boat, with schnorkel allowing lengthy
submerged periods)

> could tow as many as five

I've read it was a maximum of three, but your source seems highly
reliable

> A4's in watertight containers to positions off the eastern seaboard of
> the United States.  There, they would be floated into an upright
 
or angular for more range; the Germans seemed to like the idea of
hitting Pittsburg

> position and become launchers for the missiles aimed at New York and
> other metropolitan areas.
> 	Given the code name Prufstand XII (Test Stand 12),

this was also known as the Laffarenz-Projekt

> the project was top secret.  Only a limited number of engineers was
> assigned to it, including the talented Klaus Riedel, Bernhard
> Tessmann, Hans Huter, and Georg von Tiesenhausen.  The preliminary
> design was done in conjunction with the Vulkan-Werft, a shipyard in
> Stettin.  Each container was about 36 meters long and 5.5 meters in
> diameter.  It displaced 500 metric tons and contained enough
> propellants for the A4 to last for an ocean voyage of four weeks,
> including losses because of evaporation.

There were also plans to haul the rocket fuel in tanks in the U-boat
(the Germans had built several tanker "Milk Cow" U-boats, so they were
familiar with the problems of underwater bulk fuel transport) with the
fuel to be pumped into the rockets before launch.

> In one proposal, the ballast tanks of the container were to be filled
> with diesel oil used by the submarine's engines.  The novel exhaust
> system for the launcher consisted of ducts that turned the flaming
> gases 180 degrees and shot them through the top of the container
> itself, a feature that would be incorporated into the underground
> launchers of intercontinental ballistic missiles of the United States
> and the USSR three decades later.
> 	By early 1945, the Vulkan-Werft had completed all drawings, and
> plans were made to begin construction in March.  But time was against
> this project as it was against the Wasserfall and Taifun*.  With the
> evacuation of Peenemunde in March and the capture of Stettin in
> mid-April, Prufstand XII became a part of the history of what might
> have been, given more time by better fortunes for Germany on the
> battlefield.

Supposedly a few containers were actually completed in Elbing, occupied
Poland, late in 1944.  This doesn't quite jive with your source, which I
trust, so I wonder where the Elbing story came from.

> [* The Wasserfall and Taifun were surface-to-air anti-aircraft rockets
>    that were not fully developed or deployed at the end of the war -dcn]

The unguided high-speed Taifun (intended to be fired in large groups at
once) came in both liquid and solid fuel varieties, and while motors for
both were on the assembly lines when the war ended, trials had not been
completed.  The infra-red homing Wasserfall (basically a small A-4) was
fired 45 times with 12 "successes" reported, whatever that may mean.
There was a vast kaleidoscope of SAM missles developed by the Germans
during the closing stages of the war, including but not limited to the
Konrad Enzian, the Feuerlilie F-25 and F-55, the Hecht, the Rheintochter
R1, and the highly advanced Hs 117 Schmetterling.

> [from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT
>  Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ]

Among other German plans to hit the USA were:

the A-9/A-10 rocket, which topped a large first-stage booster (A-10)
with a winged version of the A-4 (A-9).  The A-9 was to glide through
the atmosphere down to the target after reaching a height of 217 miles,
following separation form the A-10 at 110 miles.  Slightly feasable for
bombardment of USA if the war had lasted another year or so; blueprint
stage only.

the Messerschmitt "New York Bomber" (I forget the Me designation--maybe
328?), a multi-engine heavy bomber designed for extreme long range.
Some advanced features but probably inferior to the B-29.  Probably of
little value as hordes of US fighters would have eaten it alive before
it reached the coast.  Actually was built and flown, but was never
deployed (anybody know anything else? e-mail only, please)

an orbiting bomber project (I think never named) that reached advanced
theory stage.  The one-man vehicle was to be launched into orbit (using
a launch vehicle that was never concieved) and would release one bomb
each time it passed over New York, Washington, or Pittsburg.  There
would be 24 1000 kilogram bombs carried.  The vehicle--about the size of
a contemporary bomber--would glide back to earth just like the Shuttle.
The Germans liked the fact that the US would be utterly unable to do
anything to stop the bombs from dropping, even though damage would have
been minimal.  Ludicrously impossible for the Germans to develop even
given a many-year timetable.

There were undoubtedly many more proposals, some quite bizarre.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 87 21:03:00 GMT
From: wsmith@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Space Debris

/* Written Aug 13, 1987 by kenny@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu in uiucdcsb:sci.space */

>[stuff about LEO collisions]

>[conflicting stuff about shuttle window being damaged]

According to the August 1987 Scientific American, the damage was
sufficient for the window to need to be replaced: "In 1984 the space
shuttle Challenger returned from a mission with a pit about a centimeter
wide in a pane of its windshield.  Investigators discovered that the
pane, which had to be replaced, had been struck by a paint flake only .2
millimeter wide."  (It might be that there was more than one such
similar incident to explain the discrepencies in the reports here.)

>I expect better from _Astronomy_'s editorial department.

You should then also expect better from Scientific American's editorial
department too, because they also carried similar information.

In addition, the space telescope may not need to be even hit to be
damaged: "Sunlit objects that merely flash through the telescope's field
of view may also damage its delicate sensors."

"Paul Maley proposed in Astrophysical Journal ... optical flashes
thought to be from a gamma-ray source outside the solar system were
actually caused by a sunlit Soviet satellite."

Bill Smith
ihnp4!uiucdcs!wsmith
wsmith@a.cs.uiuc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 87 19:29:34 GMT
From: amdcad!amd!intelca!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: "Clarke orbit"

In article <12325983640.79.SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU> SOTOS@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (John Sotos) writes:

>Every once in a while on the net someone will make a reference to
>"Clarke orbit."  What is the advantage of this term over
>"geosynchronous" or "geosync" orbit?  I can think of at least two
>*disadvantages*:
>   (1) the meaning of the term is not deducible from the term itself;
>[...]
>
>Sure, Clarke is a good man and deserves to be remembered for his
>contribution, but not at the cost of obfuscation.

Are you saying you have trouble remembering what the Van Allen belts
are?  Considering Van Allen's opposition to space travel these days, I'd
much rather give credit to Arthur Clarke than a Van Allen or even a
"Geosync."

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Santa Clara, California
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	There is in all this a bold analogy between the way
	in which individuals learn, the way in which species
	adapt themselves, and the way in which science works.
	But, of course, it is my point that this is not
	merely an analogy: it is a true and close relation.
		Jacob Bronowski, *The Common Sense of Science*, 1967

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 87 01:19:56 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

>   CHRISTOPHER WELTY: A "postage-stamp sized" paint flake struck one of
>   the windows of the Challenger in 1983, creating a 2.4 millimter wide
>   crater in the window.

>   UIUCDCSB!KENNY: The Challenger had its windshield struck by
>   something MICROSCOPIC that left a 2.4 millimeter LONG track in the
>   glass.  It wouldn't have been noticed at all except for the fact
>   that the windshields are regularly inspected because a
>   micrometeoroid impact is a source of a sample of extraterrestrial
>   material.  I'm not even sure that the track was visible to the naked
>   eye; it certainly wasn't a 2.4 millimeter crater.  Moreover, a
>   ``postage-stamp-sized'' object would do a LOT more damage than that!

Sky & Telescope carried an article on that in a recent issue.  Included
is a photograph of the crater found on the Shuttle windshield.  It was
indeed a relatively deep, roundish crater, not a mere "scratch", and was
caused by a 0.2 millimeter paint flake.

>   CHRISTOPHER WELTY: I wonder if the Ruskies are having any problems
>   with this stuff...

The article says a similar crater was found on a Soyuz window; the the
cosmonauts inside reportedly heard the impact.

>   UIUCDCSB!KENNY: Paint flakes and dust particles in LEO are going to
>   get blown out of orbit pretty quickly, between solar charged
>   particle interactions, light pressure, and upper atmosphere drag
>   effects.  What is the source that replenishes these ``trillions'' of
>   particles?

The article mentions a study of the micrometeoric impact craters on a
satellite recorvered after a stay in orbit.  It turned out that most
impacts were caused by orbiting aluminum oxide dust from solid rocket
exhaust.

>   UIUCDCSB!KENNY: Remember, except for when it was being done
>   deliberately, no large object in LEO has ever hit another.  None.

Probably.  But the article mentions a couple of unexplained satellite
malfunctions and break-ups which might have been caused by collisions
with untracked debris.

The article includes a nice plot of the position (at some random point
in time) of a few thousand tracked debris around the Earth.  I recall
that a similar picture, showing only debris in low Earth orbit, appeared
recently in Science News or Scientific American.  The Sky & Telescope
plot is more interesting because it extends out to geosynchronous orbit,
which stands out quite clearly, marked by a ring of dead satellites.

The worst part of the story is not so much that there are a lot of
debris up there, but that once they reach a critical density they may
start breeding at an exponential rate.  When two pieces of debris
collide they may generate thousands of smaller fragments, and some
fraction of them will remain in orbit.  I bet the Challenger window
impact left a few dozen 0.2 millimeter glass chips flying up there...

The article is sure worth reading.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 87 23:27:07 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: "Clarke orbit"

> Are you saying you have trouble remembering what the Van Allen belts
> are?  Considering Van Allen's opposition to space travel these days,
> I'd much rather give credit to Arthur Clarke...

As I've said before, I find the attachment of Van Allen's name to deadly
hazards to spaceflight highly appropriate.

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 22:38:34 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Space Debris
Newsgroups: sci.space

Catching up--
>>"postage-stamp sized" paint flake struck one of the windows of the

>Uh, wait a minute.  Paint flakes and dust particles in LEO are going to
>get blown out of orbit pretty quickly, between solar charger particle
>interactions, light pressure, and upper atmosphere drag effects.  What
>is the source that replenishes these ``trillions'' of particles?

The drag is less than you think.

>The Challenger had its windshield struck by something MICROSCOPIC that
>left a 2.4 millimeter LONG track in the glass.  It wouldn't have been
>noticed at all except for the fact that the windshields are regularly
>inspected because a micrometeoroid impact is a source of a sample of
>extraterrestrial material.  I'm not even sure that the track was
>visible to the naked eye; it certainly wasn't a 2.4 millimeter crater.
>Moreover, a ``postage-stamp-sized'' object would do a LOT more damage
>than that!

It was smaller than postage size.  Not quite microscopic.  It cut the
mission short 1 day, it was regarded as very serious.  They know it was
paint because it was spectroscopically analyzed: very high in TiO2 and
other things (stuff of white paint).  Do you need the real dimensions?
I would have to go to the library to look it up.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #323
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Aug 87 17:46:15 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02445; Mon, 24 Aug 87 03:34:14 PDT
	id AA02445; Mon, 24 Aug 87 03:34:14 PDT
Date: Mon, 24 Aug 87 03:34:14 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708241034.AA02445@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #324

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 324

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Space Debris
     Re: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5)
			   Re: Space Debris
		   Re: Repost: A galactic Calendar
			The Media and Science
		  Re: SDI funding of space research
			  Soviet "successes"
		   Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 87 19:30:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Space Debris

[ Don humble&contrite expression;
  overlay sheepish grin 8-) (baa!)
  wield fire extinguisher;
  write on blackboard 100 times, I will not post at 0130 when I'm only
  marginally sentient... ]

Believe it or not, I had completely, in my 1:30AM fog, forgotten about
the paint flake crater.  I had confused it with earlier incidents where
Orbiter windshields were removed to study micrometeoroid tracks.  Yes,
the Orbiter windshield has been struck, by a PINHEAD (not postage-stamp)
sized paint flake, cratering the windshield.

Sorry.

BTW, I haven't seen anything on that incident in a while.  Does anyone
have any idea what the paint was from?  Perhaps the orbiter's own ET?

The rest of the argument stands.  Large objects re-enter *regularly*.
Smaller objects ought to have their orbits decay even faster; there's a
couple orders of magnitude difference in the Reynolds numbers, after
all.

If all else fails, it is	Kevin Kenny
always possible to ensure	kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU
one's immortality by		{ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
spectacular error.
   -J. K. Galbraith.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 13:56:45 GMT
From: mtune!mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.edu  (Evelyn C. Leeper)
Subject: Re: newsletters, AW&ST summaries (was Re: My grouse with L5)

I apparently mis-read or misinterpreted the request for a Postscript version
of Henry's summaries to be a request for a *posting* of Postscript versions
instead of the current version.  It wasn't.  My apologies for flaming the
person involved.  However, my flames hold for all those who do post only
Postscript versions--they're not very useful.

					Evelyn C. Leeper
					(201) 957-2070
				UUCP:	ihnp4!mtgzy!ecl
				ARPA:	mtgzy!ecl@rutgers.rutgers.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 87 22:19:26 GMT
From: imagen!fjd@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Drinkwater)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

I've been following the 'space debris' discussion for a while now, and
There's something a bit odd.

By now I suppose we can all take it as given that there have been
several 'significant' impacts between functioning
satellites/shuttles/etc and various bits of orbiting debris.

My question is: What orbits were all of these objects and bits of debris
in?  It seems obvious (uh-oh...) that for there to be a significant
delta-v between two objects implies that they are in significantly
different orbits (tautological, even...).  The orbital differences might
include apogee, perigee, inclination, ... (someone who knows can add to
the list).

Who has information on what the distribution of junk (functioning and
otherwise) is among orbits?  How much is in various polar orbits?  How
much in orbits with significant eccentricity?  How much in retrograde
orbit? :-) It seems clear that there ought not to be significant impacts
between, for instance, a satellite and small bits of its terminal
booster.  (Note that the terms of the discussion change if we are
talking about low-relative- velocity impacts between objects of
significant mass.)  After all, most of the junk launched into LEO from
Kennedy was headed in pretty much the same direction

Where this gets really interesting is when you think about all the polar
orbit surveillance stuff in LEO (launched mostly by USAF?)  versus
random low-inclination orbit stuff (e.g. old comsats, SOYUZ, Skylab
(RIP), etc.)  Does the right hand know what the left hand is doing?
Anybody have some numbers?

	Fred Drinkwater

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 87 21:21:54 GMT
From: xanth!kent@AMES.ARPA  (Kent Paul Dolan)
Subject: Re: Repost: A galactic Calendar


[In response to a couple of articles about using the galactic year
(sun one trip around the galaxy) as a fundamental unit of time.]

It's nice to have _no_ idea how to do the math, so I don't have to
feel very responsible for my posting ;-) but I was curious: with
billions of other suns to perturb the journey, is it reasonable that
the (for want of a term) "solar galactic year" would be a fixed value
from one time around to the next?  It wouldn't startle me much to be
told that it varied thirty percent from one trip to the next.  This
seems to agree in a coarse measure with the differences in the
"Nemesis" extinction cycles, if there is some relationship there.

Kent, the man from xanth.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 13:22:07
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 20 13:22:07 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 20 13:26:31 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: uunet!mnetor!yetti!geac!chris@seismo.css.gov
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: The Media and Science

<CS> Date: 12 Aug 87 22:34:34 GMT
<CS> From: uunet!mnetor!yetti!geac!chris@seismo.css.gov  (Chris Syed)
<CS> Subject: The Media and Science

<CS> The problem with science is that it is mostly a combination of
<CS> cerebral things and tedious, lengthy, nitpicky analysis of data -
<CS> neither of which are right for TV.

You are thinking of commercial advertisements and sitcoms. But TV also
has soap operas, which drag some spicy mystery on and on for over three
months before resolving. If science can be molded into a serial, with
enough sex to make the average viewer watch it, it could be presented on
TV as a fully developed investigation of mystery instead of just a
momentary flash. For example, As The World Turns for a while had a
computer hacker named "Ernie", boyfriend of one of the regular young
gorgeous women. That subplot lasted only a few months. But if Ernie had
been a radio astronomer, and the mystery was some signal he received
from Tau Ceti which might be from intelligent life there, and he had to
keep it quiet to avoid a panic, but more and more friends of friends
found out about it and started asking obvious questions, maybe it could
have taught somebody something. Ernie could drop tidbits of information
about Tau Ceti being a yellow dwarf just a little smaller than our Sun,
and an infrared astronomer he chats with could reveal that a
Jupiter-sized planet is suspected around Tau Ceti (not stretching the
truth much, and the actual radio signal could turn out to be a new kind
of Neutron star).

Or somebody on the show could just happen to earn a living at something
other than hospital/police/entertainment/construction, for example lunar
mining via remote control or Martian rovers etc., and could randomly
drift conversation into job worries while sweetheart is trying to get
something more sexual happening, but the sweetheart gets drawn into the
technical conversation, and even though doesn't understand the details,
is able to trigger the worred space scientist into a wonderful idea
which results in such appreciation as to provoke a very passionate
thank-you kiss followed by a passionate fadeout...

<CS> I once tried to portray astronomy "as it happens" on film. What I
<CS> got was a bunch of people sitting around in a visually exciting
<CS> radio observatory, doing boring things. Would you watch a half-
<CS> hour show of someone looking at squiggles on paper or chewing a
<CS> pencil?

So, don't show the day to day mundane, show the meetings and briefings.
I found the 3-day JPL/PBS coverage of (I think) Pioneer 11 to be very
exciting. I liked the way the head scientists of each team would
immediately present the latest tentative conclusions based on the very
latest data and analysis. For example, somebody explained how the strong
dips in ion flux means ions drift down very slowly and stabily from high
orbit until they reach an orbit of a moonlet or ring at which point they
are almost completely swept up, whereas around Jupiter where there's a
strong magnetic field the ions are so highly agitated that they can jump
across any satellite-barrier simply by passing across the orbit while
the satellite isn't there. Of course I'm a scientist-type, who
understands elementary physics and thermodynamics, but perhaps there are
enough such laymen to make such a program worthwhile. (Maybe the TV
audience isn't as stupid as programing usually assumes?)

In any case, live presentations of the latest discoveries is more
suitable for TV than a video taping of day to day work. Maybe once in a
while a scientist could summarize the experimental/analysis method that
was used, but mostly just present the conjectures and arguments together
with nice graphs of the data that supports it.


<CS> But more importantly, it would be nice to figure out how to get
<CS> stuff _regularly_ on computing, space, astronomy, anything
<CS> scientific or technological, onto prime time network feed.  At
<CS> least, it seems like a reasonable course to me. And I'd hazard a
<CS> guess that production-value - flashy visuals, something like an
<CS> unfolding story, would be prime requirements.

Re flashing visuals, be sure you do *NOT* use the "multimedia" approach
typically used by Foothill College (Los Altos Hills, California),
whereby they create a flashy visual effect by sliding various stills
past each other, fading stills in and out in a multiple exposure,
gradually changing magnification of a still to make it look like we're
approaching it, etc. That stuff is utter crap and turns me off so much I
reject watching it. If you have a computer simulation of travel through
space, fine, but don't try to achieve the same effect by multimedia
trickery, it looks too phony and turns people off about science or about
your presentation, or if people believe it they get misled about how
things would really look. Time lapse sequences of Voyager approaching
Jupiter are really neat. Fake approach by taking a single still and
gradually making it larger is crap.

Hmmm, if toy companies can produce half-hour programs for children that
are not much more than half-hour commercials for their toys (is the toy
based on the program, or is the program based on the toy?), then why
can't we produce half-hour programs for housewives and other soap-operas
watchers which are really political advertisements for more funding for
space? We hook the viewer on the excitement of space, get the viewer
really in favor of some particular project, then drop the sad news that
the project might be cut due to lack of funds, if only every viewer
would telephone congresscritter's local office ...

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 16:19:29 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research

> ... (I know the military uses space, but there aren't any major
> weapon systems there yet.)...

Remember that an absolute ban on weapons in space would ground all
ICBMs.  (A good idea, too.)  Frankly, it strikes me as academic that
ICBM warheads are in space only briefly -- it's still a military use of
space, and one that is much bigger and more significant than the
penny-ante stuff that the current squabbling is about.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 6 Aug 87 13:41 EDT
From: Chris Jones <clj@sapsucker.scrc.symbolics.com>
Subject: Soviet "successes"
To: John Unekis <jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov>

    Date: 30 Jul 87 18:36:23 GMT
    From: jplgodo!wlbr!etn-rad!jru@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (John Unekis)

    This is getting nauseating. Could we please stop flagellating
    ourselves with the Soviet space accomplishments. They have had more
    than their share of failures. Remember when one of their cosmonauts
    accidently opened a valve and let the air out of his capsule ?
 No, I don't.  Are you referring to the Salyut 1 crew reentry, when an
accidental decompression (of course, since they didn't have space suits)
caused NOT by one of the cosmonauts caused all three of them to die?

    Remember when they had a retro-rocket failure and their hard-landing
    was really a hard landing?
 No, I don't.  By retro-rocket I assume you mean one to cushion the
landing on earth rather than exit orbit, since a failure of the latter
is more spectacular.

Just FYI, other failures the Soviets have had include Soyuz 1's reentry,
when (according to the official explanation) tangled parachute lines
caused a parachute malfunction, causing the Soyuz to crash, killing the
pilot (Komarov, the first man to return to space), several (like 5)
failures of Soyuz craft to dock with Salyut stations, the world's
longest suborbital flight, when a problem separating the 4 booster pods
from the first stage prevented the second stage from firing, causing the
two cosmonauts to endure a somewhat severe reentry uncomfortably close
(from their point of view) to the Chinese border, and a fire on the pad
which caused the blockhouse crew to have to fire the escape rockets to
save the crew.

    The only thing that the Soviets do better than the U.S. is to control
    their press. 
 This is bull, and contradicted by your following comments.  I'm really
disgusted with everyone blaming "the press" for all problems.  When I
was growing up, it was "society".  It's a cop-out either way.

    If they blow up a rocket, there is no Congressional Comittee set up
    to publicly humiliate the Nation for months on end.
 If you're referring to the Rogers Comission, it was a presidentially
appointed commission.  I'm also pretty disgusted with knee-jerk Congress
bashing.

    There is no television coverage of the engineers responsible being
    asked to rat on their superiors and incriminate government
    officials.
 What position are you taking here?  That the Morton-Thiokol engineers
were wrong to restate their positions?  That the investigation shouldn't
have been carried out?

    They simply take those responsible for the failure out, shoot them
    through the kneecaps, and then get on with the business of exploring
    space.
 They do get on with the business of exploring space.  The first part of
the sentence is simply unfounded caricature.

    We seem to have a national obsession with guilt. We must indulge
    ourselves in an orgy of accusations and incriminations to clear the
    national conscience. The net result is that we embarass ourselves in
    the eyes of the world and learn almost nothing of real value.
 Still want to stick with your "the only thing the Soviets do better
that the U.S.  is to control their press" statement?

    What is the actual result of the Challenger crash? A rocket booster
    sprang a leak and the ship blew up killing the crew.

	SO WHAT!!!

    We kill more people on our highways every day than have died in the
    entire history of our space program. Why can't we just accept that
    these are the risks associated with space exploration and get on
    with it. The more man ventures into space, the more people will
    eventually die there.  These people will be heroes for taking the
    risks that they do, but our entire space effort shouldn't be brought
    to its knees every time there is a casualty.

 I mostly agree with this.  However, the *result* of "the Challenger
crash" is that we have lost 1/4 of our primary space transportation
system, and said system has been exposed to a lot of scrutiny which
seems to indicate that the *system* was flawed from the beginning (or at
least overrated).  Further, the American people (not Congress, not the
press) seem to not be terribly concerned about our future in space, as
long as we "get the shuttle flying again".

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 87 21:08:10 GMT
From: scherzo!lyang@sun.com  (Larry Yang)
Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands

In article <231@etn-rad.UUCP> jru@etn-rad.UUCP (0000-John Unekis) writes:
>In article <8707300454.AA04852@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
>>  The Russian/Syrian space mission ended today (July 29th) when the
>>Soyuz TM-2 spacecraft returned to earth. . . . . . . .
>>
>>  They are obviously building up to a constant presence in space.
>>I wish we were.
>
>	 This is getting nauseating. Could we please stop flagellating
>	 ourselves with the Soviet space accomplishments. 

I don't think that hearing about things that we cannot get from NASA,
our President, or even our media is flagellating ourselves.  It's
looking at reality.  (BTW, I don't read Aviation Week, although I
probably should start)

Admittedly, Glenn's last statement was a little editorial, but I've
found his little summaries very informative.  Doesn't it bother people
that the Soviets are doing things that we won't be doing until at least
10 years from now?  The Soviets probably have acquired more knowledge
about long-term human space habitation; I think we should look at their
results, rather than ignore them.  I think any good scientist will
agree.

--Larry Yang [lyang@sun.com,{backbone}!sun!lyang]
  Sun Microsystems, Inc., Mountain View, CA

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #324
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Aug 87 06:19:00 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01355; Tue, 25 Aug 87 03:17:22 PDT
	id AA01355; Tue, 25 Aug 87 03:17:22 PDT
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 87 03:17:22 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708251017.AA01355@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #325

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 325

Today's Topics:
		    Re: Re:Soviet/Syrian comments
		       Re: Pro-Space Publicity
		      Improved rocket technology
		Re: Why [not] air-breathing boosters?
		       Re: Government in space
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
			  Man-rated boosters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 7 Aug 87 17:27:26 EDT
From: Glenn Chapman <glenn@ll-vlsi.arpa>
Subject: Re: Re:Soviet/Syrian comments

In Space Digest of Aug6th John Unekis makes the following comment on
my posting of the Soviet/Syrian mission:

>In article <8707300454.AA04852@ll-vlsi.arpa> glenn@LL-VLSI.ARPA (Glenn Chapman) writes:
> [. . . -Ed]
>This is getting nauseating. [. . . -Ed]

This posting illustrates well a couple of the reasons why I post the
Soviet space results to the net here.  The first is to inform people
about what they are doing, because the general press gives really bad
description of the Russian work.  Consider that the "facts" Mr. Unekis
are wrong.  The Soyuz 11 crew died when the retro rocket firing knocked
open a pressure release value that was used on landing, not from opening
it themselves (the crew was cranking closed the value when they died -
it took longer to close manually than to evacuate the Soyuz).  Since
then all their crews have had pressure suits in the capsules.  Also the
retro rocket on Soyuz 1 did not fail giving the cosmonaut a hard landing
- the burn can at the wrong time, and the capsule was tumbling.  The
cosmonaut died when his parachut line became entangled.

Ignorance of what the other countries are doing is not going to help our
program, only hurt it by making it easy for us to hide our heads in the
sand and assume that we are ahead.

                                    Glenn Chapman
                                    MIT Lincoln Lab

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 04:14:49 GMT
From: ecsvax!ruslan@mcnc.org  (Robin C. LaPasha)
Subject: Re: Pro-Space Publicity

In article <131@geovision.UUCP>, alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
> (BTW, how many people know that "mir" also means "outpost" or "fort"?
> The fortified settlements on the Siberian frontier in the last century
> (analogous to the old western frontier in North America) were called
> mirs.)
>  Alastair JW Mayer

Well, "mir" does have several meanings.  World, peace (from two
different original words, but I digress...) Mir does mean settlement as
well, like settlement/community/village etc., not necessarily a
"fortified outpost" affair.

Remember, though, the Russian settlements were not only "analogous to
the old western frontier in North America," they were over here.  Their
outposts spread from Siberia to Alaska (1792) and California (1841).
They got around.

Robin LaPasha        ruslan@ecsvax.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 1987 17:44-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Improved rocket technology

Andy:
	It's been said that to every expert there is an equal and
opposite expert. I've heard opinions both ways from people who really
should know.

What is innovative about the design seems to be more the fact that it's
actually intended to be built rather than done as an R&D try it and
scrap it program.

I discussed it sometime back with E. Doug Ward, former President of
Astrotech. He worked for the people who tested the aerospike back in the
fifties. (Aerojet I think). His opinion is that the specs are too
optimistic and the problems will come in the combining of the pieces.
His experience is that rockets are not just simple combinations of
proven subsystems. They have to be understand and tested as a single
entity. Although much of this can now be simulated, his experience is
that simulation can also be a false comfort.

Maxwell Hunter, a very senior engineer at Lockheed Missiles and Space, has
told me "Gary is the only one in the business doing it right".

Pick your expert or flip a coin...

The bigger question in my own mind is whether he can find sufficient
funding even at the 'low' price tag he is claiming. The biggest venture
capital deal to date was $50M for Orbital Services Corporation, and
I've hard that Wall Street is very unlikely to do it again. The US
launch problems have pushed the payback back too far for them,
decreasing the ROI relative to other possibilities. However, I have
been hearing that there is a good bit of off shore money interested in
projects like this, so who knows?

------------------------------

Date: 10 Aug 87 18:42:01 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Why [not] air-breathing boosters?

> What are the technical problems with this approach?  Obviously, we
> haven't tried an air-breathing first stage on orbital launchers
> before...

I think the main reason (Dani may correct me on this...) is simply that
they look unattractive compared to rockets unless some special virtue
like reusability is important.  The 8:1 thrust-to-weight ratio of a good
modern jet sounds impressive until you look at the T:W ratio for rocket
engines!  I don't have numbers handy, but I doubt that the F-1 weighed
more than a few thousand pounds, and its thrust was slightly over 1.5
*million* pounds.  And it was deliberately a low-tech engine in every
way except sheer size.

Actually, it might be interesting to look at the performance of
specialized jet engines, like the old Rolls-Royce lift engines.  These
were meant for VTOL designs using entirely separate engines for jet lift
and normal forward flight.  They had some of the characteristics that
one would like for a booster application; in particular, they were
designed to be light and to spend most of their operating lives at
wide-open maximum thrust.  One obvious problem is that they probably
weren't built for supersonic speeds.

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 22:46:28 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!rubin@rutgers.edu  (Mike Rubin)
Subject: Re: Government in space

In article <236204.870801.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU>, KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
> No government spending on space could ever lead to anything useful.
> If a use of space is worth more than it costs, individuals and
> companies will voluntarily invest in it.  If a use of space is worth
> less than it costs, nobody should spend anything.  And if there is any
> doubt as to whether a use of space is worth as much as it costs, let
> only those who consent risk their money on it, by investing in
> whatever company.

There are three problems inherent to the space business that do seem to
suggest a useful role for the government.

First, any new enterprise will take several years to start operation.
The investors must have reasonable assurances that it won't get wiped
out by regulatory changes in the meantime.

Second, the startup capital required seems to be so huge that only a
government or an Arab oil sheik could put it up.  Publicly held
corporations (i.e. Big Aerospace) cannot, even if they want to, because
they are bound by charter not to gamble large fractions of their net
worth on risky projects.  Multiple Big Aerospace companies can't team up
and share the costs because that would fall under antitrust laws.

Third, the foreign competitors are subsidized by their taxpayers.

No, the government shouldn't be in the business of designing and flying
hardware for civilian use.  Hell, they can't even build highways right
any more!  What they *should* be doing is facilitating private
enterprise.  This means a guarantee of initial launch business; an
insurance setup (fully or quasi-public) that can protect against Acts of
Congress and other such external impositions, as well as solve the
thorny problem of accident liability; loosening of antitrust and SEC
regulations if necessary (and certainly removal of the silly stuff like
import duties from orbit); and subsidy in the form of tax breaks only to
counter foreign subsidies.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 21:51:48 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

> >                                         In addition, the thing is
> > supposed to get a higher exhaust velocity by burning an oxygen-rich
> > fuel mix.
> 
> Shouldn't this read "hydrogen-rich"? 

My spies report that "oxygen-rich" is for real.  The notion is to squeeze
a bit more performance by varying the mixture ratio, sort of a simple
version of the more complex dual-fuel engine.  I would guess oxygen-rich
at takeoff, for greater overall fuel density and (perhaps) higher thrust,
changing to hydrogen-rich at altitude for higher exhaust velocity.  I would
not want to be assigned to developing the combustion-chamber lining, but
otherwise it doesn't sound that hard.  The performance gain would not be
large, but single-stage-to-orbit is so borderline that small gains can
be important.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 87 04:49:52 GMT
From: jade!web4h!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

	I managed to get Gary Hudson's phone number from the person who
gave me the _Phoenix_ paper, and I pestered GH at home.  Very
informative and polite, given that I was being a bit of a jerk by
contacting him in this manner.  Anyhow, here are my tablets from Mt.
Sinai:

	Yes, it really does burn an oxygen rich mix during the first
part of the ascent.  According to GH, the idea is to max out "specific
density flow as opposed to specific impulse."  I think the idea here is
that though the exhaust velocity will be lower, the total change in
momentum of the expelled fuel will be higher.

	GH claims that were one to take out the hydrogen tank in the
proposed National Aerospace Plane and replace it with a hydrogen/oxygen
system (not air-breathing) it would multiply the payload by a factor of
two or more.

In article <1368@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>Some background: in 1985 Boeing was asked by the Air Force to evaluate
>the Phoenix.  We understand that Hudson was asking the AF for use of
>Vandenberg AFB as a launch site.  They asked us if the Phoenix concept
>was 'for real'.
	Hudson claimed that this wasn't quite the way it
happened, but that's not relevant to the design.

>Our conclusions were:
>(1) Hudson's weight growth margin of 5%, given the number of advanced
>technologies in the Phoenix, was overly optimistic.  It should be in
>the 15-25% range.
	Hudson sez': The numbers for the Phoenix estimates were based on
an all-metal craft, while "those guys" typically start with a design
using lighter composites.  His design has room for mass loss.  Also,
even with a 25% mass growth, the payload would only be halved.  Still a
super deal.

>(2) The weight statement in their baseline concept underestimates
>certain components, such as the passenger door and cargo door.  These
>are described as similar to airplane doors, but the weights used by
>Hudson were much smaller than airline practice.

	According to Hudson, circular doors can be much lighter
than rectangular airplane doors.  He made a lot of arguments abouts
stresses that I didn't understand.

>(3) The advanced technologies (aerospike, slush propellants) are
>inconsistent with the idea '$200 million to develop'.  We estimated
>$2.2 billion total development cost for the Phoenix concept as
>described by Hudson.

	GH pointed to the more complicated $165M SR71, and claimed to be
modeling costs along the same lines as the Japanese H2 rocket.  Last
year Lockheed (sp?) studied the _Phoenix_ as the _Lockheed X-rocket_.
They thought they could get better performance than Hudson, but it would
run $600Meg to develop.

	[Me:] The price of two shuttle laaunches seems like quite a
bargain.  I wonder if it's too good to be true.

	For those of you who commented about the lack of technology in
pumping slush hydrogen, GH claims that the viscosity of slush H2 and
liquid H2 are so close that existing LH2 pumps will work.  Although, he
did say that the tank design is a bit different because the partial
pressure of gas H2, when the tank starts draining is substantially
lower.

	Somebody, a week or two ago, in this group, had the bright
idea of donating time and available resources to "the cause."
Hudson said that, yes indeed, some PROGRAMMING and other chores
that might be worth the hassle of dealing with folks, if they were free.
Here's how to contact him:

		Gary Hudson
		Pacific American Launch Systems
		10 Dolphin Drive
		Redwood City, CA 94065
		(415)595-6500

--Adam

Adam J. Richter
adamj@bartleby.berkeley.edu
...!ucbvax!bartleby!adamj
(609)734-6525

------------------------------

Date: 12 Aug 87 16:38:51 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

I've chatted with Gary Hudson, he knows his stuff.  The technology in
_Phoenix_ (reusable, ballistic SSTO) has all been demonstrated, if not
exactly "off-the-shelf".  (A technical paper on this design was
presented at the annual AAAS meeting a couple of years ago.  Less
technical stuff may be available from Pacific-American Launch Systems)
  From other people who'd know - engineers with many years in the space
business and now senior people with co's like Boeing Aerospace - the
general consensus is that it'll work, if.  The "if's" are limited to the
pumping of slush hydrogen already mentioned (this has been demonstrated
at the flow rates required, but not yet in rockets); to the use of O2
rich exhaust products (can be handled by appropriate choice of materials
for the combustors, etc); and to some slight criticism of the design of
the fuel tank and whether weight/stiffness/strength estimates are
accurate (considering that the major structural material is aluminum -
for low cost - there's room for improvement even if these concerns are
valid, but apparently these concerns were based on incomplete structural
drawings).
    For all that, the thing will still fly even without recourse to
slush hydrogen, etc.  It just won't be able to carry quite as much
payload, hence the cost/lb to orbit will be higher.  (In his more
optimistic moments Hudson claims that he could make a profit at
<<$100/lb)
   
    As far as non-technical objections go, some people aren't too fond
of the vertical landing technique (there was quite a discussion with
Rick Cook about this on BIX/space a while back) but that's no worse than
Harrier jump-jets or how we landed men on the moon.

 Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al
                      UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair

Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 87 23:29:08 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

> ...some people aren't too fond
> of the vertical landing technique... but that's no worse
> than Harrier jump-jets or how we landed men on the moon.

The Harrier pilots are fond of commenting that stopping and then landing
is much easier than landing and then trying to stop.

Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

From: bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa
Sender: ota@galileo.s1.gov
Date: 14 Aug 87 10:40:00 EST
Subject: Man-rated boosters
Reply-To: <bouldin@ceee-sed.arpa>

One or two simple questions: Can the Big Dumb Boosters currently under
discussion be rated to carry people? What does "man-rated" really mean?
I assume it is just a higher level of reliability, but can anyone
provide some specifics?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #325
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Aug 87 11:24:48 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00980; Wed, 26 Aug 87 03:17:38 PDT
	id AA00980; Wed, 26 Aug 87 03:17:38 PDT
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 87 03:17:38 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708261017.AA00980@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #326

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 326

Today's Topics:
		    space news from July 13 AW&ST
		  Re: SDI funding of space research
		  Re: SDI funding of space research
			Re: Man-rated boosters
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 00:03:03 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from July 13 AW&ST

[This one is rather long; there is a lot of news.]

A Japenese construction firm is studying an oceangoing launch platform.

Harvard Business School report on commercial space, not published yet,
says the single biggest obstacle to space commerce is repeated changes
in US government policy, with high costs and lack of access to space
tied for second.

Widespread discontent in NASA and aerospace industry with lack of
leadership in civilian space program; Fletcher and Presidential Science
Advisor Graham are particularly unpopular.  "Numerous veteran NASA
managers told AW&ST that Fletcher is regarded as inarticulate and
uninformed..."

House overwhelmingly approves $9.51G NASA authorization for FY88, after
defeating amendments to ban weapons testing on station and to require
NASA's top two positions to be held by civilians.

Sally Ride's study team, assessing major new space goals, will firmly
endorse a Moon base as the next step in manned space exploration.  It
will also recommend an aggressive Earth-observation program as a major
priority for space science.  The team's report will go to Fletcher early
in August.  It proposes return to the Moon by year 2000, with the
shuttle, a heavylift launcher, and the space station as necessary tools.
Mars is endorsed as a desirable long-term goal, but a manned lunar base
should come first.  Reviving planetary science will also be stressed,
especially with reference to the vigorous Soviet program; CRAF (comet
rendezvous asteroid flyby) and Mars sample return are identified as
important, but Earth observation -- multiple shuttle and station
payloads, plus a number of polar-orbit and Clarke-orbit platforms, some
of them built by Europe and Japan -- is given the #1 spot in planetary
science.  The Clarke-orbit platforms would be assembled at the space
station.

Michael Collins [Apollo 11], who chaired the NASA Advisory Council group
that recommended Mars, disagrees that it is necessary to go back to the
Moon before Mars.  However, he notes that his group was divided on this
issue, and that its final recommendations left open the possibility that
the Moon would be a useful intermediate step.

Ride: "We do not really have a strategy for human exploration in NASA.
We have the shuttle and the station but they are not a strategy for
human exploration...  the correct approach is to move slowly and
responsibly from low Earth orbit and to first explore the Moon.  There
are a lot of good reasons to go back to the Moon...  The US did not
finish the job we started during the Apollo project.  There is still a
lot of lunar exploration, lunar science, and research on advanced
technologies to be done..."  She says studies are underway on what
effects this will have on the space station design.  "We need a much
more robust space transportation capability than a four-shuttle fleet."
A shuttle-derived heavylift launcher would suffice to get things
started, although a bigger one might be needed later.  The "Pathfinder"
technology effort should be started at once to make the necessary new
technologies ["Necessary" new technologies?  Nonsense.  Try "useful". --
HS] available in time; this may take a fight, because the Office of
Mismanagement and Beancounting is against major Pathfinder funding in
FY89.  "Starting Pathfinder is something we can do now... It does not
require billions of dollars.  Until we start Pathfinder and other key
technologies we always are going to be 10-20 years from completing these
goals."  Additional work on closed-cycle life-support and human response
to free-fall are particularly important.

[HOORAY!  For once, a NASA committee says something sensible!  -- HS]

US and USSR will cooperate in September launch of Soviet Vostok biosat,
carrying rats and monkeys to study free-fall and radiation effects.
NASA team is in Moscow to straighten out details.  US dosimeters will be
on board the satellite, and US investigators will participate in
dissection and analysis of results.  The spacecraft is the same type
that Yuri Gagarin rode in 1961.

Indonesian delegation to visit Moscow to discuss launching future
Indonesian comsats on Soviet boosters.

NRC review team raises doubts about NASA's space-station cost estimates.
It says that the bill for the phase-one station will be $25G, not
$14.5G, including support and launch costs.  NASA says this is silly,
since other NASA programs do not have support and launch costs charged
against their budgets, and that the station cost estimates stand.  NRC
says the full phase-two station would total $33G; NASA notes that phase
two has not been approved and probably won't be.  The NRC numbers are
going to cause trouble in Congress, though, with Proxmire already taking
note.  NRC notes several serious uncertainties in costs: the stations's
total dependency on the shuttle, the policy of providing minimal backup
hardware (there will be spares for on-orbit maintenance, but no real
coverage against loss of an entire launch's payload), and complicated
and messy management structures.

NASA asks Congress to approve use of $3M in station funds for a detailed
look at a crew-rescue vehicle, another thing that NRC noted the lack of.
Costs for such a vehicle are estimated at $1.5-2G.

[Micro-editorial: two billion for a crew-rescue vehicle is ridiculous.
What is needed is a couple of Apollo command modules -- the contingency
rescue plan for Skylab put five people in an Apollo -- and some minor
bits of extra hardware.  This would involve some new development, since
the leftover Apollo hardware is undoubtedly no longer spaceworthy, but
there is no reason to start the design from scratch. -- HS]

Japan's Space Activities Commission issues report calling for major
funding for various projects, including the Hope spaceplane.

Japan's seven largest companies form Pacific Spaceport Group to look at
spaceport sites in the Pacific.  The Australian state of Queensland is a
prime candidate, as is the Japanese island of Hokkaido.

Congress gives NASA and USAF $75M more for heavylift launcher work, with
a stipulation that it not be used for early SDI deployment in 1993-4.
NASA's responsibilities in the ALS project are ill-defined, but its role
has been boosted because it got $38M of the $75M.  The early-90s interim
ALS idea was specifically not funded.

Eutelsat confirms order for a fourth Eutelsat 2 comsat from the European
consortium that is building the earlier ones.

Inmarsat is providing capacity on its Atlantic comsat free for a
Canadian experiment in providing reliable communications for air
ambulances.

Canada approves [at last! -HS] development of the Radarsat
remote-sensing satellite, for launch in 1994.  It's cut down a bit from
the original idea, but remains a synthetic-aperture radar with
resolution of 10-100m depending on operating mode.  Radarsat has until
the end of the year to reaffirm US and British participation, both of
which are a bit less than certain due to the delays in starting the
program.  Britain would provide the spacecraft bus and possibly a couple
of experiments, but the muddled situation of the British space plan and
changes in British space leadership makes this no longer a sure thing.
The US would provide the launch, but NOAA no longer wants to fly an
instrument on Radarsat and the aftereffects of Challenger make the US
role uncertain too.  German participation is a possibility.  The new
Radarsat plan is for a non-refurbishable satellite (the old one was to
be shuttle-serviceable) with a lifetime of five years (was ten) and a
launch in 1994 (was 1991).  Wide-beam coverage will be a swath of 500km
at 100m resolution, narrow-beam will be 55km at 10m, medium-beam will be
100km at 25m.  Medium-beam can be pointed anywhere within Radarsat's
700km ground track.  The combination will give complete daily coverage
of ice conditions in the Canadian Arctic, an important application not
possible with Landsat or Spot (even ignoring clouds, which won't bother
Radarsat).

AW&ST tours Chinese Xichang launch facility, noting new facilities under
construction.  Three more Long March 3 launches are set for next year,
two with US commercial payloads if US government approval can be had.
New facilities are a big spacecraft-prep building with clean-room areas
(for foreigners, the Chinese don't bother keeping their satellites
antiseptic), data relay systems, a spacecraft propellant-loading
building, a building for storing and preparing satellite solid-rocket
motors, a chilled-X-ray facility for final checkout of solid motors, a
clean room at satellite level in the servicing tower on the pad, and
other odds and ends.  "The scene in the last mile of road leading up to
the pad was unlike anything that would ever be viewed at the US, Soviet
or European launch sites.  Villagers were leading donkeys, young girls
strolled with sun umbrellas and water buffalo waded in rice paddies, all
within the immediate vicinity of the booster service tower... Two PLA
guards were stationed under a multi- colored beach umbrella at the
entrance to the pad... Chinese children were swimming near the pad..."
The locals *do* get evacuated before an actual launch, and are taken to
a nearby town for a movie or equivalent.  Things are kept as simple as
possible.  The water-flood system for the pad is by gravity from a tank
on a nearby mountain.  The launch pad is set to the proper azimuth using
a laser measuring system and hand cranks!

[Is it any wonder their launches are half the price of anyone else's?
--HS]

Germany and Italy are proposing Topas, a recoverable microgravity
capsule launched by Scout from the San Marco platform off Kenya, as a
way of getting microgravity experiments into space soon, aiming at first
flight in 1989.  GE's off-the-shelf reentry capsules would be used.
Flights would last 2-14 days and would be available every few months.
Capacity is 100-120kg.  Cost-effectiveness would be secondary to
schedule.

There is also a tentative agreement to fly European biological
microgravity payloads on the Soviet Biocosmos spacecraft, with
negotiations underway on materials science.

NASA is facing a choice for the FY89 new science start: CRAF or the
Advanced X-Ray Astronomy Facility.  There is thought to be no hope of
getting both.  Fletcher is generally pessimistic about major new funding
for anything in the near future.

Processing of Discovery for STS-26 will start in September and end in
March.  SRBs will arrive in December and stack in January.  Rollout will
be in March and the flight-readiness firing in April or May, for launch
in June.

NASA safety office is starting projects to study microgravity fires,
space debris protection, and software error detection and prevention.

Miscellaneous quotes from the letters page: "It took 10 years to reach
the Moon; it should not take 20 years to return there."  "...the Soviet
Union has won the space race as far as there has been any such."  And
the letter of the week, responding to an AW&ST article expressing
various reservations about the mediasat idea:

	"...The article expressed views I expect from Soviet and US
	intelligence authorities protecting their information turf.  The
	interests of the common man are quite different...

	"'Satellite images could... deprive US troops of... surprise.'
	Also, anyone else's troops.  Surprise benefits the aggressor...

	"'News... organizations could... reveal sensitive information
	about other countries, provoking an attack on the US...'  Trans-
	lated, it would be more difficult for foreign leaders to lie to
	us.  Good.  As for the attacks, that's what we pay DOD $300
	billion a year to take care of.

	"'Mediasat images could provide intelligence to countries that
	do not own reconnaissance satellites.'  Good.  See the first
	point.

	"'Images... could reveal facts about an unfolding crisis...'
	Again, it's more difficult to lie.  Good...

	"'The news media may misinterpret satellite images in such a way
	as to precipitate a crisis.'  Granted.  So could the
	intelligence community..."
					"Al Globus, California"
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 02:43:56 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research

In article <1837@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes:
> There are studies that indicate that the Apollo program has paid back
> the economy many times over, even if you don't look at spin-off
> technologies.  What we need is a strong program in basic technologies
> which will make working in space routine.  If we could only get SDI
> funding levels for basic space research.
> 
> Gerry Gleason

The SDI program IS funding space research, although not at the 'basic
science' level.  I am aware of this through my daytime job at Boeing.

The SDIO is painfully aware that the present cost of space
transportation makes deployment of a defensive system in space
prohibitively expensive.  Because of this, they are spending $70 million
this year and more in the next several years to develop space
transportation technology.  The stated goal is to develop an 'Advanced
Launch System' which will operate at 10% of today's costs.  Today's
costs are defined as the total cost (including cost of failures) of the
Titan 4 rocket, which is estimated at $4,800 per pound (about $10,000
per kilogram).  About 25% of the cost is due to failures.

The key technologies for a next-generation rocket are:
   o Reuseable Hydrocarbon Rocket Engine

     This will raise the specific impulse of a booster from 260 seconds
for today's solid boosters to about 350 seconds.

   o Automated Mission Planning

     This will reduce the manpower required to plan flights

   o Recovery Module Technology

     This will allow precision return to the surface of about 20 ton
module with all the valuble parts of a second stage.

     You also want to incorporate 'redundancy' in your systems, such as
having a spare booster engine, and two or three sets of flight
electronics.  This will reduce the failure rate over today's rockets.

     In the non-rocket areas of space propulsion, the SDI program is
pushing electromagnetic guns and lasers very heavily.  Both of these can
be used for space launch.  The main holdup in these concepts has been
their small size relative to what is needed for useful payloads to
orbit.  In the laser area especially, higher power is a major goal of
the program.  If we can build lasers big enough to shoot down missiles
(100 Megawatt range) we can also launch into orbit.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 87 16:57:18 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research

> ... they are spending $70 million this year and more in the next
> several years to develop space transportation technology.  The stated
> goal is to develop an 'Advanced Launch System' which will operate at
> 10% of today's costs...

Yup, yup, gotta have an *advanced* launch system.  Lessee, we need
reusable hydrocarbon engines, automated mission planning, recoverable
second-stage hardware, fault-tolerant engine clusters and electronics,
...  Now, who is this contract being run by?  Why, bless my soul, by
that eternal paragon of penny-pinching, the US military.  And who'll do
the work?  Those ultra-productive, hyper-efficient defense contractors.
Let me get my calculator to figure out how much this is going to cost.
Uh oh.  My calculator only goes to 8 digits.

10% of today's costs, you say?  Haven't I heard that before?

The way to make a cheaper launcher is to keep it simple and not too big,
and gear up for two launches a *week* instead of two a year.  And oh
yes, the most vital step is to rigorously exclude anything labelled
"advanced".  (Barring defense contractors from the bidding and bypassing
the standard military procurement procedures would help too...)  Such a
launch system already exists and is very successful: the Soviet "A"
booster.  There is no reason why the US couldn't build something
similar.  The ALS as currently planned will *not* be it, and will *not*
be cheap.
-- 
Support sustained spaceflight: fight |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
the soi-disant "Planetary Society"!  | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 18:14:07 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Man-rated boosters

In article <8708171544.AA04173@galileo.s1.gov>, bouldin@CEEE-SED.ARPA writes:
> One or two simple questions: Can the Big Dumb Boosters currently under
> discussion be rated to carry people? What does "man-rated" really mean?
> I assume it is just a higher level of reliability, but can anyone
> provide some specifics?

The Saturn V/Apollo was considered "man rated" after two successful test
flights.  These *were* pretty thorough tests, with all three stages live,
in-space restart of the S-IVB, etc. to duplicate everything that had to
be done on a real manned moon flight.  The flights were instrumented to the
max (that's where a lot of the stage-separation footage came from), and
apparently everything not only worked but worked pretty close to the way
it was expected to.  At least one of the flights included using the second
S-IVB burn to accelerate the spacecraft toward the atmosphere for a return-
from-the-moon speed re-entry test.

The IB, I believe, also had two unmanned test flights (and the Saturn I had
several flights of its own), and the Titan II/Gemini was flown twice before
being manned (this is why the "Molly Brown" was officially designated
GT-3; GT-1 and GT-2 were the test flights).  Of course, the Titan II had
been tested as an ICBM many times before that.

The Shuttle, of course, flew manned on its very first test flight; indeed,
the first time the SRBs had even been fired in a vertical position.  They
apparently had a lot of confidence.

As for the Dumb Booster, keep in mind that the three most critical engines
on the Apollo (SM engine, LM descent engine and LM ascent engine) were 
designed to be extremely Dumb.  The much-mentioned issue of Newsweek quotes
NASA as specifying that the engines should be "so dumb they couldn't fail."
This would seem to imply that man-rating a Big Dumb Booster should be easier
than man-rating a shuttle.

Side note on the Newsweek article, by the way:  they mentioned that McDonnell
Douglas (is this the right company?) is talking about strapping seven
Deltas (currently our most cost-effective launcher) together to make a big,
semi-dumb booster.  This sounds an awful lot like the Saturn I, and nobody
thought that was a dumb idea at the time...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #326
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Aug 87 06:19:58 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02522; Thu, 27 Aug 87 03:18:27 PDT
	id AA02522; Thu, 27 Aug 87 03:18:27 PDT
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 87 03:18:27 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708271018.AA02522@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #327

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 327

Today's Topics:
       Funding for Phoenix and other Pacific-American projects
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
		  Re: SDI funding of space research
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
			Re: Man-rated boosters
		       Re: FTL and time travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 15:12:46 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Funding for Phoenix and other Pacific-American projects

Last time I talked to Gary Hudson - quite a few months ago - he was
brushing up on his Japanese..

Phoenix aside, PacAmerican has some other systems on the drawing board
- there was an ad for Liberty, a cheap, dumb, expendable booster, in
AW&ST and Commercial Space a few months ago.

 Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al
                      UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair

Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 14:17:27 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

In article <4224@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
>In article <4566@jade.BERKELEY.EDU>, adamj@web4h.BERKELEY.EDU writes:
>> In addition, the thing is supposed to get a higher exhaust velocity
>> by burning an oxygen-rich fuel mix.
>
>Shouldn't this read "hydrogen-rich"? 

No, "oxygen-rich" is correct, but "higher exhaust velocity" isn't.  The
stoichometric exhaust product of H2-O2 rockets is of course just water,
molecular weight 18.  Thrust is proportional to molecular weight of the
exhaust products.  In the initial boost phase, you want high *thrust*,
and the hell with Isp, just to get the thing off the ground.  Enriching
the exhaust with oxygen (molecular weight 32) instead of hydrogen (mw 2)
gives you the added kick you need to get off the pad.  Later on you
change the mix ratio to give better Isp.
-- 
 Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al
                      UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair

Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 14:38:16 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

In article <1368@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>
>Some background: in 1985 Boeing was asked by the Air Force
>to evaluate the Phoenix.  We understand that Hudson was
 [...]
>Our conclusions were:
 [..some probably legitimate concerns..]
>(3) The advanced technologies (aerospike, slush propellants) are
>inconsistent with the idea '$200 million to develop'.  We estimated
>$2.2 billion total development cost for the Phoenix concept as
>described by Hudson.

Hmm, I can't help but wonder if that factor of 10 difference has more to
do with the Big Aerospace Co With Lots of Juicy Federal Contracts And
Deals With Similar Big Aerospace Co's [see the Newsweek report] way of
doing things vs. the Lean Startup Company way of doing things,
considering the amount of work already done on aerospikes in the 60s.
(Slush propellents I'm a bit doubtful of myself)

 [...]
>Now, there are ways to improve the performance of the Phoenix so that
>it can be made to work.  One way is to get a bunch of fighter engines
>(F-100), strap them onto the Phoenix, and use them as boosters up to
>about Mach 2.5 in a vertical takeoff mode.  The jet engines then peel
>off and land as RPVs.  A fighter engine can lift 8 times it's own
>weight at sea level.

Hey, I *like* that.  Hadn't seen it suggested before - and it sounds a
lot more comfortable than having all that hot, O2-rich exhaust around
the launch area.  It *does* add to the complexity, upping both unit cost
and operations cost, and turnaround time.  (Did the Boeing study address
the operating cost and turnaround time aspects of Phoenix?  I think
Hudson was estimating, using automated checkout systems, a 24-48hr
turnaround with a ground crew of 12 or so, once the thing was out of
prototype stage.  *That's* wehere the money is really saved.)

 [...]
>Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing/ssc-vax!eder

 Alastair JW Mayer

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 02:25:48 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research

In article <8434@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > ... they are spending $70 million this year and more in the next
> > several years to develop space transportation technology.  The
> > stated goal is to develop an 'Advanced Launch System' which will
> > operate at 10% of today's costs...
> 
> Yup, yup, gotta have an *advanced* launch system.  Lessee, we need
> reusable hydrocarbon engines, automated mission planning, recoverable
> second-stage hardware, fault-tolerant engine clusters and electronics,
> ...  Now, who is this contract being run by?  Why, bless my soul, by
> that eternal paragon of penny-pinching, the US military.  And who'll
> do the work?  Those ultra- productive, hyper-efficient defense
> contractors.  Let me get my calculator to figure out how much this is
> going to cost.  Uh oh.  My calculator only goes to 8 digits.

I take no credit for naming the program.  In fact, it has changed at
least eight times in the last six years.  I neglected to point out in my
previous posting that the NASA space research and technology budget is
about $150 million per year, thus the ALS funding adds 50% to the
national spending level in that area.

The goal is $54 million per flight for a vehicle with a 150,000 lb
payload flying 82 flights per year in the year 2000.  Write those down
somewhere and see how close we actually become.

> 10% of today's costs, you say?  Haven't I heard that before?

Yes.  That was about the claim for the space shuttle.  Then the US put
up 50% of the development money required.  Then they picked the wrong
end of the rocket (the orbiter) to make reuseable.

If you actually look at where the savings will come from, most of it is
simply economy of scale of payload and higher flight rates.  About a
factor of 2 is due to better technology.

> The way to make a cheaper launcher is to keep it simple and not too
> big, and gear up for two launches a *week* instead of two a year.  And
> oh yes, the most vital step is to rigorously exclude anything labelled
> "advanced".  (Barring defense contractors from the bidding and
> bypassing the standard military procurement procedures would help
> too...)  Such a launch system already exists and is very successful:
> the Soviet "A" booster.  There is no reason why the US couldn't build
> something similar.  The ALS as currently planned will *not* be it, and
> will *not* be cheap.

But, since the Air Force is the customer, no matter who does the work,
they are by definition defense contractors.  Your point about high
flight rates is correct, that will lower costs.  I disagree about what
makes a cheaper launcher.  The way to lower space transportation costs
for chemical rockets is:

MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF DOLLARS OF HARDWARE THROWN AWAY PER POUND OF
PAYLOAD.

The space shuttle throws away the following:
1 ET @ $30 million per flight
1/10 set of Solid Rocket Boosters @ $10 million per flight
1/25 Orbiter @ $84 million per flight
= $124 million/50,000 lb = $2480/lb

The ALS is designed to throw away:
1 core tank & fairing @ $17 million per flight
1/50 recovery module @ $4 million per flight
1/200 flyback booster @ $4 million per flight
= $25 million/150,000 lb = $167/lb

even so, that represents about 50% of the total ALS cost per flight.
The core tank is similar to the External Tank on the space shuttle in
size and function.  The fairing is a hollow shell to protect the payload
during flight through the atmosphere.  The lower unit costs compared to
the ET are due to higher production rates and automated production
equipment.  The recovery module returns the engines and electronics and
valves (the expensive parts) of the core stage back to the launch site
by parachute.  It looks like a tuna can with engines sticking out the
bottom.  The booster has wings, and flys to a runway landing at the
launch site.

The key to lowering costs is to make the reuseable elements really
reuseable, i.e. don't lose them through accidents.  By adding spare
units (1 extra booster engine, double and sometimes triple control
electronics), the accidental loss rate should be brought way down.
Having all liquid engines that are test fired before being put on the
vehicle, and running them normally at 90% of design thrust all
contribute to safer operation.

Don't let my comments on the ALS make you think I believe it is the be
all and end all for space transportation.  It is a reasonable next step,
because it learns from the mistakes of the Space Shuttle.  It is close
to the best chemical rocket we can expect.  It is necessary to execute
an agressive 1990's space initiative, be it SDI, lunar base, or mars
mission.  In the post-2000 era, though, there are lots of new
technologies that promise to open space to everyone, but that story is
for another day.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing
> Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 01:22:40 GMT
From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu  (Patrick White)
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

In article <146@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
 >No, "oxygen-rich" is correct, but "higher exhaust velocity" isn't.
 >...  Thrust is proportional to molecular weight of the exhaust
 >products.  In the initial boost phase, you want high *thrust*, and the
 >hell with Isp, just to get the thing off the ground.  Enriching the
 >exhaust with oxygen (molecular weight 32) instead of hydrogen (mw 2)
 >gives you the added kick you need to get off the pad.

   Wouldn't enriching the mixture with something relatively inert be a
better idea than with highly corrosive oxygen?  Xe (molecular wt.
escapes me right now) would still be fairly inert at the high
temperatures invloved, and would add considerable mass to the exhaust.
Water, which is cheaper, would also probably do the job.

-- Pat White
UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain
BITNET:	PATWHITE@PURCCVM
U.S.  Mail:  320 Brown St. apt. 406,    West Lafayette, IN 47906

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 20:54:49 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

In article <147@geovision.UUCP>, alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
> >(3) The advanced technologies (aerospike, slush propellants) are
> >inconsistent with the idea '$200 million to develop'.  We estimated
> >$2.2 billion total development cost for the Phoenix concept as
> >described by Hudson.
> 
> Hmm, I can't help but wonder if that factor of 10 difference has more
> to do with the Big Aerospace Co With Lots of Juicy Federal Contracts
> And Deals With Similar Big Aerospace Co's [see the Newsweek report]
> way of doing things vs. the Lean Startup Company way of doing things,
> considering the amount of work already done on aerospikes in the 60s.
> (Slush propellents I'm a bit doubtful of myself)

This is how we estimated the development:

There is an organization in my company that specializes in cost
estimating of new hardware developments.  We have an obvious interest in
accurate estimates, as we sometimes bid 'firm fixed price' military
contracts, and for all our commercial programs.  This organization
collects data on what it actually has cost us on prior programs to do
development, and has derived 'cost estimating relationships'.  These are
equations that best fit the historical data.  The CERs go by type of
hardware (primary structure, tank, secondary structure, liquid rocket
engine, solid rocket motor, electronics, batteries, solar array, jet
engine, etc.) and are keyed to a parameter such as weight, i.e.

	$10000 x (weight in pounds)**0.76  

There are modifiers for type of material (aluminum, graphite-epoxy,
stainless steel, nickel superalloy, etc.).  There is also a modifier for
the production run length (more automation for higher production runs)
and the location where the work is to be done (labor rates).

These equations taken together are a mathematical model of what it would
cost Boeing to do the project.  They do not distinguish between
commercial and military programs, since we have a large overlap in them.
For example, Boeing Aerospace delivers the AWACS radar plane, but the
airplane itself comes from the Commercial Airplane Company.  The
Commercial Airplane Company, in turn, gets fuselages from the Military
Airplane Company in Wichita, KS.  If you plug the weights of the parts
of a commercial airplane into those equations, you get the correct cost
to develop a commercial airplane, because that is a major part of where
the data for the equations came from in the first place.

As for whether a 'lean startup' could manufacture the Phoenix cheaper
than Boeing, I doubt that a company whose sole product were the Phoenix
could compete with a company that could amortize it's machine tools over
a wide range of products, like we do.  Efficient computer-controlled
machine tools now run to over a million dollars each, and you have to
use them quite a lot to amortize them.  You could cut corners on the
Phoenix, but it is touted as a passenger carrying vehicle, and we
therefore costed it as such.  If you did cut corners, you would likely
not get the 1000 flight life it is supposed to have.

> (Did the Boeing study address the operating cost and turnaround time
> aspects of Phoenix?  I think Hudson was estimating, using automated
> checkout systems, a 24-48hr turnaround with a ground crew of 12 or so,
> once the thing was out of prototype stage.  *That's* wehere the money
> is really saved.)

No, we looked only at performance and development cost, since that was
what information we were given from Pacific American Launch Systems
through the Air Force to us.  You are correct that a one piece vehicle
would have dramatically lower operations cost.

Another way to make the Phoenix concept work, besides a jet engine
boost, is to make where it goes closer to the ground.  A platform at the
bottom of an orbital tether, with a ballast mass at the top end, moves
about 1.5 m/s slower than orbital velocity per km of tether length.
Thus a 500 km tether would save about 750 m/s, or about 10% of orbital
velocity.  Taking that much 'off the top' of the velocity required
should make the Phoenix workable.  This size tether can use existing
materials, like Kevlar or carbon fiber.  Landing at the platform would
be equivalent to landing on the Moon in local acceleration (free fall vs
platform).  Gravity on the platform would be about 1.8 m/s**2

>  Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al
>                       UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair
> 
> Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars.

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation
Company Slogan: Tomorrow, you can be anywhere.
Personal Slogan: Building Better Worlds since 1977.
Funny Signoff: The Solar System, Dare to have it all!

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 00:48:05 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Man-rated boosters

> One or two simple questions: Can the Big Dumb Boosters currently under
> discussion be rated to carry people? What does "man-rated" really
> mean?  I assume it is just a higher level of reliability, but can
> anyone provide some specifics?

Since nobody else has had a try at this one...  Basically, yes,
man-rated means (theoretically) higher reliability: more redundancy,
more thorough monitoring of systems for possible problems, probably more
care taken in manufacturing.

Whether the BDB concepts are man-rated depends on which concept you are
discussing.  NASA values reliability very highly even for unmanned
launches, because there will seldom be funding to replace a payload
after a failure.  The USAF is a bit less fussy.  This affects their
priorities in booster development.  A NASA BDB would probably be easy to
man-rate, although it might not actually have such a rating, given the
presence of the Shuttle.
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 11 Aug 87 16:52:46 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

In article <193@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer)
>> I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock.
>
>And Alastair is still wrong, too. . . . Under the assumptions of special
                                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>relativity, traveling faster than light is *equivalent* to traveling
>faster than instantly, and *does* imply time travel . . .

I think both points of view are defensible.

*IF* you assume that the equations of special relativity really are
symmetric about the speed of light, FTL speeds do imply time travel.
For the sake of argument (though I believe otherwise), let us even
assume that travel back in time is impossible because it would create a
paradox.

However, while we have plenty of evidence that special relativity
applies at slower-than-light speeds, equivalent evidence at FTL speeds
is sorely lacking.

Thus it is by no means certain that special relativity applies at FTL
speeds, so we really ought to keep FTL travel as an open possibility.
Let's not dismiss it too quickly because:

     IT'S OUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE FOR INTERGALACTIC TRAVEL.

The theory of relativity was just as strange to the scientists who used
Newtonian mechanics as the theory of selectavibility (yet to be
proposed;  choose any name for it that you prefer) will be to the
scientists who use relativistic mechanics.  No doubt, relativity will
be shown to be a limiting case in selectavibility.  (Anticipating
85th-century physics, it's also possibile to safely add that
selectavibility will itself be shown to be a limiting case of another
more general theory.)

Miscellaneous quote (author forgotten):

     When a great scientist says something is possible, he is usually
     right.  When a great scientist says something is impossible, he
     is frequently wrong.

All you great scientists, respond very carefully, else you might be
embarrassed within your lifetime.  Does anybody remember the person who
proposed that the British Patent Office be closed because everything
had already been invented?
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #327
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Aug 87 15:38:12 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04326; Fri, 28 Aug 87 03:17:52 PDT
	id AA04326; Fri, 28 Aug 87 03:17:52 PDT
Date: Fri, 28 Aug 87 03:17:52 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708281017.AA04326@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #328

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 328

Today's Topics:
		   Re: The rocky road to the stars
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		   Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		   Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		       Re: FTL and time travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 87 13:51:06 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Re: The rocky road to the stars

I once conjectured that collisions with pebble-sized interstellar grains
may be a serious problem for interstellar travel at speeds near the
speed of light.  In response, Paul Dietz reported on a meteor monitoring
experiment which seemed to show that interstellar pebbles are very rare.
I objected that

>   Suppose interstellar pebbles in the neighborhood of the solar system
>   move at about 1e3 m/s or less. As they fall to the Earth orbit,
>   their speed will increase at least 70-fold, to some 7e4 m/s.  It is
>   not obvious to me that their density (particles/m^3) will remain
>   unchanged; offhand, I would expect it to be reduced by about the
>   same factor.

Well, it seems I was sorely wrong here.  Indeed, along an unidimensional
flow (such as traffic on a freeway) the density of cars per unit length
is inversely proportional to their speed.  However, in two dimensions
and higher this needs not be true.  When a stream of particles flows
through a gravitational potential well, the flow is stretched along the
direction of travel, _but is also compressed laterally_, because the
flow lines are ``focused'' by the field.

If my algebra is right, in three-space the compression more than
compensates for the stretching.  Therefore, from dynamics alone we
should expect the density of particles in interstellar space to be
_smaller_ than what can be detected around Earth orbit.  More precisely,
if V0 is the particles' speed at infinity, M is the mass of the sun, and
R the radius of Earth's orbit, then the density of particles near the
Earth is their density at infinity times Vr/V0, where

   Vr = sqrt(V0^2 + 2GM/R)

      = the speed which a particle would have if it fell straight
        towards the Sun from infinity to Earth's orbit.

By the way, my algebra also says that if Vr >> V0 then most of the
interstellar particles around the Earth (if any) should be moving almost
perpendicularly to the Earth-Sun line.  Maybe some real astronomer can
confirm these conclusions?

So, it seems that my original conjecture that space pebbles may be too
dense to allow fast interstellar travel now hangs mostly on one
supposition: that such pebbles are made of fine dust held together by
water ice, and therefore are destroyed by solar heating before they get
down to Earth orbit.  Now, who can shoot this one down?
 
    Jorge Stolfi
    stolfi@src.dec.com, ...{decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!stolfi
------------------------------------------------------------------------
     This revelation came like a thunderbolt.  Who could have
     expected such an error in calculation? 
                       -- Jules Verne, _Round the Moon_ (1870)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
         (But if star travel _is_ possible, then WHERE IS EVERYBODY???)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 87 22:54:34 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!lsuc!sq!msb@seismo.css.gov  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel


Rahul Dhesi (dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP) writes:
> Miscellaneous quote (author forgotten):
> 
>      When a great scientist says something is possible, he is usually
>      right.  When a great scientist says something is impossible, he
>      is frequently wrong.

I fear that many people will point out that the author is Arthur C.
Clarke, but they will not also correct the misquotation.  Clarke's First
Law actually refers not to a "great" scientist but to a "distinguished
but elderly" scientist.  (Clarke then goes on to explain that "elderly"
means over 30, more or less, depending on the scientist's field.)  The
source of the Law is Clarke's essay collection PROFILES OF THE FUTURE.

> ... Does anybody remember the person who proposed that the British
> Patent Office be closed because everything had already been invented?

Sigh, this is wrong also.  The actual reference is ...

Mark Brader, SoftQuad Inc., Toronto, utzoo!sq!msb
		"Everything that can be invented has been invented."
		-- Charles H. Duell, Commissioner, U.S. patent office, 1899

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 17:53:52 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel

> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
>> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)

> [...] so we really ought to keep FTL travel as an open possibility.
> Let's not dismiss it too quickly because:
>      IT'S OUR ONLY REALISTIC HOPE FOR INTERGALACTIC TRAVEL.

I disagree strongly.  Consider these propositions:

        "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea of reincarnation,
         because it's our only realistic hope for eternal life."
or
        "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that water runs uphill
         sometimes, because it's our only realistic hope of getting
         this power plant running."
or
        "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that programmers can code
         10,000 lines of debugged code per minute, because it's our only
         realistic hope of getting this job done on schedule."

First, FTL is *not* our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel.
Life extension, reletavistic travel, or other means of getting around
the impracticality of the thing are more realistic, it seems to me.
Second, even if it *were* our only hope, that is no justification for
thinking it any more possible than if it were not.

That said, let me add that I too personally think investigators "ought"
to keep FTL open as a possibility.  But that's just because
investigators "ought" to keep most *everything* open as a possibility.
FTL is just a very very very very very unlikely possibility, that's all.

> Miscellaneous quote (author forgotten):
>      When a great scientist says something is possible, he is usually
>      right.  When a great scientist says something is impossible, he
>      is frequently wrong.

This seems to be a misquote of Clarke's Law.  I don't have a reference
handy, but I can improve the quote to match the original a little more
closely from memory, I think:

        When an elderly and distinguished scientist says that something
	is possible, he is very probably right.  When he says that
	something is impossible, he is quite possibly wrong.

Worth noting is the change from "probably" to "possibly", which most
folks alter in one way or another. (I may have too, but I recall that
shift in emphasis most distinctly).  The point I take from this is that
the E&DS is *still* probably right that it is impossible... it's just
not *very* probable.  The "Clarke" involved here is, of course, Arthur
C.  Clarke.  This is his first law, if I remember correctly.  His third
is the one about magic and technology.  I don't remember the second
offhand.  I think the numbering scheme is somebody elses, BTW.  There,
have I maundered on enough yet?  I suppose so.

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know
what you're talking about.
                                --- John von Neumann

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 19:22:34 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Marc Weinstein)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

in article <193@xyzzy.UUCP>, throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) says:
> If y'all don't understand these points, I suggest reading elementary
> texts on relativity, available in most Daltons and Waldens I've been
> in, as well as most public libraries.  Work it out for yourself.
> Assume a spaceprobe departs earth with a Lorentz contraction of
> ten-to-one.  After ten years, send a message to this probe at ten
> times lightspeed.  Have the probe reply at ten times lightspeed.  Do
> the calculations yourself, being careful to do the return calculations
> from the point of view of the probe, and not from the point of view of
> the earth.  You'll see that the message comes back before it left.

I'm not so sure you can apply Lorentz transformations to anything which
travels faster than the speed of light.  Plus, isn't it accepted that
"time stands still" at the speed of light?? Take, for instance, the
photon.  If a photon's speed ever falls below the speed of light, it
immediately decays, in a sense, because time passes for the photon.  The
reason that the photon does not every decay is that it is travelling at
the speed of light.

The problem with postulating the existence of objects at faster than the
speed of light is that it is theoretically impossible to cross the speed
of light - from below OR above.  If there are such things as tachyons,
we cannot detect them because information cannot cross the barrier.
Further, each multiple of c represents a new barrier, so there are
"infinate potentials" at c, 2c, 3c, etc.  So, there could be
tachy-developers writing tachy-netnews to each other on their
tachy-terminals, but I don't think there's a group which we can post to
to find out.  Do you think we could develop a network that can cross the
barrier of c??

Marc Weinstein
Bell Labs - Indian Hill
ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 87 16:37:36 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel

In article <207@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>        "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea of reincarnation,
>         because it's our only realistic hope for eternal life."
>or
>        "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that water runs uphill
>         sometimes, because it's our only realistic hope of getting
>         this power plant running."
>or
>        "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that programmers can
>         code 10,000 lines of debugged code per minute, because it's
>         our only realistic hope of getting this job done on schedule."

This was meant to be a parody of my statement that faster-than-light
travel is our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel.

The examples given violate what we know about physical laws, human
physiology, and programming methodology.  They seems to imply, by a leap
of logic, that we have equally clear evidence that FTL travel is
impossible.  Further, they assume things that are already happening in
the present, while I was assuming things about the future.  A naughty
debating technique indeed.

If he had said

     We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that a day will come when
     programmers will be able to produce 10,000 lines of debugged code
     per minute

I might have asked him why he was being so pessimistic.

>First, FTL is *not* our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel.
>Life extension, reletavistic travel, or other means of getting around
>the impracticality of the thing are more realistic, it seems to me.

Relativistic travel is no more acceptable for intergalactic journeys
than death would be for communication with our ancestors.  They are both
one-way tickets.  Life extension for the space traveller alone comes to
the same thing.  Life extension for the human race that the space
traveller leaves behind has its own problem: the solar system might not
last long enough.

Again and again, we see skepticism towards fraudulent claims getting
transformed into a refusal to believe possibilities outside one's
current sphere of knowledge.  The first is desirable, the second is not.
As Darwin discovered, before you can convince people to believe that the
earth and the sun can stay warm for long enough for evolution to occur,
you have to wait for nuclear energy to be discovered.
-- 
Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 15:23:04 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

In article <962@bsu-cs.UUCP> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
> [..discussion on validity of relativity under special cases..]
>Miscellaneous quote (author forgotten):
>
>     When a great scientist says something is possible, he is usually
>     right.  When a great scientist says something is impossible, he
>     is frequently wrong.

-- That's one (Arthur C.) Clarke's Laws, I forget which number (I think
the original replaced "great" with "distinguished but elderly", and
"frequently" with "very probably").  The two are:

      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
      from magic. [or a rigged demo :-)]

      The only way to define the limits of the possible is to go
      beyond them into the impossible.

 Alastair JW Mayer

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 15:05:45 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.gov  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

In article <193@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer)
>> I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock.
>
>And Alastair is still wrong, too.
>
> [..stuff deleted..]
>
>If y'all don't understand these points, I suggest reading elementary
>texts on relativity, available in most Daltons and Waldens I've been
  ^
   I took a handful of physics courses at university...

>spaceprobe departs earth with a Lorentz contraction of ten-to-one.
>After ten years, send a message to this probe at ten times lightspeed.
>Have the probe reply at ten times lightspeed.  Do the calculations
>yourself, being careful to do the return calculations from the point of
>view of the probe, and not from the point of view of the earth.  You'll
 ^
   *BUT*, the two points of view are *not* equally valid.  Relativity in
terms of the validity of reference frames only holds for unaccelerated
frames.  That probe accelerated to get to the speed it is travelling at.
While it was doing that, would an observer on the probe assume that the
universe was accelerating around it in the other direction?  Nonsense,
where would the energy come from?  If the two reference frames are not
equally valid - and they are not - then bouncing a signal off the probe,
even if the signal travels at 10c, the signal arrives back at Earth some
positive time after it left.
   The so-called "twins paradox" (assume twin brothers.  One goes on a
long trip at relatvistic speeds.  when he returns, who's older?)  is a
popular myth.

 Alastair JW Mayer

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 21:27:54 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

> mhw@ihlpf.ATT.COM (Marc Weinstein)
>> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
>> Work it out for yourself.  Assume a spaceprobe departs earth with a
>> Lorentz contraction of ten-to-one.  After ten years, send a message
>> to this probe at ten times lightspeed.  Have the probe reply at ten
>> times lightspeed.  Do the calculations yourself, being careful to do
>> the return calculations from the point of view of the probe, and not
>> from the point of view of the earth.  You'll see that the message
>> comes back before it left.

> I'm not so sure you can apply Lorentz transformations to anything
> which travels faster than the speed of light.

I'm not so sure of this either.  But that's not what I'm recommending
doing.  The Lorentz transformations are applied to transform from the
viewpoint of the spaceprobe to that of the earth, so that one can see
what it means to the probe to be sending a message at ten times
lightspeed back to earth.  The passage of time on the message cylinder
(or whatever) scooting along at FTL speeds is never in question.  (The
standard transforms have it come out "imaginary", whatever that means,
but again, that possibly-bogus calculation never enters into it.)

Again I stress: Applying the SR equations in the ways they are known to
be accurate is what leads to the result of FTL->time-travel.  It has
nothing to do with the passage of time on an FTL vehicle, just with
whether folks *outside* the craft can see it arrive before it left.

--
The Heinlein woman to me is sort of this woman who gets out there, she
smokes a cigar, she uses a machine gun, she's empress of the galaxy but
all she really wants is to stay home and bring her husband his slippers
                                --- Joan D. Vinge

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #328
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Aug 87 08:23:37 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06314; Sat, 29 Aug 87 03:17:05 PDT
	id AA06314; Sat, 29 Aug 87 03:17:05 PDT
Date: Sat, 29 Aug 87 03:17:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708291017.AA06314@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #329

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 329

Today's Topics:
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		   Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		       Re: FTL and time travel
		       Re: FTL and time travel
			Re: Asteroid Collision
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 15:34:49 GMT
From: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (G.Gleason)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

In article <148@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
>in terms of the validity of reference frames only holds for
>unaccelerated frames.  That probe accelerated to get to the speed it is
>travelling at.

>The so-called "twins paradox" (assume twin brothers.  One goes on a
>long trip at relatvistic speeds.  when he returns, who's older?)  is a
>popular myth.

Can someone who really understands this stuff explain what really
happens.  If you only take into account the time dialation from
traveling at relativistic speeds, it would seem that you can make a trip
to the stars in arbitrarily short (well not quite you do have to wait a
while to get up to speed) apparent time.  But, there is also a
relativistic effect of acceleration.  Can you get to distance stars in
reasonable amounts of time?  Or is it prohibited by relativity?

Gerry Gleason

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 10:48:21 GMT
From: crew@decwrl.dec.com  (Roger Crew)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

>  I could go on, but you really ought to pick up a book on relativity
>  (can anyone recommend a good one?).  You then get to find out some
>  neat stuff about everyday things that we take for granted that are
>  relativistic effects: magnetism, kinetic energy . . .

--------------------------------------------------------
-->  Space-Time Physics by E.F.Taylor & J.A.Wheeler  <--
-->       (San Francisco : W.H.Freeman c1966)        <--
--------------------------------------------------------
(I believe this is also available from Dover Books...)

If you want to get a good feel for what is going on in special
relativity without too much pain, this is THE book.  It's a somewhat
unconventional presentation, but quite clear, readable and entertaining
(as one might expect from J.A.Wheeler).

    Roger (Crew@sushi.stanford.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 20:09:38 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel

> dhesi@bsu-cs.UUCP (Rahul Dhesi)
>> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)
>>        "We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that programmers can code
>>         10,000 lines of debugged code per minute, because it's our only
>>         realistic hope of getting this job done on schedule."
> This was meant to be a parody of my statement that faster-than-light
> travel is our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel.

Well, not a parody exactly.  An analogy that preserved certain things
about the original statement, but made clear what I felt was wrong with
it.  I intended it as a serious, thought-provoking tool, not as ridicule.

> The examples given violate what we know about physical laws, human
> physiology, and programming methodology.

Well, the FTL example also violates what we know about physical laws,
but Rahul's point is taken: I agree that FTL has *in* *no* *way* (at
least, in no conclusive way) been "proven impossible".  My point was
*not* to insist that we should dismiss FTL now and forever, or that we
should dismiss the idea that programmers can code 10,000 lines of
debugged code per minute for that matter.  These things *should* *not*
be dismissed in the broadest sense of "dismissed", and I said as much in
my posting.  But the justification for non-dismissal Rahul gave strikes
me as totally irrelevant.

Consider Rahul's restatement of my analogy:

> If he had said 
>       We really shouldn't dismiss the idea that a day will come 
>       when programmers will be able to produce 10,000 lines of 
>       debugged code per minute 
> I might have asked him why he was being so pessimistic.

I'm so pessimistic because I expect the "day to come" long after the job
and it's schedule has been forgotten.  The point is, more realistic
solutions to the problem, like getting the schedule changed, should be
explored first.  What one hopes is no justification for what one
expects.  Just because one hopes to travel intergalactically is no
reason not to dismiss FTL as the method of doing so.  Just because one
hopes to meet a schedule is no reason not to dismiss scenarios involving
unrealistic productivity.

>>First, FTL is *not* our only realistic hope of intergalactic travel.
>>Life extension, reletavistic travel, or other means of getting around
>>the impracticality of the thing are more realistic, it seems to me.
> Relativistic travel is no more acceptable for intergalactic journeys
> than death would be for communication with our ancestors.

I didn't say it was acceptable, I said it was more realistic, and it
satisfies what Rahul said he was asking for: intergalactic travel.
Further, acceptable to whom?  Many people profess to be satisfied to die
as the only way to be rejoined with their "ancestors".  I have every
reason to think that at least some people would be happy with a one-way
ticket to the far future.

(As an aside, Rahul's objection that
    > Life extension for the human race that the space traveller leaves
    > behind has its own problem: the solar system might not last long
    > enough.
 seems wrong to me.  One could make several multi-megaparsec round trips
 to several galaxies within the expected lifetime of the solar system.
 Further, if people are galavanting around intergalactically, why should
 the stay-at-homes be confined to the solar system?)

> Again and again, we see skepticism towards fraudulent claims getting
> transformed into a refusal to believe possibilities outside one's
> current sphere of knowledge.  The first is desirable, the second is
> not.

I agree entirely.  But I still think that if you want to fly, and don't
find airplanes acceptable, your next step is ill considered if you take
up flapping your arms as the "only realistic possibility".  You ought to
look into hot-air ballooning first, and keep arm-flapping around on the
back burner.  (Yes, that was a pun.)

--
Somewhere in the future, far away from here
Trouble is waiting on the last frontier.
Into these worlds of unknown danger they ride.
They're the Galaxy Rangers!  Heroes in the sky!
                                --- Adventures of the Galaxy Rangers

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 00:25:41 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!throopw@mcnc.org  (Wayne A. Throop)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

>,>>> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer)
>> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop)

>>> I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock.
>>And Alastair is still wrong, too. [...]
>> I suggest reading elementary
>>texts on relativity, [...which are widely available...]
>   ^
>    I took a handful of physics courses at university...

So did I.  But somehow, Alastair's half of our mutual credentials is
tarnished for me by this comment ...

> Relativity in terms of the validity of reference frames only holds for
> unaccelerated frames.  That probe accelerated to get to the speed it
> is travelling at.

... wherein Alastair plainly shows a bit of confusion between an
accelerated frame on one hand and an inertial frame "containing" an
object which at one time accelerated (and thereby changed inertial
frames) on the other.

In fact, the space probe is a perfectly fine platform, and is "in" a
perfectly valid reference frame, relativistically speaking.  Whatever
Alaistair is doing, it isn't special relativity.

>    The so-called "twins paradox" (assume twin brothers.  One goes on
> a long trip at relatvistic speeds.  when he returns, who's older?)
> is a popular myth.

Of course it is.  But that is because there are (at least) three
reference frames involved in that situation, not just two symmetric
ones.  Certainly it is *not* because the traveling twin's point of view
is "less valid" than the stay-at-home twin's.

I still recommend some reading in relativity for those who still don't
follow the reasoning involved in the FTL->time-travel implication
(Alastair apparently among them).

Wayne Throop      <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 01:26:30 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

> ... Can you get to distance stars in reasonable amounts of
> time?  Or is it prohibited by relativity?

It's possible, given that "reasonable amounts of time" means time as measured
aboard ship.  Ignoring acceleration time, speeds very close to the speed of
light give voyages that cover about one light year per year by Earth time
but can be arbitrarily brief by ship time.  This takes colossal amounts of
energy, and shielding against interstellar dust and gas is not a trivial
problem at near-light speeds.  Also, acceleration time is not negligible if
humans are on board:  getting anywhere near the speed of light at one G
takes about a year, and getting really close (which is what's needed to
exploit time dilation in a big way) would probably take several years.
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 23:43:57 GMT
From: oliveb!3comvax!michaelm@ames.arpa  (Michael McNeil)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

In article <148@geovision.UUCP> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer) writes:
>In article <193@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@xyzzy.UUCP (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>>> alastair@geovision.UUCP (Alastair Mayer)
>>> I still maintain that the idea that FTL implies time travel is a crock.
>>
>>And Alastair is still wrong, too.
>>
>> [..stuff deleted..]
>>
>>If y'all don't understand these points, I suggest reading elementary
>>texts on relativity, available in most Daltons and Waldens I've been in,
>  ^
>   I took a handful of physics courses at university...

It's clear it was a *small* handful of physics courses that you took.

>>spaceprobe departs earth with a Lorentz contraction of ten-to-one.
>>After ten years, send a message to this probe at ten times lightspeed.
>>Have the probe reply at ten times lightspeed.  Do the calculations
>>yourself, being careful to do the return calculations from the point of
>>view of the probe, and not from the point of view of the earth.  You'll
> ^
>   *BUT*, the two points of view are *not* equally valid.  Relativity in
>terms of the validity of reference frames only holds for unaccelerated
>frames.  That probe accelerated to get to the speed it is travelling at.  
>While it was doing that, would an observer on the probe assume that the
>universe was accelerating around it in the other direction?  Nonsense,
>where would the energy come from?  If the two reference frames are not
>equally valid - and they are not - then bouncing a signal off the probe,
>even if the signal travels at 10c, the signal arrives back at Earth
>some positive time after it left.
>   The so-called "twins paradox" (assume twin brothers.  One goes on
>a long trip at relatvistic speeds.  when he returns, who's older?)
>is a popular myth.

... among people who know a very *little* physics, sigh.  The old
bugaboo about relativity applying only to unaccelerated reference frames
raises its head again.  In your dim but arrogant memories of college
physics, perhaps you will remember your instructors referring to
"special" relativity?  Well, for your information there's also a
*general* theory of relativity, also by Einstein.  It's true that
special relativity applies only to unaccelerated reference frames --
you're right about that.  General relativity, however, applies to *all*
reference frames, accelerated or not.  (Why do people who've taken a few
college physics courses in which the term "relativity" was mentioned
assume they know all about it?)

Considering the twin "paradox," where one twin stays home and the other
rockets away -- according to general relativity the two cases are not
parallel.  The twin on the rocket is accelerating not only with respect
to his or her twin back on Earth but also with respect to the entire
universe.  The twin on Earth sees himself stationary (sort of) with
respect to the universe as a whole, but accelerated with respect to the
rocket.  From either point of view, the rocket is accelerating with
respect to the universe, and this results in the asynchrony of the
venturesome twin returning younger than the stay-at-home.

Michael McNeil
3Com Corporation
Santa Clara, California
	{hplabs|fortune|idi|ihnp4|tolerant|allegra|glacier|olhqma}
	!oliveb!3comvax!michaelm

	We arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of this law
	of experience, if we assume that the systems K and K' are
	physically exactly equivalent, that is, if we assume that
	we may just as well regard the system K as being in a space
	free from gravitational fields, if we then regard K as
	uniformly accelerated.  This assumption of exact physical
	equivalence makes it impossible for us to speak of the
	absolute acceleration of the system of reference, just as
	the usual theory of relativity forbids us to talk of the
	absolute velocity of a system; and it makes the equal
	falling of all bodies in a gravitational field seem a
	matter of course.
		Albert Einstein, "Uber den Einfluss der
		Schwerkraft auf die Ausbreitung des Lichtes,"
		*Ann. Phys. (Germany) 35*, 898-908, 1911,
		English translation in Lorentz *et al.* 1923

	[To Ernst Mach, regarding confirmation at a forthcoming eclipse]
	... If so, then your happy investigations on the foundations of
	mechanics, Planck's unjustified criticism notwithstanding, will
	receive brilliant confirmation.  For it necessarily turns out
	that inertia originates in a kind of interaction between bodies,
	quite in the sense of your considerations on Newton's pail
	experiment.  The first consequence is on p. 6 of my paper.  
	The following additional points emerge:  (1) If one accelerates
	a heavy shell of matter S, then a mass enclosed by that shell
	experiences an accelerative force.  (2) If one rotates the shell
	relative to the fixed stars about an axis going through its
	center, a Coriolis force arises in the interior of the shell;
	that is, the plane of a Foucault pendulum is dragged around
	(with a practically unmeasurably small angular velocity).
		Albert Einstein's appreciation to Ernst Mach, written on
		June 25, 1913, while working hard at arriving at his
		November 1915 formulation of standard general relativity

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 17:12 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Re: Asteroid Collision


Kerry Stevenson wrote:

> In the last couple of days I've read two newspaper articles about an
> asteroid named 1983-TV.  The first article says that Soviet
> astronomers say this body will crash on Earth in 128 years (2115).

It seems unlikely to me that they could have determined its orbit
accurately enough to make such a prediction.  An error of 1.5
millimeters per second in the asteroid's velocity will accumulate to an
error of 6000 km in 128 years.

More likely, they plotted an orbit with wide error bars that is near the
earth in 128 years. Ho hum.

> I suspect that it is in fact pap, since it does not seem widely
> reported.  If there is any truth to this, what schemes might be used
> to deflect and/or destroy the object?  Should we even bother?

Oddly enough, this problem was studied in detail by a class at MIT some
years ago. The class was given the problem of deflecting the asteroid
Icarus. Their solution was to detonate one or more thermonuclear devices
near the asteroid some time before impact. The explosions vaporize
material on the asteroid and cause a velocity change. A velocity change
of around a meter per second a year before impact is sufficient.

In 128 years I expect more elegant techniques would be used. Modest
velocity changes could be achieved with mass drivers, or with fusion
rockets, or by arranging a collision between the would-be meteorite and
a smaller asteroid on a nearly intersecting orbit. In any case, there is
no rush.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #329
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Aug 87 06:22:37 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07612; Sun, 30 Aug 87 03:17:53 PDT
	id AA07612; Sun, 30 Aug 87 03:17:53 PDT
Date: Sun, 30 Aug 87 03:17:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708301017.AA07612@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #330

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 330

Today's Topics:
	     Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract?
	   Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath.
	   Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath.
	   Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath.
		     Life in Space, continued...
			  Re: Space tourism
	      Hubble Space Telescope: already obsolete?
	    Re: Hubble Space Telescope: already obsolete?
			  Infrared Astronomy
			Re: Asteroid Collision
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 15:03:48
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 20 15:03:48 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 20 15:04:06 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract?

Does anybody know how to get more info about the space tug being built
by TRW (Redondo Beach) under NASA contract? I tried the newspaper
where I saw the news story, but the science reporter didn't know about
it, probably some news service story they just copied. I tried
800-555-1212 but there is no tollfree number for TRW and I don't like
making long distance calls during prime time when I don't even know
what number to call. I tried NASA/Ames but nobody there administers
this contract or even knows about it. Anybody have actual information
or know a good source?

I want to know things like (1) what method of propulsion (chemical,
ion, or what)?, (2) what capabilities (cis-lunar only, or maybe could
push a probe all the way to an asteroid)?

If it's an ion rocket with deep space capability, then I'd like to
start planning a mission that travels to some tiny asteroid (the
smallest chondrite we've ever spotted), attaches a thermonuclear
device and baffle plate to one side of it, backs off, triggers
detonation, then catches up with the Earthbound asteroid again to
attach a smaller thermonuclear device and baffle plate to trim the
trajectory, backs off and detonates it too, follows it until it
reaches Earth vicinity, then attaches a third device to slow it to be
captured into orbit around Earth. Later we can at or leisure go up and
take samples and start mining and processing. That may be a faster
route to space resource usage than setting up lunar mining bases, and
if we promise the rest of the world some fraction of the benefit we
may be able to get permission to use the thermonuclear detonation
propulsion method in this special case.

But if the space tug is chemical, we have to wait for a real
deep-space propulsion method to be developed.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 19:52:22 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath.

In article <556314018.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU writes:

> I have recieved word that our old 'friend' William Proxmire has decided
> to kill the space station.

> [information on how to fight Proxmire on this issue deleted]

Sorry, but I for one support Proxmire on this one.  I'm not a "space
person", but I do support a much more aggressive and widespread role in
space.

But this space station is such a massive boondoggle it makes the Shuttle
look like a Twinkie.  I thought we learned from the Shuttle not to put
all our space eggs in one basket.  Our space program is currently shut
down because the shuttle was so expensive it sucked up practically all
the space funding that Congress would allow.  The station will do the
same, only more so.  If something goes wrong with the station, we'll be
grounded for half a decade.  Wouldn't you rather see a more modest
station (or none at all), so that more money can be spread over a wide
area?  We need more funding for things like basic big boosters, unmanned
robot exploration, and a slow but un-ending return of Americans to
space.  Of course, if the station is killed, not all the money will go
into the things we'd like.  I'm a realist, and I know the Government
Black Hole will suck up whatever it gets its fingers on; some money
allocated to the station will probably be lost from space purposes.

Admittedly, the station gives us a platform upon which to base further
experiments and/or explorations.  But so would a Mir.  And remember that
the station is absolutely dependent on and designed around the Shuttle.
I think it's time we started thinking beyond the Shuttle.  Once it's
band-aided, it will serve us for a time, but it's badly flawed and
horribly expensive.  Why not design a more modest station that could be
launched and supported by basic boosters?
 
I'm all in favor of space stations, but this thing is gold-plated,
mink-lined, diamond-encrusted, and platinum-fueled.  Nobody is
particularly happy with it except the contractors.  Practically every
AW&ST summary that Harry gives us mentions either: a) another increase
in expected space station costs, or b) another complaint by the
Europeans (or sometimes even the Pentagon) about how the station will be
run, or c) more indications of problems in applying the station to a
useful role for anybody.  If we want to launch a station, fine.  Just
make it a steel box with some oxy bottles welded on the side.

Just think how many Big Dumb Boosters (NOT Advanced Launch
Systems--bah!) we could build with the mountain of money that will be
needed for one space station.  Anybody care to take any bets on the
final cost of this monstrosity?
-- 
Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) =-=-=-=-=-=-= UUCP:ihnp4!dartvax!brspyr1!miket
BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110  (518) 783-1161
         .    . . .... .........:.::::.:::::::::.:::::::::::::::::::::::::::o
"By and large, I was only trying to fool Mr. Trout." -Dan Rather

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 18:47:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath.

> Sorry, but I for one support Proxmire on this one.  I'm not a "space
> person", but I do support a much more aggressive and widespread role
> in space.  But this space station is such a massive boondoggle...

While I am not at all pleased with the current space station,
sacrificing it to Proxmire would be a terrible mistake.  The space
program would *not* benefit from this.  We would *not* get cheaper
boosters, more planetary science, and a cheaper space station as a
result.
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 20:43:01 GMT
From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu  (Omega.Mosley`)
Subject: Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on warpath.

In article <8468@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > Sorry, but I for one support Proxmire on this one.  I'm not a "space
> > person", but I do support a much more aggressive and widespread role
> > in space.  But this space station is such a massive boondoggle...
> 
> While I am not at all pleased with the current space station,
> sacrificing it to Proxmire would be a terrible mistake.  The space
> program would *not* benefit from this.  We would *not* get cheaper
> boosters, more planetary science, and a cheaper space station as a
> result.

This is true. To allow Proxmire to put another nail in NASA's coffin
would in effect be a crime against humanity. For what it's worth, I've
been sending the Senator letters concerning his stance on the space
program since grade school. The fact that in 17 years I've never gotten
a response of any sort should tell you how he feels about voter
sentiment...especially those voters who CAN'T vote for him...

Like Jason, Sen. Proxmire searches for golden fleece. Like Jason, he
will hopefully meet a similar tragic and ironic fate. Lord know he
deserves it...

					Omega.Mosley

------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 87 01:53:39 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA  (MacLeod)
Subject: Life in Space, continued...

>In article <4130001@hpclla.HP.COM> rak@hpclla.HP.COM (Rajiv Kumar) writes:

(Answering the question: Why do you want to head out into space?)

>-> Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat
>-> of war.
>->Keith
>-
>-Dream on! The moment any Earth Govt sees that its own nationalistic
>-and military interests are at risk, it will not allow its citizens to
>-go to space and build private colonies. Why do you think a bunch of
>-people cannot just claim some land in Antarctica and live free.

>-Rajiv

In the short run, this is true.  Space is very big, though, and the day
will come when governments will no longer be able to police all the
factionalized microsocieties and will concentrate on matters they can do
something about.  It took several hundred years, but the USA finally
convinced Britain that it was too much trouble to discipline the
Yankees.  I expect to see, at some point, a kind of bloom of every kind
of government and society, followed in 20-50 years by a retrenching
around more or less common forms of social organizations.  But there
will be elbow room for anarchists, never doubt it.

I'm amused by the way many people get uptight and flustered by these
predictions.  It's not enough for them that our society limps along,
abandoning its dreams, retreating into political collectivism and
societal savagery.  No, if somehow a free spirit or two escapes into
space, we must chase them from pillar to post with a collar and demand
that they put it on.

In my most bitter daydreams I imagine an Earth of 2400 AD, where the
constant emmigration of men of ability has resulted in a world dominated
by chaos and fear for ten generations, and where the standard of living
and technology has fallen below metallurgy, leaving a few million
wretches in the late Stone Age.

I doubt that that will occur, though I don't doubt that it could.  As I
said, space is >big<, with lots of resources, and if even a fraction of
the promise of nanotechnology comes to fruition, there will be abundance
undreamed of.  I am currently writing a novel in which there is a
mature, spacefaring mercantile civilization with a level of technology
high enough to evoke Clarke's Law, and a technology/effort level so high
that individual members are rich beyond calculation.  Rich, in the sense
that an individual from this race can purchase a state-of-the-art
metallorganic FTL spacecraft implementing "magical" technologies for the
equivalent of a few >hours< of labor.  In their society, the industrial
infrastructure needed to produce such artifacts is so efficient and
successful that they can be mass-produced.  >NO< amount of our labor
will suffice to create such craft, any more than the bushmen of "The
Gods Must Be Crazy" could build an automobile; our technology cannot
cope with FTL spacecraft any more than the bushmen's with cars.

I believe that the great move out into Space will put immense stress on
the human race, and that the survivors and their kids will be the better
for it.  However, it's going to be pretty hairy out there for the first
hundred years or so.

Mike MacLeod

------------------------------

Date: 6 Aug 87 23:08:24 GMT
From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
Subject: Re: Space tourism

In article <4130001@hpclla.HP.COM>, rak@hpclla.HP.COM (Rajiv Kumar) writes:
> > Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat
> > of war.
> 
> Dream on! The moment any Earth Govt sees that its own nationalistic
> and military interests are at risk, it will not allow its citizens to
> go to space and build private colonies. Why do you think a bunch of
> people cannot just claim some land in Antarctica and live free.

Actually, there is no reason why a bunch of people couldn't do this.
The 1956 Antarctic Treaty suspends claims among the signatories, but if
a group of people were to get together and set up a country (the
People's Republic of Antarctica?) there wouldn't be anyone to stop them.
They wouldn't be signatories. Suitably armed (to defend their claim)
they could make it not worth any government's while to throw them out.

Of course, there are lots of better things to do with Antarctica, like
make it the first World Park (which Greenpeace wants to do), but this
isn't the place to discuss it (is there a sci.antarctic?). Sorry for the
basenote drift, you hit one of my hot buttons...

		Jim Kempf	kempf@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 13 Aug 87 20:14:37 GMT
From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa  (MacLeod)
Subject: Hubble Space Telescope: already obsolete?

In article <354@nysernic> weltyc@nic.nyser.net (Christopher A. Welty) writes:

>These experts estimate a 1% chance that it (the HST) will be struck by
>one of the untrackable marble to softball size objects, which would
>destroy it during it's 17 year lifetime.  There is little doubt that
>after a few years the mirrors will become so full of dust that it will
>be no better than a ground based telescope.  Another problem is the
>fact that the telescopre is not steerable, so even an imminent
>collision with a trackable object would be unavoidable.
                                                                          
There is so much else depressing news about space that I hesitate to
bring this up.  It's even worse, because the HST has a special place in
the hearts of many space enthusiasts and amateur astronomers, and the
delay in transporting it to space has been most frustrating for them
(and for me).

However...if what I read about the advances in multi-cell, multi-mirror
visual-light telescopy is correct, the space telescope will no longer be
the state-of-the art device it would have been had it been launched when
it was ready to go.  By no means obsolete, but not as special a project,
either.

If this is so my fear is that bureaucrats >will< assume "not
state-of-art" = "not worth sending up" and ashcan the whole project.  I
think this becomes more serious the longer it sits in storage.
Comments?

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 87 05:54:51 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!lsuc!sq!msb@seismo.css.gov  (Mark Brader)
Subject: Re: Hubble Space Telescope: already obsolete?

> >These experts estimate a 1% chance that it (the HST) will be struck
> >by one of the untrackable marble to softball size objects, which
> >would destroy it during its 17 year lifetime.  There is little doubt
> >that after a few years the mirrors will become so full of dust that
> >it will be no better than a ground based telescope.

So, speaking ideally, what WOULD be the best place for an off-earth
telescope?  Is the debris problem worse in low Earth orbit or on the
Moon's surface (down a gravity well but clear of OUR debris)?  Should it
maybe be in a HIGH orbit around the Earth, if we had a way to do it?

I'm assuming here that we want the thing fairly near Earth for ease of
control (and perhaps maintenance).  There is obvious utility for a
telescope much farther from Earth than the Sun is, but that's another
matter.

Mark Brader

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 18:08:56 GMT
From: fluke!logden@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Leonard Ogden)
Subject: Infrared Astronomy

I am looking for a pointer to information concerning infrared
astronomy/astrophotography. I caught the last few minutes of a PBS
program that delt with a 'recent' program between the US and Britain.
The research project included a satelite that had an infrared sensor
that they pointed at different parts of the sky and mapped about 250,000
objects.

I did not get the name of the project, program, satelite, universities,
etc.  but I would love to get a copy of the PBS broadcast and any other
information about how this, or other astronomical infrared projects.

Thanks.

Len (Billions and Billions) Ogden

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 22:02:06 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Asteroid Collision

In article <19*kerry@cc.uofm.cdn>, kerry@cc.uofm.CDN (Kerry Stevenson) asks:
[The query was in sci.space, but I've cross-posted this reply to sci.astro.]
> In the last couple of days I've read two newspaper articles about an
> asteroid named 1983-TV.  The first article says that Soviet
> astronomers say this body will crash on Earth in 128 years (2115).  A
> couple of days later a followup article (another paragraph) stated
> that West German astronomers have dismissed the whole thing as pap.

Brian Marsden, director of the IAU Minor Planet Center, says the first
report is indeed pap.  Here's what happened: In 1983, the IRAS satellite
discovered a new asteroid, which was given preliminary designation
1983-TB (not -TV).  A preliminary orbit was computed so that new
observations could be obtained.  Three English astronomers noticed that
the preliminary orbit put the object very close to the Earth in 2115 and
attempted to publish a letter in Nature to that effect.  (Brian is not
sure whether the letter ever got published.  It was obvious to him at
the time that the letter was based on insufficient data, but sometimes
things like that slip by the refereeing process.)  After more
observations, a much better orbit was determined, and the object was
given the permanent designation 3200 Phaethon.  (Permanent numbers and
names are only assigned when the orbit is accurately known.)  The better
orbit puts Phaeton nowhere near the Earth in 2115 or any other known
year.  However, the object does cross the Earth's orbit, so it has to
hit the Earth some day (presumably millions of years from now, but the
orbit is not well enough known to say when).  Phaeton is related to the
Geminid meteor stream and may be the parent body for these meteors.

It's unclear how the Russians got into the act, or even exactly which
Russians were involved.  Apparently some Russian(s) saw the preliminary
report and mentioned it at some meeting without realizing that it was
nonsense.  Then the press picked it up.  Many reporters were careful to
call Brian and find out what was going on, and indeed he is still
getting occasional calls about this object.  Evidently at least one
reporter didn't bother to check out the story.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123          Bitnet: willner@cfa2
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                     ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #330
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 31 Aug 87 06:20:26 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09033; Mon, 31 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT
	id AA09033; Mon, 31 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 87 03:18:46 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8708311018.AA09033@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #331

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 331

Today's Topics:
Interstellar meme plagues:  hiding your head in the planet won't help.
				   
		Re: Interstellar meme plagues:  hiding
		       Cooperation uber alles?
		     Mars Orbiter name - results
			  More on 747 costs
			     Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 15 Aug 87 22:35:06 GMT
From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu  (lucius)
Subject: Interstellar meme plagues:  hiding your head in the planet won't help.

	To those who have been advocating that a few planets remain
isolationist in order to escape interstellar meme plagues, it won't
help.  What if one of the meme plagues generates berserkers (Saberhagan
style), in which case everyone is doomed if they don't know what is
going on?  And what about illegal listeners/broadcasters, that could
transmit the meme plague in spite of isolationist regulation?

	Some food for thought.

	-- Lucius Chiaraviglio
	   lucius%tardis@harvard.harvard.edu
	   seismo!tardis.harvard.edu!lucius

------------------------------

Date:         Sat, 15 Aug 87 20:31:58 EDT
From: Steve Abrams <EXT768%UKCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: 

In SPACE Digest V7 #315, <topaz.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu>
Stephen P.  Masticola asks about the current status of "the" SETI
project.  As he later refers to million channel receivers, I assume he
was referring to the Planetary Society's Project META.  They just
reviewed the current status in their last Planetary Report.  After 18
months, the Megachannel ExtraTerrestrial Assay (META) has "sifted
through nearly 2 million independent spectra, each consisting of 8.4
million numbers representing the received radio power in those separate
channels."  They divide the results as follows: 
  1) Just plain noise, a little louder than usual;
  2) Radio interference (which some cite as evidence of intelligent life
on Earth);
  3) Equipment malfunction (evidence of lack of intelligent life on
Earth); and
  4) Other signals.

Number 1 accounts for 98% of "events" and number 4 accounted for 3 (yes,
that's only *three*) events.  These 3 events, however, were not
reproducible so they were discarded without a good explanation.

This summer, META began searching a new wavelength (the old one was the
oft-cited 21 cm hydrogen line) -- 2841 MHz, the second harmonic of the
21-cm line.  They cite the lack of cosmic background noise, among
others, as the reason for shifting the search.  Obviously, they still
have funding (though, from where I haven't a clue -- I doubt that
Spielberg's original $100K has lasted this long).

                                        Steve Abrams

 "I'm still looking for signs of intelligent life in Kentucky -- the few
  coincidence events are similarly irreproducible...sigh..."

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 15:32:00 GMT
From: cca!mirror!ishmael!inmet!janw@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Re: Interstellar meme plagues:  hiding

[chiaraviglio@husc4.UUCP ]
>To those who have been advocating that a few planets remain iso-
>lationist in order to escape interstellar meme plagues, it won't help.
>What if one of the meme plagues generates berserkers (Sa- berhagan
>style), in which case everyone is doomed if they don't know what is
>going on?  And what about illegal listeners/broadcasters, that could
>transmit the meme plague in spite of isolationist regulation?

>	Some food for thought.

This just shows that the isolationists can't stay stagnant: they must
evolve ever better methods of isolation, of hiding, running away, and
camouflage. They must project to the universe a facade of perfectly
natural, lifeless matter... Isn't that what we ob- serve all around?
Isn't that a solution of the Fermi paradox? :-?)

		Jan Wasilewsky

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 22:14:50 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Cooperation uber alles?
To: "SEISMO!RELAY.CS.NET!SCUDDER@CS.UMASS.EDU"@ai.ai.mit.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: "Michael J. Scudder" <seismo!RELAY.CS.NET!SCUDDER@cs.umass.edu>

> I was at the Boskone Science Fiction convention in February and
> listened to an L5 sponsered panel on a joint US-Soviet mission to
> Mars.  The Audience was 80+% in favor when polled.

Don't read too much into that statistic.  I too was at Boskone, and I
was aware of that panel, but chose not to attend because cooperation
with the USSR is repugnant to me.  I suspect many others at Boskone felt
the same way.  Nothing good can come from cooperation with thieves and
murderers.

> They want (perhaps mostly for public relations purposes) us to go with
> them.

Exactly.  They crave legitimacy and approval.  Lets not play into their
schemes.

> The effort could divert the super-powers from the arms race.

I don't think you understand the reasons for the arms race.  They
certainly aren't boredom or lack of anything better to do with our time
and money.
							...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 14:29:01 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu  (masticol)
Subject: Mars Orbiter name - results


Well, I think I've gotten about all the responses to the unofficial 
"Rename the Mars Orbiter" contest that I'm going to get. So here they
are, beautiful, plain, offensive, and silly, in alphabetical order.
The results are tallied using the "squeaky wheel" method - the total
is the number of people who submitted a name, and many people submitted
several.

		- T H E   E N V E L O P E,   P L E A S E . . . -


Ad Astra Per Asperum	1	(Already taken by the Royal Air Force)
Arbeit Macht Frei	1	(Most offensive)
Argus			1	(See "Imperial Earth", A.C. Clarke)
Buggly Spotter		1	(I thought Viking determined: no bugglies!)
Challenge		1	(Unfortunate connotations)
Cosmos			1	(Costs billions and billions...)
Kuiper (Gerard)		1
Hall (Aspah)		1
Holst (Gustav)		1	(4th suite)
Lowell (Percival)	4	(Most popular)
Peace			1	(Best sentiment - as in "Mir")
Pre-Colony Probe	1	(ALL probes fall into this category!)
Red-Eye			1	(As in whiskey or antiaircraft missiles?)
Renaissance		1	(3 cheers for Annie Haslam!)
Schiaparelli		2	(Runner-up for most popular)
Shootout at the Fantasy
  Factory		1	(SDI has a prior claim)
Stickney		1	(Sorry - I don't recognize the reference)
Venus			1	(Made a wrong [tb]urn somewhere...)
Viking 3		1	(Good, but MO won't land anywhere!)

Thanks to all who replied. I've turned the results over to our man in
MO-town (RCA Astro-Space Mars Orbiter Project Management Office), and
will post any further results.

- Steve.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 18 Aug 87 13:24:16 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: More on 747 costs

Pursuant to the recent discussion of how much a 747 would have cost if
only four were built, this week's Aviation Week notes that the USAF's
T-46 program (which was to have been the new generation of jet trainer,
but was cancelled because of problems at Fairchild) cost $380 million,
and resulted in the delivery of three of the aircraft to the USAF.  It
seems reasonable to believe that a 747 is roughly an order of magnitude
more expensive than a T-46.

	John Sotos
	Stanford U.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 87 22:04:43 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Welded SRBs

Over lunch a friend and I argued that if NASA really wanted to get back
into the manned space flight business, instead of sitting on their
collective tails for a few years, that all they would have to do was to
weld the SRB segments together and launch. Ya, the SRB's would not be
reusable but so what, we could be flying while a real fix was in the
works.

I suggested that I wouldn't want to be the person that had to do the
welding and have the possibility of dealing with a live rocket.  But I
also know that in arguing I really don't know what I'm talking about, so
I though I'd pass the idea to the net. Why can't we weld the suckers
together and throw away the parachutes and LAUNCH!

				Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 12:55:15 GMT
From: s.cc.purdue.edu!ain@h.cc.purdue.edu  (Patrick White)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

In article <1083@inuxe.UUCP> fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) writes:

 >					     ... Why can't we weld the
 >suckers together and throw away the parachutes and LAUNCH!

   A more obvious solution suggests itself to me -- just make sure it is
50+ degrees when launching.  Any reason why this wouldn't work?

-- Pat White
UUCP: k.cc.purdue.edu!ain
BITNET:	PATWHITE@PURCCVM
U.S.  Mail:  320 Brown St. apt. 406,    West Lafayette, IN 47906

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 16:24:40 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

> I suggested that I wouldn't want to be the person that had to do the
> welding and have the possibility of dealing with a live rocket.

The idea of welding a solid-rocket casing with live propellant inside is
the sort of thing that makes strong men run screaming.  I wouldn't want
to be in the same state when it was tried.  I think this idea is a non-
starter.  The only way to make it safe would be to weld the casings
before the propellant was cast, in which case there's no point:  the
joints with problems are the field joints (joined after casting), not
the factory joints (joined before casting).

> ... Why can't we weld the
> suckers together and throw away the parachutes and LAUNCH!

Despite the above, the suggestion of throwing away the parachutes deserves
serious attention.  The "Spacefaring Nation" report specifically suggested
abandoning booster recovery, on the grounds that it is mostly a PR stunt
that saves very little money.
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 87 03:57:33 GMT
From: jwl@ernie.berkeley.edu  (James Wilbur Lewis)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

In article <8450@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
-> I suggested that I wouldn't want to be the person that had to do the
-> welding and have the possibility of dealing with a live rocket.
-
-The idea of welding a solid-rocket casing with live propellant inside is
-the sort of thing that makes strong men run screaming.  

Is it really that bad?  I was under the impression that the solid propellant
is not too explosive until it's pressurized. Would welding the joints be 
enough to set it off?

And if it is too dangerous to be attempted by humans, how about some kind
of robotic welding rig?

-- Jim Lewis
   U.C. Berkeley

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 20:02:21 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

In article <8450@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> starter.  The only way to make it safe would be to weld the casings
> before the propellant was cast, in which case there's no point: the
> joints with problems are the field joints (joined after casting), not
> the factory joints (joined before casting).
> 
> > ... Why can't we weld the
> > suckers together and throw away the parachutes and LAUNCH!
> 
> Despite the above, the suggestion of throwing away the parachutes
> deserves serious attention.  The "Spacefaring Nation" report
> specifically suggested abandoning booster recovery, on the grounds
> that it is mostly a PR stunt that saves very little money.

The reason for joints in the first place: When Thiokol was awarded the
contract for the Solid Rocket Motors, there had to be a way to get them
from Utah to Florida.  Rail was selected.  A combination of diameter
limits (12 feet) and railroad track limits (320,000 lb on one car) set
the size of a segment.  It turned out to be 4 segments.  The steel case
for each segment comes in 2 pieces, 12 ft long each.  The alloy used for
the case is a very high yield strength one.  There is a proprietary
processing step used in making the one-piece case section, which is
limited by the size of a treatment room the company that does the
process has.  Hence the case is made from 8 total pieces of steel.
There is no place to do post-weld heat treatment.

It is slightly cheaper to reuse the solids, about $18 million per solid
per use, vs $50 million for a brand new solid.  Two things that would
help their life a lot would be: (a) retro rockets to reduce the impact
speed in the ocean (currently 60 mph), and (b) a recovery barge that
could haul the solids out of the water for retrieval.  The alloy used in
the case is not resistant to seawater.

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 23:49:04 GMT
From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu  (Omega.Mosley`)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

...just one additional comment on the segmented boosters. I believe
Thiokol once commented on this during the erly days of the Shuttle
program (to Wally Shirah, if my memory is as infallible as caffine
allows) as also allowing them to produce either larger or smaller SRB's
when the situation demanded.





						Omega.Mosley

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 18:44:18 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

> Is it really that bad?  I was under the impression that the solid
> propellant is not too explosive until it's pressurized. Would welding
> the joints be enough to set it off?

Not too explosive, perhaps, but inflammable, yes.  I don't know that
welding the joints would suffice to ignite it, but I sure wouldn't want
to find out.

> And if it is too dangerous to be attempted by humans, how about some
> kind of robotic welding rig?

Being blunt rather than diplomatic, the real hazard is not that
technicians might be killed, but that the Vertical Assembly Building
might be damaged by the resulting fire and possible explosion(s).
Technicians can be replaced, the VAB is unique and vital.  NASA used to
have an ironclad rule that no fuel was ever allowed inside the VAB; they
weren't pleased about having to change this for the SRBs.
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 14:53:02 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

In article <1406@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>
>The reason for joints in the first place:  When Thiokol was awarded the
>contract for the Solid Rocket Motors, there had to be a way to get them
>from Utah to Florida.  Rail was selected.  A combination of diameter
>limits (12 feet) and railroad track limits (320,000 lb on one car)
>set the size of a segment.  It turned out to be 4 segments.  The
>steel case for each segment comes in 2 pieces, 12 ft long each.

>It is slightly cheaper to reuse the solids, about $18 million per
>solid per use, vs $50 million for a brand new solid.  Two things that

>Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation

But let us not forget that Aerojet General had a competing bid in for
the Shuttle SRM's which was only about $1.5-2 million per unit higher,
and involved building one-piece boosters which would have been reusable,
and re-cast at a plant to be built down the Florida coast from
Canaveral, with delivery to be by barge (about 30 miles worth). The
apparent reason their bid was killed was twofold: 1: long term cost
higher (debatable in light of the cost of replacing an orbiter and the
incalculable human costs we've incurred) and 2: inital cost for first
10-15 units grossly higher since they would be built in Calif. and have
to be barged through the Panama Canal until the Florida propellant plant
was up and running. My memory on these items may be faulty; if so,
please correct me, one and all.

Certainly we don't want to try welding those things loaded...the
ignition point of aluminum-loaded perchlorate/HTPB propellant is plenty
low enough that red-hot steel nearby (plus conduction) could set it off.
Not the kind of incident I want to be anywhere even remotely near!!!
-- 
Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #331
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  1 Sep 87 06:18:44 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA10888; Tue, 1 Sep 87 03:17:10 PDT
	id AA10888; Tue, 1 Sep 87 03:17:10 PDT
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 87 03:17:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709011017.AA10888@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #332

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 332

Today's Topics:
			     Glued SRBs?
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
		       Re: Government in space
		       Re: Government in space
		       Costs of shuttles, 747s
			   Re: Alan Sheperd
	       Re: The Media and Science (interesting!)
			    Re: NASA fraud
		       Re:Apollo Command Module
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 12:58:57 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxe!fred@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Fred Mendenhall)
Subject: Glued SRBs?


I've been sharing the responses from the net with my argumentative 
friend. Seems he is willing to move away from welding the SRBs and
now suggests a permanent seal using a ceramic epoxy. I've personally
never heard of such a critter although the concept seems to make
sense. Comments?

					Fred Mendenhall

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 15:56:32 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpa!animal@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (D. Starr)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

In article <1406@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
> The reason for joints in the first place: When Thiokol was awarded the
> contract for the Solid Rocket Motors, there had to be a way to get
> them from Utah to Florida.  Rail was selected.  A combination of
> diameter limits (12 feet) and railroad track limits (320,000 lb on one
> car) set the size of a segment.  It turned out to be 4 segments.

This leads to the fundamental question of what is a solid rocket plant
doing in the middle of Utah?  As far as I can tell, the customers for
solid motors are located in Florida (KSC), California (Vandenburg) and
central plains (Minuteman silo country).  None of these seem to be
particularly convenient to reach from Utah.  It is true that Utah is
rather sparsely populated, so finding a large chunk of land to build the
plant (and an adequate safety area) was probably easy, but there is
plenty of cheap real estate with barge transportation available in the
South and the Mississippi valley (note that the ET is built in
Louisiana--which raises the question of how they're planning to get them
to Vandenburg...).  The only reason I can think of for Thiokol having an
SRB plant in Utah is that it was built in anticipation of the
mobile-basing scheme for the MX.  Does anybody out there have any better
information as to how the SRB plant wound up in such an (on the surface)
unlikely location?

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 21:17:54 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

in article <1083@inuxe.UUCP>, fred@inuxe.UUCP (Fred Mendenhall) says:
> Why can't we weld the suckers together and throw away the parachutes
> and LAUNCH!
> 				Fred Mendenhall

Why throw away the parachutes? There is a casting pit in Florida more
than big enough to handle a full sized SRM.  It has been proposed that
the SRMs be welded together, cast all in one piece, and shipped by barge
to the launch site ( reference AWS&T in the memorable past ). Off
course, mixing that much propelant would be an awesome task.

Very good question.

Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 87 19:11:45 GMT
From: decvax!ima!minya!jc@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (John Chambers)
Subject: Re: Government in space

> Private industry will beat goverment subsidies any day, but
> only in a free and open marketplace, and only when there is
> enough hope of a return on money invested.

You inadvertently gave away the major objection to your free-market
ideology.  True, private industry will beat government-subsidized
companies any DAY, but when the investment is much longer, private
industry doesn't make the investment.

It has been clear for some time that space exploration is economically
viable.  The problem is that is viable in the long run, measured in
decades.  It took about a decade for NASA to become "profitable".  Any
manager in any private corporation that proposed a wild-eyed future
investment like this (especially one with totally unknown payoff) would
simply lose his job to someone with more "sense"; someone who looks at
the bottom line of the current quarter.

Private industry has rarely invested in exploration or research.  These
have always been paid for by governments (or princes or ...); when the
results were in and balance sheets could be drawn up, then private
investors rush in.

So please stop complaining that private industry hasn't gone into space
because of competition from a subsidized NASA.  There wasn't any such
subsidy before 1957, and where was all the private investment then?
C'mon, no excuses; science fiction was a century old by then, astronomy
was much older, and it was already obvious that things like asteroid
mining were economically feasible.  Nobody would make the investment,
because the payoff was past the end of the current fiscal year.  The US
government only got into it because of competition with other
governments.

This has been hashed out thousasnds of time by people who don't want to
take tainted government money.  But who else will support anything new?
Eventually you have to face the fact, if you want funding, that industry
doesn't support research/exploration; it supports development of viable
products, and you have to be able to show that a product is viable
BEFORE you get the funding.

[Isn't it fun to inject politics into newsgroups? :-]

	John Chambers <{adelie,ima,maynard}!minya!{jc,root}> (617/484-6393)

------------------------------

Date: 17 Aug 87 18:41:59 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: Re: Government in space

In article <117@minya.UUCP>, jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes:
> ...  True, private industry will beat government-subsidized
> companies any DAY, but when the investment is much longer, private
> industry doesn't make the investment.

The future discount rate of most corporations is tied to the inflation
rate, which is in turn affected by government spending.  When the
government spends money it doesn't have, the short term effect is to
please the constituents and the long term effects are ignored ("In the
future, we are all dead" - John Maynard Keynes).  The discount rate
function for the government drops off rapidly, goes to zero in about 4
years, then goes negative (who cares, after the next election?).
Industry discounts the future LESS.  They are just a little more
up-front about the fact that they do so.  If something has a BIG payoff
in the future, and it is unlikely to get expropriated or overregulated
later, you will find plenty of investment.  Here in the Northwest, the
larger forest product companies plant trees that won't mature for 20
years.  Boeing starts aircraft designs years in advance of the peak
market.  Tektronix has research projects going on that will not reach
the market for 10 years.  Not the 21st century, sure.  But the funding
doesn't go away when the headlines disappear.

> Private industry has rarely invested in exploration or research.
> These have always been paid for by governments (or princes or ...);
> when the results were in and balance sheets could be drawn up, then
> private investors rush in.

The transistor, lasers, integrated circuits, high TC superconductors,
high strength materials, what WASN'T discovered and developed by private
industry (nuclear bombs?)?  Lewis and Clark followed the fur trappers.
L&C, Pike, and the rest were there as a demonstration that the fledgling
federal government potentially COULD control the Pacific Northwest.

> ...  There wasn't any such subsidy before 1957, and where was all the
> private investment then?

On the one hand, Goddard's work was ENTIRELY privately funded (first by
a private bequest administered by the Smithsonian, afterwards by a major
grant from the Guggenheim foundation).  Before NASA, there was enormous
government spending through DOD.  What did we learn?  "Space is
expensive".  We learned how to do the wrong thing!

> The US government only got into it because of competition with other
> governments.

The government is in the war business.  We got into the civilian space
program in order to demonstrate "if we can put a man on the moon, what
makes you think we can't drop a warhead on your capital?".  If direct
demonstrations of our missile capabilities were politically acceptable,
the federal government wouldn't have BOTHERED with any of the rest.  We
would have just gone ahead and nuked Havana.

The space program has also been a way of guiding bright young folk into
aerospace.  When they get out of college, they discover that most of the
real jobs are working on weapons.

There is a tendency in the world to compare the STATED INTENTIONS of
some members of the federal government with the REALITY provided by
industry.  OF COURSE industry never matches people's expectations.  But
how could anyone come to the conclusion that government HAS met those
expectations?  Where IS our moon base?  Our Mars mission?  Our space
transportation system?  Our planetary exploration program?  All we have
to show for all that "investment" we made in the 50's and 60's and 70's
is a black hole that absorbs billions per year, and some PAST
accomplishments.  This IS the future.  It sucks.  Isn't it time to ask
WHY?

If I felt that the government COULD do what some folks expect it to do
in space, I would flush my ethics down the toilet, put on my armband, do
the salute, and join the mob marching towards the glorious future.
However, history suggests this isn't effective, though there have always
been people ready to believe that somehow "it will be different the next
time".

The future that industry promises is drab, but possible.  The future
that the government promises is beautiful, and illusory.  Which would
you rather have?
-- 
Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date:     Thu, 20 Aug 87 13:03:22 CDT
From: David Chase <rbbb@rice.edu>
Subject:  Costs of shuttles, 747s

The creation (= design, development, tooling, testing, etc., production)
of a commercial airplane requires well over 100 units sold to break even.
The shuttle program spreads those same costs over a handful of orbiters.
Comparing the cost of a 747 and the cost of an orbiter is a tricky job.

Can't get around that cost to launch, though.  When the shuttle is
designed does anyone care about cost to launch (i.e., seek to minimize
it), or is that just not a problem because (1) it is so far away from the
initial design and (2) after we've sunk a few $1,000,000,000 into our
shuttles we won't just let them sit on the ground because they are too
expensive to use; whatever it costs, we'll pay.

David

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 87 04:37:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Alan Sheperd

/* Written  5:37 pm  Aug 16, 1987 by keithl@vice.TEK.COM in
	uiucdcsp:sci.space */
In article <1837@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes:

[...deleted...]

> [...]  If the money NASA spends had not been extracted from the
> economy, it may have done as much or more to help fund technological
> growth in private industry (an unanswerable question; it depends on
> which economists you believe).

[...deleted...]

> Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
> MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052
/* End of text from uiucdcsp:sci.space */

"Extracted from the economy"?  If money was extracted, where did it go?
A new engine, perhaps?  "NASA announces new booster which burns dollar
bills with liquid oxygen -- film at eleven."

Excuse the sarcasm -- it's late.  But I don't understand your argument.
That money was spent here on Earth -- mostly in the good old US of A.


        -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 13 Aug 87 22:26:18 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: The Media and Science (interesting!)
Newsgroups: sci.space

In the middle of an excellent posting on the problems of science and the
media chris wrote:
>Maybe you can't give 'em Buck Rogers all the time - but those Voyager
>pix everyone seems to want are rather nice, don't you think? (NASA, by
>the way, has reel upon reel of space footage).

Actually, when I was working for JPL on Voyager, a group of amateur
cinematographers in the JPL Photo did a short film (Super 8 with some
sound) of their day to day workings during Encounter (Jupiter, Saturn,
and I assume Uranus after I left).  This film was shown in von Karmen
Aud. at lunch one day.  Set to the music like Holst's Planets, guess
which?, it was really neat.  It was maybe 30 minutes long?  It is not
NASA footage technically, but you might try getting it, I suspect it is
rather fragile (pre-video).

Recording can be neat.  Consider the deep vent dives.  It takes a good
eye and understanding.  The camera is a tool to both media and science,
it can enlighten as well as hide.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya  [soon to be ASC again]
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 14 Aug 87 13:09:37 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: NASA fraud
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <2932@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes:
>) fact. Mr. Bowery merely asserts that NASA is guilty of corrupt and
>) criminal activities.
>OK, so you claim to have knowledge of criminal activities at JSC.
>Please tell the rest of us...or are you afraid that your accusations
>will not withstand

Charges of corruption are quite serious.  In recent days, I have had
meetings with the Inspector General of NASA and some of his agents.  If
anybody on the net can make an assertion and help provide evidence, the
Agency will provide for anonymity.  If you want to see people hang, that
can be arranged, just contact me, they can be outside as well as inside
the Agency.

>but rather at Congress, who continues to piecemeal out its "support" of

Piecemeal support is nothing new.  It is a decision which every group of
scientists, engineers, and the rest of the universe has to face.  The
Mirror Fusion Facility was completely axed from Livermore's budget as a
decision rather than piecemeal LLNL's budget.  Programs have been
piecemealed and axed in NASA.

--eugene

------------------------------

Date: 14 Aug 87 21:51:05 GMT
From: pt!andrew.cmu.edu!dm3h+@cs.rochester.edu  (Dennis Moul)
Subject: Re:Apollo Command Module


This info may be a little late as you may have already painted your model,
but here's what I know:

I have seen virtually every official NASA photograph taken during the
Apollo program through my own extensive reading on the subject and I've
only seen one inconsistant color on the CM itself.  That being on the
Apollo 9 mission in which the CM appears a gloss black color.
(Verifiable on the cover of Aviation Week a week or two after that
mission.)

The standard color, however, appears to be a high gloss silver,
mirror-like in appearance.  If you examine almost any exterior photo
taken in space from the LM or SOYUZ you will be able to see accurate
reflections of the surroundings.

I am assuming that you are aware of the fact that the Service Module was
always a flat gun-metal gray in appearance.  The Service Propulsion
System engine bell was black (although during Skylab the CSM models used
light brown bells.  Don't know what the difference is.)  That mirror
silver finish was some kind of ablative material that burned off during
re-entry to reveal a charred brown layer underneath.

Oh, I also recall just now that I have seen a photo of a CSM being
readied for mating to a Saturn 5 for the Apollo 10 mission in which the
CM was a glossy BLUE color (to further complicate the matter!)

Does this help at all, Harley?

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #332
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  2 Sep 87 09:13:38 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA12608; Wed, 2 Sep 87 03:18:02 PDT
	id AA12608; Wed, 2 Sep 87 03:18:02 PDT
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 87 03:18:02 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709021018.AA12608@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #333

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 333

Today's Topics:
		    Astronaut Candidate Selections
			    NASA spin offs
		   Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands
		   Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands
			 CANOPUS - June 1987
			   apollo missions
			 Re: apollo missions
			 Re: apollo missions
			 Re: apollo missions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 15 Aug 87 17:10:47 PDT
From: John Sotos <SOTOS@sumex-aim.stanford.edu>
Subject: Astronaut Candidate Selections

I don't want to scoop Henry Spencer, but readers with ambitions of
becoming professional space travellers will be interested in an article
on pp. 48-49 of the July 27 Aviation Week: "NASA Urged to Broaden
Astronaut Base."  The urging is coming from Rep. Manuel Lujan (R-N.M.),
the ranking Republican member of the House Science, Space, and
Technology committee.

"In the last three astronaut candidate groups [1987, 1986, 1984], a
total of 45 candidates was selected.  Of those, only three were not NASA
employees or military officers."  Of those three, one was a civilian
employee of the Army, one was a JPL employee who is also the son of
former NASA Deputy Administrator George Low, and the third was a
civilian physician who is also the first black woman selected.

This is said to reflect a change in selection standards.
In 1978, 13 of 35 selected were non-NASA, non-military;
in 1980,  3 of 19 selected were non-NASA, non-military.

In a letter to NASA administrator Fletcher, written before the June 1987
astronaut candidate selection, Lujan stated: "'I am very concerned
that... the selection process [has] become for all intents and purposes
a closed process, shutting out qualified non-NASA civilian
applicants.... Are we being asked to believe that out of the thousands
of applicants that coincidentally the best qualified were all NASA
employees or from the military?  If the qualifications for astronaut are
best met by serving an apprenticeship with NASA, especially Johnson
Space enter, you owe it to the American people to state that publicly.'"

Fletcher replied that 18 of 84 candidates selected in 1978-86 were
non-NASA, non-military and defended NASA's selection of its own
employees.

Regular Aviation Week readers may remember that in late 1985 a guy named
Al Stewart wrote a stinging letter to Aviation Week making essentially
the same point as Lujan.  This did have an effect in the selection
*office*; the astronaut selection manager at JSC said that Stewart had
also written to various congressmen and that he (the selection manager)
was spending a lot of his time replying to the congressmen (this was
November 1985).

Lujan has introduced language in the House version of the 1988 NASA
authorization bill ordering NASA to send congress a plan that would
ensure the inclusion of non-NASA civilians in future selections.  The
amendment may not survive the upcoming conference on the House and
Senate version of the bills.  Have any of the Capitol Hill observers out
there heard anything?

       John Sotos
       Stanford U.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Aug 87 22:37:25 GMT
From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
Subject: NASA spin offs

In article <1837@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes:
> Anyone care to speculate where we would be on many basic technologies
> without the research prompted by the needs of the Apollo program.  I
> know that IC's would have come along because they are an obvious
> advance on discrete circuits, but it would have taken longer.  Apple
> II like machines might just be coming out now.

'Taint so.  ICs have always been driven by the commercial and military
markets.  While NASA bought some of the first RTL, so did everyone else.
TTL was developed for the Minuteman II ICBM, and the early MOS LSI work
was done for the National Security Agency.  All the "major"
microprocessors were developed for the commercial market; NASA needs
special devices (like the RCA 1802) that are low power and radiation
hardened.  In mainstream electronics, NASA has always been a technology
follower; not suprising, considering their small market size and their
long lead times.  If the money NASA spends had not been extracted from
the economy, it may have done as much or more to help fund technological
growth in private industry (an unanswerable question; it depends on
which economists you believe).

I imagine NASA's main electronic contributions have been in
communications, image processing, telemetry, and materials, but being
less familiar with these areas I may have fallen for some NASA PR hype
myself.  I am reminded of Russian claims that THEY invented everything.

Well, we can still thank NASA for fire, the wheel, and sliced bread...
or am I fooled again?

Keith Lofstrom   ...!tektronix!vice!keithl   keithl@vice.TEK.COM
MS 59-316, Tektronix, PO 500, Beaverton OR 97077  (503)-627-4052

------------------------------

Date: 18 Aug 87 16:47:33 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrlnk!ncrwic!mjohnson@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Mark Johnson)
Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands

In article <2030@utastro.UUCP> yaron@utastro.UUCP (Wanna C. DeSupernova) writes:
>Suborbital "flight" is not serious. Cooper, therefore, was the first to
                        ^^^^^^^^^^^

!!!! If it is "not serious", so how's come Betty Grissom almost became a
widow 6 years earlier than history records? ***Anything*** is serious the
first few times it's attempted. Granted, the Mercury man-in-a-Spam-can
missions look pretty primitive today, but it was risky business in 1961!

Just my 2c worth

Mark Johnson (mjohnson@ncrwic.UUCP)
NCR Engineering & Manufacturing-Wichita, KS   
email:...!rutgers!hplabs!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ncrwic!mjohnson  phone: (316)688-8189 (W)
US snailnet: 3532 S. 154th E., Wichita, KS 67232 (H)

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 14:35:48 GMT
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Wanna C. DeSupernova)
Subject: Re: Soviet/Syrian mission lands

> >Suborbital "flight" is not serious. Cooper, therefore, was the first to
>                         ^^^^^^^^^^^
> ....***Anything*** is serious the
> first few times it's attempted.....
> 
> Mark Johnson

Parachuting from an airplane is dangerous too, yet you wouldn't consider
that a spaceflight, I hope. Please consider seriousness in a relative
context, not as an absolute qualification. Suborbitals just CAN'T reach
the glamor of orbital flights, no matter what.

Yaron Sheffer

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 22:27:56 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: CANOPUS - June 1987

Thanks to all for the feedback on CANOPUS.  Since there have already
been 19 positive and no negative replies, I'm encouraged to try
something.  Most of the votes were for summaries, but a few were for
full articles.  For the time being, I am going to post 1) all titles, 2)
most articles in condensed form, and 3) an occasional article in full.
I will also attempt to maintain a mailing list; those on it will receive
unabridged copies of each month's CANOPUS articles.  Send e-mail to me
to be added to or deleted from the list; those who requested articles in
full are already on it.  Postings and mailings of a given month's
articles will occur sometime after the end of that month.  These
postings are an experiment; please send comments (pro or con) or
suggestions to me by e-mail.

This posting contains the very first on-line CANOPUS article, plus
articles from June 1987.  June was a particularly long month; expect
most postings to be shorter.  Comments in [brackets] are mine.

CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu).
Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and
registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely,
either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do, however, please
send a brief letter estimating how many others receive copies.  CANOPUS
is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center.

   OBJECTIVES OF CANOPUS          January 1987  [condensed]

CANOPUS provides an insider's perspective on issues in space science and
astronomy.  CANOPUS will not attempt to educate the layman or to present
research results.  It is for scientists, astronomers, astro-physicists,
engineers, and managers with space careers.  The approval process,
whereby the increasingly limited resources for space research are
allocated, will receive special attention.

[June 1987 - 7 articles by title only]
SPACE STATION TO BE ANALYZED -- AGAIN - can6873.txt - 6/9/87 [already posted]
NEW Lewis Research Center DIRECTOR: JOHN KLINEBERG - can6875.txt - 6/9/87
SPACE DATA CONSORTIUM - can6876.txt - 6/9/87  [at GSFC]
NEXT SHUTTLE LAUNCH - can6878.txt - 6/9/87  [June 1988]
SPACE SCIENCE AND ASTRONOMY TECHNICAL COMMITTEE MEETING - can6879.txt - 6/11/87
JPL APPOINTMENTS - can68712.txt - 61487 [new dep. & assoc. directors]
NEW CLEAN ROOM - can68713.txt - 6/14/87 [at GSFC]

[June 1987 - 8 condensed articles]
SMALL BUSINESS INNOVATION RESEARCH PROGRAM - can6871.txt - 6/4/87

NASA's SBIR program, with a current budget of $40 million, is the third
largest in the federal government. Noting that the U.S.  technology base
was eroding, and that many innovations were coming from small start-up
companies such as Apple rather than large corporations, Congress in 1981
mandated that each major agency spend 1.25 percent of its R&D budget on
small business.

Solicitations are mailed each year around March to interested companies,
about 19,000 copies this year. The solicitation covered 123 subtopics
ranging from floor coverings (for spacecraft assembly rooms) to
robotics, computer science, information systems, instrumentation and
sensors (with 21 subtopics), spacecraft systems, habitability, life
sciences, and other areas.  The deadline for responses is June 19. Glaab
expects about 2,000 replies of which 200 to 300 awards will be made.

For infomation, write to: John Glaab, Manager, Small Business Innovation
Research Project, NASA -- IR, Washington, DC 20546

NASA ESTABLISHES OFFICE OF EXPLORATION - can6872.txt - 6/9/87

A new Office of Exploration has been established to coordinate agency
activities that will "expand the human presence beyond Earth."
Administrator James Fletcher says "This office will analyze and define
missions proposed to achieve a goal of human expansion off the planet.
It will provide central coordination of technical planning studies that
will involve the entire agency.  In particular, it will focus on studies
of potential lunar and Mars initiatives."

GAMMA RAY BALLOON FLIGHT - CAN6874.TXT - 6/9/87 

Gamma ray burst detection package developed by Marshall Space Flight
Center and the Lockheed Palo Alto Research Laboratory made a one-day
flight from Alice Springs, Australia, to study the 1987a supernova which
is visible only in the southern hemisphere.

LIQUID ROCKET BOOSTERS - can6877.txt - 6/9/87 

Liquid rocket boosters will be studied under a new design effort at
NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center. The boosters are candidates to
replace the Shuttle's solid rocket boosters.  Such studies were
conducted in the 1970s but no design work followed because of the
expected cost.

NEW LUNAR BASE SYMPOSIUM SET - can68710.txt - 6/14/87 

The Second Symposium on Lunar Bases and Space Activities of the 21st
Century has been scheduled for April 5-7, 1988, in Houston's Westin
Galleria Hotel.  The second symposium will be sponsored by NASA, AIAA,
and the Lunar and Planetary Institute.  For additional information
contact Administrative Chairman Barney Roberts, Code ED13 (phone
713-483-6605) or Program Chairman Wendell Mendell, Code SN3 (phone
713-483-5064), both at Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX 77058.

SATURN RATED AS TOP OUTER PLANET FOR EXPLORATION - can68711.txt -
6/14/87

Saturn has the "highest priority for outer planet exploration in the
next decade," according to a report issued by the Committee on Planetary
and Lunar Exploration (COMPLEX) of the Space Science Board.

EXPERIMENT SIMULATIONS SOUGHT FOR SPACE ACADEMY - can68714.txt -
6/14/87

The U.S. Space Academy program at the Space & Rocket Center in
Huntsville, Ala., is soliciting the help of space scientists in
developing experiment simulations to be used in programs for students in
high school and college.  For information please contact: Dave Dooling,
Manager, Program Development, U.S. Space Academy, The Space & Rocket
Center, 1 Tranquility Base, Huntsville, AL 35807, or call 205-837-3400,
ext. 68.

SOLAR TELESCOPE ONLY "NEW" PAYLOAD FOR SPACE STATION - CAN68715.TXT -
JUNE 23, 1987 [last article - condensed but still long]
     
The High-Resolution Solar Observatory (HRSO) is the only new payload
planned for the initial Space Station, according to a report submitted
in April by NASA to the House Committees on Appropriations.  Adaptation
of several existing Spacelab payloads is discussed in "A Space Station
Program Plan for Selected Design Parameters."

"Among the inventory of existing payloads, and payloads under
development for STS (Space Shuttle) and Spacelab deployment," the report
reads, "are a number of promising candidates for early Station paylods,
requiring modest conversion costs." Several "highly attractive (new)
payloads," each requiring $10-$25 million each to develop, also are
being considered.

[14 payloads existing/under development. All were scheduled for some
type of STS mission but are apparently dead until Space Station.  5
possible new payloads listed; none is now funded.  In addition] the
Advanced X-ray Astrophysics Facility [now in phase B] and Space Infrared
Telescope Facility [science instruments now in phase B] are listed as
co-orbiting platform payloads; they would be serviced [but not
continuously operated from] the Space Station.

A "strawman" launch schedule, highlighting space science and
applications payloads, was listed in a November 1986 letter from
then-Associate Administrator [of OSSA] Burt Edelson. Few of the
"low-cost" payloads mentioned above are included in the strawman.

[Commentary: If any of the above sounds familiar, it should.  We heard
the same things about STS and Spacelab.  That's where those existing -
unflown - payloads come from.  --SW]

Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123          Bitnet: willner@cfa2
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                     ARPA: willner%cfa@harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 08:54:21 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!stc!th@seismo.css.gov  (Fred Flintstone)
Subject: apollo missions

We are having a disagreement in the office about how many apollo
missions there were. Was there 17 or 18 ?

Thanks

Tony Hutchinson

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 17:50:21 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: apollo missions
In-Reply-To: <1348@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>

  The last Apollo mission was Apollo 17.  Perhaps you are thinking of
the book _Space_ by James Michener, where he makes a fake Apollo 18 to
give him a chance to use his characters.
  However, the only lunar missions were 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.  10
flew to within 50,000 feet of the moon w/out landing, 9 tested out the
LM in Earth orbit, 8 was the trip around the moon that read Genesis back
on Christmas Day, and 7 was the first test of Apollo in Earth orbit.
Does anyone know what missions 1-6 were?

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 23:18:53 GMT
From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu  (Omega.Mosley`)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

...Apollo 1 was, tragically, the tragic fire which claimed the lives of
Gus Grissom, Ed White, and Roger Chafee. There was, essentially, no
Apollo's 2 or 3, unless you count the two revised prototypes for the
safer version of the Apollo CM that were actually launched on the Little
Joe II test boosters.  Apollo 4 was the first unmanned flight test of
the Saturn V, while Apollo's 5 & 6 tested the LM and the docking
procedures by remote control (the Russkies tried this once. The result
finally landed in Canada a few years back...).

...again, 7 was the first manned orbital test of the spacecraft. The
rest you all probably know...


					Omega.Mosley

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 15:13:43 GMT
From: yaron@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Wanna C. DeSupernova)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

In article <1348@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk>, th@tcom.stc.co.uk (Fred Flintstone) writes:
> We are having a disagreement in the office about how many apollo
> missions there were. Was there 17 or 18 ?

Even though the last lunar mission was with Apollo 17, it was only the
11th Apollo flight (Dec. 1972). The first of them was Apollo 7 (1967 or
8).

BUT, there was actually one more Apollo mission: Apollo-Soyuz, which we
can name Apollo 18 (July 1975). Hence, really, there were 12 (TWELVE)
missions.

Three other missions using Apollo spacecraft during 1973-74 were
designated Skylab missions 2 through 4.

Yaron Sheffer

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #333
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  3 Sep 87 06:20:20 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14802; Thu, 3 Sep 87 03:18:29 PDT
	id AA14802; Thu, 3 Sep 87 03:18:29 PDT
Date: Thu, 3 Sep 87 03:18:29 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709031018.AA14802@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #334

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 334

Today's Topics:
		       Re: CANOPUS - June 1987
		      Re: Apollo Command Module
			 Re: apollo missions
		   Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs
			 Re: apollo missions
			    NASA Spin-offs
		  College Level Space Training    .
			 Re: apollo missions
			 Re: apollo missions
			 Re: apollo missions
			 Re: apollo missions
	       Shuttle jumpsuits last reminder (short)
			 Re: apollo missions
		 Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs
			 Re: apollo missions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 12:48:57 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Re: CANOPUS - June 1987

In article <646@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> willner@cfa.harvard.EDU (Steve Willner) writes:

>EXPERIMENT SIMULATIONS SOUGHT FOR SPACE ACADEMY - can68714.txt -
>6/14/87
>
>The U.S. Space Academy program at the Space & Rocket Center in
>Huntsville, Ala., is soliciting the help of space scientists in
>developing experiment simulations to be used in programs for students
>in high school and college.  For information please contact: Dave
>Dooling, Manager, Program Development, U.S. Space Academy, The Space
>& Rocket Center, 1 Tranquility Base, Huntsville, AL 35807, or call
>205-837-3400, ext. 68.
>
Or TOLL-FREE 800-633-7280 (might as well save a few bucks)

Also, although they haven't asked, I will.  In there anyone in
Huntsville who can give the Center/Camp Usenet access?  There's a lot of
good work (particularly in the space education field) being done there.

I'll be attending the 10 day program (a special adult session) and would
be glad to keep the net updated on the program if I can get a guest
account somewhere (this isn't connected to getting them some permanent
access).

++rich
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+
 |  Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                 A|W|A     |
 |  8519 White Pine Drive        The cause endures...               H|T|H     |
 |  Manassas Park, VA 22111        The hope still lives...          /|||\     |
 |  (703)361-1290 (h)           And the dream shall never die.     /_|T|_\    |
 |  (703)749-2315 (w)  (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker)             " W "     |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 06:54:18 GMT
From: mike@ames.arpa  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo Command Module

>I've only seen one inconsistant color on the CM itself.  That being on
>the Apollo 9 mission in which the CM appears a gloss black color.
>(Verifiable on the cover of Aviation Week a week or two after that
>mission.)

I am looking at Gumdrop, the Apollo 9 CM, on page 124 of Joe Allens
book, "Entering Space", and the surface consistant with all of the
others. That is, the CM was covered with a criss/cross pattern of silver
mylar tape, abou 3" wide. I even have a piece of it around here
somewhere.

Ignore the gold color on the large Monogram model.

>The standard color, however, appears to be a high gloss silver,
>mirror-like in appearance.  If you examine almost any exterior photo
>taken in space Oh, I also recall just now that I have seen a photo of a
>CSM being readied for mating to a Saturn 5 for the Apollo 10 mission in
>which the CM was a glossy BLUE color (to further complicate the
>matter!)

I remember the Apollo 10 picture, and the best answer I have is that
either the blue surface was that immediately beneath the mylar
stripping, or some protective cover on top of the tape.

				   *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick ***
"ever felt like life was a game, and 
someone gave you the wrong instruction book?"

------------------------------

Date: 20 Aug 87 23:20:59 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

In article <604@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU>, kpmancus@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
> However, the only lunar missions were 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, and 17.  10
> flew to within 50,000 feet of the moon w/out landing, 9 tested out the
> LM in Earth orbit, 8 was the trip around the moon that read Genesis
> back on Christmas Day, and 7 was the first test of Apollo in Earth
> orbit.  Does anyone know what missions 1-6 were?

Missions 1-6 included engineering test craft and the Apollo capsule
involved in the fire on the pad (Grisson-Chaffee-White).

You also skipped over 13, which had the fuel cell (?) explosion and
aborted around the moon.  (A long, cold, scarey ride!)

I don't remember that it took two years before another flight was tried,
though.

	seh

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 87 13:23 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs
To: ulysses!sfmag!sfsup!glg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu, space@angband.s1.gov

Eugene Miya:
>> what would have happened if we had not had reacted to Sputnik they
>> way we did: create NASA, IGY, the temporary trend in education, etc.

G. Gleason:
> Anyone care to speculate where we would be on many basic technologies
> without the research prompted by the needs of the Apollo program.  I
> know that IC's would have come along because they are an obvious
> advance on discrete circuits, but it would have taken longer.  Apple
> II like machines might just be coming out now.

Well, IC's were invented before Sputnik, weren't they? And they are used
in military equipment, so even if there never was a civilian space
program they would have been developed.  I seriously doubt the delay, if
any, would have been as long as you suggest.

G. Gleason:
> There are studies that indicate that the Apollo program has paid back
> the economy many times over, even if you don't look at spin-off
> technologies.

The Apollo program paid the economy back, ignoring spinoffs?  Unlikely,
unless you assign a very high value to data about lunar geology. Perhaps
you are refering to the "multiplier effect" where spending in NASA
generates 10x (or whatever) economic activity? But ALL spending has this
multiplier effect, including pyramid building, surplus cheese
stockpiling and, more to the point, the private spending that was
prevented by taxing to fund NASA.

Justifying the space program through spinoffs faces a similar problem.
How can you tell what would have been discovered and invented (but
wasn't) had the scientists and engineers working on the space program
instead worked in some other area? Also, how can you tell what is a real
spinoff, and what is just a technology that the Apollo program happened
to use but wasn't the impetus for? I find it hard to believe that space
R&D produces more accidental spinoffs than other areas; indeed, it seems
obvious that R&D targeted at specific terrestrial application areas
(microelectronics, energy, biotechnology, for example) should have a
much higher spinoff potential than R&D targeted at space.

One might argue that the space program and the military provide markets
for embryonic products like IC's. But the opposite also happens:
government contracts can cause industries to lose touch with the
civilian market. This has happened in the machine tool industry, where
US producers are now being clobbered by imports. The expendable launcher
industry is another example.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 15:53:10 GMT
From: kodak!dennett@cs.rochester.edu  (Charlie Dennett)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

In article <604@phoenix.PRINCETON.EDU> kpmancus@phoenix.UUCP (Keith P. Mancus) writes:
>              Does anyone know what missions 1-6 were?

Wasn't Apollo 1 the one that had the fire that killed Gus Grissom and
two others?  If so, was it designed to fly?

Charlie Dennett

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 1987  15:11 EDT
From: MINSKY%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: NASA Spin-offs

Is it really true that NASA was important in developing IC's?  I don't
remember much about that at the time.  In fact I have the impression,
undoubtedly wrong, that they weren't qualified for space for a long time
- granted that that's not the same as developing them.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 19:32:22 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: College Level Space Training    .

Some interesting news for those of you still undergraduates in college.

I just received some slides from Space Academy/Camp (I'm giving a talk on
the program) and among them is one describing "Space Academy Level III'.

This is a 2-12 week program aimed at college Sophs, juniors and seniors.
It will include classwork at the University of Alabama, Huntsville
and training at the training center of the Alabama Space and Rocket Center
(Space Academy).  That's ALL I KNOW (I'm trying to get a call through 
to the camp director for more information).

Since Space Academy Level II gets you college credit, undoubtedly this will
as well.  A semester's worth?  I don't know.  What will it cost?  I don't
know.

When I know more, I'll post it.

++rich
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+
 |  Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                 A|W|A     |
 |  8519 White Pine Drive        The cause endures...               H|T|H     |
 |  Manassas Park, VA 22111        The hope still lives...          /|||\     |
 |  (703)361-1290 (h)           And the dream shall never die.     /_|T|_\    |
 |  (703)749-2315 (w)  (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker)             " W "     |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 09:25:15 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!hwcs!hwee!hmc@seismo.css.gov  (Hugh Conner)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

In article <1348@bute.tcom.stc.co.uk> th@tcom.stc.co.uk (Fred Flintstone) writes:
>We are having a disagreement in the office about how many apollo
>missions there were. Was there 17 or 18 ?

The last moon flight was Apollo 17. If you count the Apollo/Soyuz
mission that makes 18. Am I right in thinking however that they didn't
start at 1.  Was it in fact Apollo 1 which caught fire on the pad and
killed the 3 crew members? What was the number of the first Apollo which
was successfully launched?

Hugh M. Conner                                  hmc@ee.hw.ac.uk

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 17:24:25 GMT
From: jac%tut.cis.ohio-state.edu@OHIO-STATE.ARPA  (Jim Clausing)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

In article <26164@sun.uucp> fiddler%concertina@Sun.COM (Steve Hix) writes:
>You also skipped over 13, which had the fuel cell (?) explosion and
>aborted around the moon.  (A long, cold, scarey ride!)
>
>I don't remember that it took two years before another flight was
>tried, though.
>	seh

Yes, it did take nearly two years before another MANNED flight took
place.  The fire on the pad took place in January 1967 (almost 19 years
to the day before the Challenger accident), Apollo 7 flew in October or
November 1968.  Borman, et al's Christmas view of Earthrise was 1968
(and a mere 8 months and 3 Apollo flights later Armstrong & Aldrin were
walking on the moon and poor Mike Collins was up there in orbit but had
to relay his congrats to A & A via Houston).

Jim Clausing

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 01:19:09 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

The number of Apollo missions depends on how you define an "Apollo
mission".  The actual mission numbering was a bit confused at first.
The crew that died in the fire was calling their mission "Apollo 1"
because it was to be the first manned Apollo, while the booster
manufacturers were calling it "Apollo 4" because three unmanned tests
had gone first.  NASA HQ had not officially settled the matter.
Afterwards, NASA HQ retroactively named it "Apollo 1" in memory of the
astronauts.  The first post-fire unmanned test was officially "Apollo 4"
because it was the fourth Apollo to fly.  This raised the issue of how
to reconcile the three previous unmanned tests with the memorial use of
"Apollo 1".  The eventual decision from NASA HQ was that the old
unmanned tests would *not* be renamed, so there never was an "Apollo 2"
or "Apollo 3".  5 and 6 were more unmanned tests.  7-17 were the manned
missions, of which 7 and 9 were Earth-orbit only and 8, 10, and 13 came
near the Moon but did not land.  Hardware for Apollos 18-20 was built
but never flown; some of it was later used for Apollo-Soyuz and Skylab
(and some wasn't: the Lunar Module in the Smithsonian is the real thing,
it was meant to fly... sigh).  I have heard Apollo-Soyuz called "Apollo
18" but I don't think this ever was official.  The manned Skylab flights
were Skylab 2-4 (Skylab 1 was the unmanned launch of Skylab itself).
There was a Skylab rescue plan that could have resulted in a modified
Apollo going up to retrieve a stranded crew; I think this was dubbed
Skylab R, but it never flew (although preparations for it were started
once, when problems appeared in the mission then in orbit).

The best reference on all this is the NASA History Series book "Chariots
for Apollo".
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 17:53:33 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

>>Missions 1-6 included engineering test craft and the Apollo
>>capsule involved in the fire on the pad (Grisson-Chaffee-White).
>>
I believe the official numbering for the Apollo `mission' in
which G-C-W died was Apollo 204. I don't know what the designation
was intended to mean.
-- 

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu
      BITNET:  wyatt@cfa2
        SPAN:  17410::wyatt   (this will change in June)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 14:16:57 GMT
From: sundc!netxcom!rkolker@seismo.css.gov  (rich kolker)
Subject: Shuttle jumpsuits last reminder (short)

Just a reminder that if you want in on the jumpsuit order I need money and
size by this weekend.  Email for details.
++rich
 +--------------------------------------------------------------------^-------+
 |  Rich Kolker                 The work goes on...                 A|W|A     |
 |  8519 White Pine Drive        The cause endures...               H|T|H     |
 |  Manassas Park, VA 22111        The hope still lives...          /|||\     |
 |  (703)361-1290 (h)           And the dream shall never die.     /_|T|_\    |
 |  (703)749-2315 (w)  (..seismo!sundc!netxcom!rkolker)             " W "     |
 +------------------------------------------------------------------V---V-----+

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 18:50:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

> I believe the official numbering for the Apollo `mission' in
> which G-C-W died was Apollo 204. I don't know what the designation
> was intended to mean.

This was vaguely along the lines of the "51L" shuttle numbering system.
I believe the 200 series were Saturn 1Bs with Block-1 Apollos, and 204
was the fourth such mission (following three unmanned tests).  See my
other posting for comments on how it became "Apollo 1".  All the Apollo
missions had multidigit codes for internal planning; I believe the lunar
missions had 400-series and 500-series numbers.
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 15:57:14 GMT
From: PT!k.gp.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay@cs.rochester.edu  (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs


>> Well, IC's were invented before Sputnik, weren't they?

No. Computers used tubes when Sputnik went up. People, if you don't
know anything, stop proving it to the world.
-- 
	Don		lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu    CMU Computer Science

------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 20:48:34 GMT
From: omega@ngp.utexas.edu  (Omega.Mosley`)
Subject: Re: apollo missions

...according to a source at the JSC in Houston, the 400 series referred
to Apollo launches involving the Saturn 5 boosters, yet not involving
any sort of TLI. The 500 series referred to all true moon shots
(Apollo's 8, 10-17).

...the source was not too certain if the Skylabs were numerated in this
manner, but is certain that no real numeric designation was applied to
the Apollo-Soyuz test flight due to part of the agreement between the US
and the other guys.  Note also that the Sov's didn't number that Soyuz
either.

						Omega.Mosley

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #334
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  4 Sep 87 06:20:18 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA16459; Fri, 4 Sep 87 03:17:12 PDT
	id AA16459; Fri, 4 Sep 87 03:17:12 PDT
Date: Fri, 4 Sep 87 03:17:12 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709041017.AA16459@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #335

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 335

Today's Topics:
			    NASA Spin-offs
		 Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs
			  Re: NASA and IC's
		      Re: Apollo Command Module
		 Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 01:37:50 GMT
From: ucsdhub!jack!man!crash!telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: NASA Spin-offs

> Is it really true that NASA was important in developing IC's?  I don't
> remember much about that at the time.  In fact I have the impression,
> undoubtedly wrong, that they weren't qualified for space for a long
> time - granted that that's not the same as developing them.

I don't know if there were other NASA programs that could give some
credence to the claim that the space program led to advances in IC
technology; the one program that I know something about not only doesn't
support the claim very well, but illustrates some of the pitfalls of
government sponsored "technology driver" programs that aren't firmly
grounded in "real world" requirements.

The program that I'm thinking of is the one that developed the Saturn
flight control computers.  They were built by IBM Federal Systems
Division, using a custom developed technology called ASLT ("Advanced
Solid Logic Technology").  This was an extrapolation of SLT, used in the
early generation IBM 360 systems.  It wasn't really an IC technology at
all--just an advanced packaging technology for logic built around
discrete transistors.

In SLT, conductor patterns and resistors were screened and fired onto 16
pin ceramic substrates.  Then discrete transistors, in the form of tiny
silicon chips with solder pads deposited on their contact points, were
positioned face down on the substrates.  The substrates were cycled
through an oven, where they got hot enough to melt the solder pads
without damaging the transistors.  Surface tension in the melted solder
then automatically aligned the transistor chips.  The substrates were
removed from the oven and cooled, leaving the transistor chips sitting
on little solder balls above the substrates.  Metal caps were then
crimped around the substrates, and a rubber-like sealant spread on the
back to give a hermetic seal.  One module typically held half a dozen
transistors or so, and implemented the equivalent of one multi-input
NAND gate.

That was SLT.  The ASLT that NASA paid IBM so much to develop was just a
slimmed-down version of SLT.  The substrates were smaller and thinner,
with the pins closer together.  I believe there was also a new sealing
compound developed, that could be put on thinner and withstand wider
temperature limits.  All this is not as trivial as it may sound; true to
NASA form, they were pushing the limits of the technologies involved.
Unfortunately, the technologies they were pushing turned out to be
pretty irrelevant to the real world.  ASLT was obsolete, or close to it,
by the time the first Saturns flew.  I don't think it ever saw
application outside of the Apollo program.  An expensive technological
dead end--rather like those marvelous Shuttle thermal tiles are destined
to become.

- Roger Arnold				..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 87 00:01:00 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs
Newsgroups: sci.space

>In article <8708211756.AA06460@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
>
>>The Apollo program paid the economy back, ignoring spinoffs?
>>Unlikely, unless you assign a very high value to data about lunar
>>geology.
>
>parts of the space program picked up the results.  The actual Apollo
>results will be VERY valuable when (if? shudder) we get back to the
>Moon.  Other aspects of the space program have paid off in enough green
>and crinkly to make worry about spinoffs an acedemic excercise.  The
>obvious big two are weather satellites and communications satellites.
>Care to estimate the value of satellite communications?
>
>Improved weather prediction is impossible to put a dollar value on, but
>it probably returns more than the entire NASA budget by a long shot.  I
>have heard satellite tracking of hurricanes saved an estimated 50 000
>lives in the Pass Christian hurricane alone (estimate from Arthur C.
>Clarke)

Actually the complete value of planetary science as a whole is quite
high.  Not just lunar science, visit some PS departments.  One is
tempted to say almost immeasuable as the second corespondent, but I
think it is measureable.  Just turn off the weather satellites (or let
them fall into dis-repair) and let people die.  I think Clarke is a bit
optimistic, but to quote Joni Mitchell, "You don't know what you got
till it's gone."  I'm perfectly willing to do this.  Comsats are harder
to justify, there is the fiber optic debate.  As I have stated before,
and others, don't try to justify space on the basis of spinoffs.  It
doesn't fly on the Hill.  People dying in the Gulf (Mex) do.

We live in The Space Age, but as Feynman points out, we don't have a
scientific society.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 87 21:17:37 GMT
From: amelia!msf@ames.arpa  (Michael S. Fischbein)
Subject: Re: NASA and IC's

In article <486@telesoft.UUCP> roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
>In SLT, conductor patterns and resistors were screened and fired onto
>16 pin ceramic substrates.  Then discrete transistors, in the form of
>tiny silicon chips with solder pads deposited on their contact points,
>were positioned face down on the substrates.  The substrates were
>cycled through an oven, where they got hot enough to melt the solder
>pads without damaging the transistors.  Surface tension in the melted
>solder then automatically aligned the transistor chips.  The substrates
>were removed from the oven and cooled, leaving the transistor chips
>sitting on little solder balls above the substrates.
>
>That was SLT.  The ASLT that NASA paid IBM so much to develop was just
>a slimmed-down version of SLT.
stuff elided
>I don't think it ever saw application outside of the Apollo program.
>An expensive technological dead end--rather like those marvelous
>Shuttle thermal tiles are destined to become.

The SLT and ASLT sound a lot like the forerunners of the TCM chip
assemblies that IBM is using today in their larger commercial boxes.
You know, the ones that they claim have NEVER had a failure in the
field, the ones that let them get chip densities greater than other
manufacturers (that's chips per board or assembly, not components per
chip).  Now they're soldering chips instead of transistors, but I bet
they are direct extrapolations of the ASLT program you described.

Is that an application outside of the Apollo program?

		mike

Michael Fischbein                 msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov
                                  ...!seismo!decuac!csmunix!icase!msf
These are my opinions and not necessarily official views of any
organization.

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 87 15:09:20 GMT
From: gatech!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay@rutgers.edu  (Jay Smith)
Subject: Re: Apollo Command Module

I've been on vacation, so I'm coming into this a bit late.  Please
excuse me if I'm going over previously discussed matters.

In article <2545@ames.arpa> mike@ames.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>Ignore the gold color on the large Monogram model.

Then why is the CM of the Apollo-Soyuz backup CSM on display at the Air
& Space Museum gold?  Is my memory failing, or my color vision faulty,
or could it be the lighting at the museum?

>I remember the Apollo 10 picture, and the best answer I have is that
>either the blue surface was that immediately beneath the mylar
>stripping, or some protective cover on top of the tape.

I think it's the protective cover, since I've also seen it in photos of
finished CMs at the plant that built them.

Jay Smith                     uucp:     ...!mcnc!ncsuvx!ncspm!jay
Domain:	jay@ncspm.ncsu.edu    internet: jay%ncspm@ncsuvx.ncsu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 00:16:39 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!cos!smith@seismo.css.gov  (Steve Smith)
Subject: Re: Hidden Benefits vs. Hidden Costs

In article <8708211756.AA06460@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:

>The Apollo program paid the economy back, ignoring spinoffs?  Unlikely,
>unless you assign a very high value to data about lunar geology.

Like most people, you are confusing "NASA" and "the Apollo program".
Understandable, because for most of the '60's they were very closely
intermingled.  Apollo provided most of the driving force, and other
parts of the space program picked up the results.  The actual Apollo
results will be VERY valuable when (if? shudder) we get back to the
Moon.  Other aspects of the space program have paid off in enough green
and crinkly to make worry about spinoffs an acedemic excercise.  The
obvious big two are weather satellites and communications satellites.
Care to estimate the value of satellite communications?

Improved weather prediction is impossible to put a dollar value on, but
it probably returns more than the entire NASA budget by a long shot.  I
have heard satellite tracking of hurricanes saved an estimated 50 000
lives in the Pass Christian hurricane alone (estimate from Arthur C.
Clarke)

>the private spending that was prevented by taxing to fund NASA.

Exercise for those using this arguement:

1.  Get some graphs of U. S. military and total U. S. government
    spending for the period 1960 - 1980.
2.  Blank out the dates
3.  Identify the end of the Viet Nam war.

It can't be done.  If they don't spend it on one thing, they spend it on
another.  Note that the war burned the ENTIRE cost of the Apollo program
in about 6 months.  Politicians always talk about cutting spending, but
Pres. Raygun made big waves by trying to let the taxpayers keep some of
it.

>I find it hard to believe that space R&D produces more accidental
>spinoffs than other areas; indeed, it seems obvious that R&D targeted
>at specific terrestrial application areas (microelectronics, energy,
>biotechnology, for example) should have a much higher spinoff potential
>than R&D targeted at space.

This is true if you subscribe to the "bean counter" school of research.
Research into, say, integrated circuits will produce slightly better
integrated circuits with a high enough probability to satisfy the
accountants.  Its chance of coming up with a real breakthrough (say,
something that makes integrated circuits obsolete) is negligable.

Note that space research is extremely technology intensive.  A solution
to a problem usually has to be built from scratch - giving lots more
opportunity for inventiveness.

REAL research (that with no obvious short or medium term payoff) is the
equivalent of seed corn - eat your seed corn and you do just fine - for
a while.  What will be the next big payoff area?  I wish I knew.

If it starts raining soup, you have to be outside with a spoon.

 -- Steve
smith@cos.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #335
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  5 Sep 87 06:19:03 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA18223; Sat, 5 Sep 87 03:17:03 PDT
	id AA18223; Sat, 5 Sep 87 03:17:03 PDT
Date: Sat, 5 Sep 87 03:17:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709051017.AA18223@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #336

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 336

Today's Topics:
	       political support for space colonization
	       costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 22:53:19 GMT
From: xanth!kent@ames.arpa  (Kent Paul Dolan)
Subject: political support for space colonization

Dedicating a couple of days to goofing off reading news, I got all the
way down to sci.space.  Looks like you guys have a money problem.  I
hereby propose a (political) solution.

I don't want to go to the trouble of going back and extracting comments
from 80 odd postings, so I'll just assume you read them all, and that
that provides sufficient context for this note.

First, some motivating comments.  Based on current events (which I do my
best to ignore - tossed out the last TV a year ago), I don't expect the
human race to make the cut in the survival of the fittest team culling
unless we manage to get a sufficient breeding cadre off planet and far
away _soon_.  Since I have a trio of potential asteroid or Oort cloud
dwellers of my own engendering, I feel I have a personal stake in this.

There is also a sufficient possibility that if we _do_ manage space-born
industry quickly enough, the resultant prosperity will help defuse the
ongoing political incompetences, so that some of the less mobile of
Earth's species will also have a shot at surviving our ill temper.

What seem immediately lacking to achieve the required colonization and
industrialization of space are two requisites: will, and capital.

As John Kennedy demonstrated, a charismatic leader can provide to the
population a clear goal and the will to sacrifice to achieve it.  Adolph
Hitler provided the same demonstration, so some care is needed in using
applied charisma.

The launch of Sputnik demonstrated that political events and active
participation by the media can provide a similar motivation.  The
sinking of the Maine provided a similar cautionary tale on misuse of the
"power of the press".

One correspondent noted here that the membership of the various space
societies approximates 1/1000 of the American population.  While at
first this seems like a small number, it is probably also a quite good
estimate of the portion of politically active ("ward worker type")
persons in the US population.

Approached another way, if the entire membership of these societies took
to the political pavement in support of a pro-space candidate, and each
talked to three new people each day from now to election day 1988, they
would have more than enough time to personally present their candidate
to every voter in the country, with enough time left over to cope with
overlaps and mild disorganization.  It would be necessary that they
elect both congresspersons and president dedicated to the concept, to
accomplish the funding and implementation of a space program of heroic
proportions.

Getting all of any group of human beings to cooperate in any project is
pretty hopeless when the group membership exceeds three or four, but now
we can appeal to the laws covering compound interest and chain letters.
Surely among the persons approached, if there is any hope for this
project at all, there will be some who will go beyond being persuaded to
vote for the chosen candidate, and become enthusiastic participants in
the canvassing process, even though not originally members of the
pro-space societies.  An adequate and dedicated base from the space
societies, together with early and continuing attention to recruiting
canvassers (preferably from among the young, energetic, and
enthusiastic; they don't even have to be of voting age, though it would
surely help) would rapidly create a group large enough to cover the
voting public as previously noted.

Now, given a mechanism by which to elect a suitable Congress and
president, (requiring only commitment and lots of work), where in the
political process can we find enough funds to get a massive space effort
started in January 1989?

Several targets immediately present themselves, and reflect back on the
need for suitably chosen candidates.

First, we are not at war.  I propose, as rapidly as possible, changing
99% of our armed forces from active duty to reserves, with 30 days paid
training per year.  This would reduce the expensive nonsense of fully
manned Naval vessels spending most of the year at pierside for lack of
fuel money, and similar waste in other services.  A requirement to
mobilize reserves, rather than just sending in the troups, would also
decrease the desirablity and ease of execution of Grenada-like
adventures.  After all, the next war is either going to be very fast, or
give time to get folks to their duty stations.  There doesn't seem to be
an intermediate speed war that could not be quickly detected in its
build-up stages from existing reconnaissance satellites.

We do not need more sophisticated nuclear weapons delivery systems for
our "strategic defenses"; as Carl Sagen and others have pointed out (not
in so many words), we could equally well reduce the Soviet Union to an
uninhabited wasteland by exploding our current arsenal of nuclear
weapons on our own soil.  The only difference compared to dropping them
on Soviet cities in response to a Soviet first strike is that the
suffering here would be shorter, there longer.

There seems little chance that "tactical" nuclear weapons could be used
without leading to holocaust, so their deployment could profitably be
eliminated.  Knowing that its opponent's only available response to use
of "tactical" nuclear weapons is use of "strategic" nuclear weapons
would probably give an enemy less reason to believe that there could be
a limited tactical nuclear exchange, and so probably be stabilizing
relative to the present situation.

The recent attack on the Stark lends credence to a hypothesis that our
development of high technology weapons systems (in this case Phalanx)
has outstripped our human capability to manage them in threat
situations, so we could profitably turn from investing in ever higher
technology, but failure prone weapons systems to lower technology,
cheaper, reliable and mass producable weapons systems, at a
significantly lower overall cost.  Opponents of the SDI software seem
strangely quiet on the subject of ever having a workable suite of battle
management software, surely an equally massive, ongoing, risk and
failure prone endeavor.

Leaving DOD reeling, with many more cuts available where those came
from, we can turn next to agricultural subsidies.  Large portions of the
human race go to bed hungry each day, yet we can't find a market for our
agricultural productivity.  This is nonsense!  Let's eliminate all farm
subsidies, and spend half the amount building up industry in the poor
nations, so they can afford our food, and ships to transport it, and
spend the difference on the space program!  The industries we encourage
can be ones contributing directly to the space effort, a double gain.
The educational investment in the underdeveloped nations necessary to
make this work will have the side benefits of promoting more rational
political systems and sensible governments, contributing to world peace.
Prosperity also historically reduces the birth rate, reducing hunger in
the long term.

Changing focus again, we can eliminate all the pork-barrelers' delight
water projects which try to turn naturally arid areas into cropland, at
the expense of salinifying and eroding soils not suited to such use, and
suck the Colorado river dry to contribute additional housing to a Los
Angeles basin already choking to death in the waste products of
overpopulation.  Why spend money on projects whose long term effects
harm the nation?  We can spend this money moving polluting industries
and replacements for their polluting power sources into near earth
orbit.

I'm sure further analysis would show savings available in other areas of
government; we could probably get by with 10% of the current federal
civilian employees by such simple tricks as replacing income tax forms
with mark sense OCR forms to save the clerical work of typing them into
computers, and similar efficiency oriented measures in other
departments.

Given the political will to implement (probably modifications of) these
and other measures to divert money to a space program, we next need to
plan a program that doesn't become an infinite sink for money and a
worse source of problems than of solutions.

One immediate requisite for a space program is cheap, limited pollution
transport of lots of mass to near earth orbit or L5 orbit.  Several
coherent proposals have been made to achieve this; from my limited
perspective, the rail gun and spinning metal band approaches seem to
require the least new technology.  The current explosion of knowledge in
superconduction at high temperatures make an electromagnetic rail gun an
ever more attractive proposition, and it merits serious consideration.

Next, people transport is needed.  The space shuttle gives us a base
from which to build, but we need hundreds, or nearly instant recycling,
so as to support heavy daily commuter traffic.  This poses a pretty
severe threat to the ozone layer, so rapid developement of superior
alternatives like the continuously circulating metal ribbon, or
materials strong enough to build a surface to orbit bridge, is a
priority.

There needs to be a massive revision of the tax laws to encourage high
risk space enterprises, and to guarantee to the investors retention of a
large portion of the profits for, say, the first fifty years, to make
industrial access to space attractive to venture capital.  As noted in
many postings, over the short term, government sponsorship of space
access is the only way to get the massive funding needed, but over the
long term, private enterprise is a more desirable funding source.
Large, expensive items like a rail gun up Pikes Peak need to be funded
from the public coffers, but they could be turned into public utilities
and the cost of operation payed by the corporate users once the initial
investment is accomplished and the technology functional.  Besides, once
it is proven technology with a known profit potential, there would
quickly be a second and a third rail gun, from private funds.  Compare
Comsat, for example.

Now, I have gone on here for hundreds of lines, and probably bored you
to tears summarizing things everyone reading the group already knows.

"But," I hear you telling yourselves, "every educated person knows, only
a madman would run for president.  Where will we find someone
knowledgeable of the issues, favorable to the agenda, yet dumb enough to
run for office?"

Ahem.  Well, had I not spent November 1985 to January 1986 as an
unwilling guest of Virginia's Eastern State Hospital, diagnosed
"monopolar depressive", and discharged "improved, not cured", I would
probably not meet the most important criterion noted above.  Since I am
certified not right in the head, and (mostly) gainfully unemployed, I
hereby, none too humbly, offer myself as the victim.  (Federal Election
Commission, this constitutes a formal edeclaration of candidacy!)  I am
tall, homely, cantankerous, possessed of the right number of fingers and
toes, meet the Constitutional requirements for candidacy, warm,
breathing, highly intelligent (note: != wise, or I wouldn't be doing
this) and mostly coherent.  Somedays I have trouble finding a reason to
get out of bed, but I stay awake through, and pay attention at meetings,
can see more than one point of view on an issue, and am willing to
accept advice in areas (most of them) where I don't feel myself to be
the world class expert.  I have the usual assortment of closet
skeletons, but I have no fear at all of putting them right up front if
this gets off the ground, and defused early, they should offend few
voters.  Examples: I had exactly one affair during my marriage, begun
before it and terminated soon after it.  I was retired from service at
the convenience of the government for making a big stink about
mistreatment of female employees aboard a NOAA vessel (I understand NOAA
lost the subsequent lawsuit, anyway), after 17 years, 8 months of
service.  I have relatives who have been convicted of felonies,
relatives who are gay, relatives who have also spent time in mental
hospitals.  My parents were divorced, both twice, and I am being
divorced at present (and over the last three years - reform of the legal
system would sure be nice; this is ridiculous!)  I have friends of all
races, sexes, political orientations (including communist), sexual
orientations, and religious persuasions.  I have not been in a church
except for weddings or to show my children what religion is about for
decades, and have my own, probably reasonably unique view of the
creation question.  My current education is in disarray, with an even
division between completed courses with a grade of 'A', and incomplete
courses when I run out of steam and spend a month or two in bed.  That
about covers the list, and it wasn't hard at all.

Since my style of talking almost exactly matches my writing style, a
speach making campaign would be an absolute guarantee of failure.
Instead, if interested, drop me a note of support, then go out and
recruit the appropriate space societies into the effort, find or create
from your own ranks suitable local candidates.  Do not send, and do not
take measures to accumulate, political funds.  If this cannot be
accomplished by informal methods (BBS's, individual pocket money,
photocopying, petitions to include candidates not supported by political
parties on the ballot, and door to door campaigning) and unpaid,
enthusiastic volunteer effort, then there is not sufficient available
support for the long term accomplishment of the goal of inhabiting
space, and there is no real purpose in engaging ourselves in an
ultimately lost cause.

If there is enough support to make this a viable effort, then I, for my
part, will do the following.

Read and study materials sent to me by supporters (poverty is really
intense here with child support payments coming out of a NOAA pension,
so I'm not going to be doing much funding myself) to learn to speak more
knowledgeably about the Federal budget, available off the shelf and near
term space technology, international relations and means of diverting
funds from strife oriented to space oriented causes, and of keeping the
peace at least long enough to export a viable pool of genes, world
economics, and anything else you think I ought to know.  I'm a fast
study, reading about a book a day, sometimes three or four when things
get really dreary, so don't fear to overload me.  I currently read
Scientific American, National Geographic, IEEE Spectrum and Computer,
SIGGRAPH, SIGAda, SIGSOFT and SIGPLAN publications, JACM, CACM,
Computing Surveys, TOPLAS, TOGS, TODS, TOMS, Computer Languages,
Reader's Digest, Analog, Amigaworld, BYTE, and Amazing Computing.  I
have a collection from 1984 back a few years of L5 News, The Planetary
Report, Science Weekly, and NASA Activities to use for reference.  Newer
materials would be welcome in this area, as would expert commentary and
game plans for getting into and _staying_ in space.

Make _limited_, brief, political appearances, just so people know what I
look and sound like.  The thrill will wear off pretty fast, let me tell
you, for both me and them!

Write and publish here, for further distribution, comment, revision, and
so on appropriate position papers.  My typing skills are pretty fair,
and English and I are comfortable with one another.

Open myself to a dialog with supporters concerning goals and means.

Lend support and ideas to local candidates who are a part of this
effort.

Behave myself so as not to give the press ammunition for negative
attacks.

Do my best to get my boys and girl, and the rest of you who want to go
or the kids for whom you wish to provide opportunity, transport and
means, out in space where the real action to make the human race a
viable experiment of nature must now take place.

Once started, I see little purpose to limiting this to an American
effort; at base it must be a human effort.  It must start with us to
succeed, simply because we have, if we choose to use them, the means.
If we try to exclude the rest of humanity, we will, I think, quickly
doom our efforts.

I must return to my small consulting job, and earn a bit of a living
doing FORTRAN and assembly.  Please consider the above, and decide if
you want to talk about getting into space, or do something about it.  If
the latter, join together, and I will join you, for the political
process is the only tool we have available to make this work, sorry a
tool as it is in the hands of its usual keepers.


[ Hmm.  Back into emacs.  esc-<; esc->; ctrl-a, ctrl-e.  No smiley
faces!  Could it be he's serious?  Could be!  Do we commit to him, or
just commit him again?  Decisions, decisions, all the time decisions.
What's a body to do?  You decide. ]

Kent, the man from xanth.
--
Kent Paul Dolan, LCDR, NOAA, Retired; ODU MSCS grad student	 // Yet
UUCP  :  kent@xanth.UUCP   or    ...{sun,harvard}!xanth!kent	// Another
CSNET :  kent@odu.csnet    ARPA  :  kent@xanth.cs.odu.edu   \\ // Happy
USPost:  P.O. Box 1559, Norfolk, Virginia 23501-1559	     \// Amigan!
Voice :  (804) 587-7760    -=][> Last one to Ceres is a rotten egg! -=][>

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 20 Aug 87 13:06:19 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject:  costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Newsweek
I have to get around to reading this.

>It tells why we spend millions instead of thousands, billions instead
>of millions,

Permit me to relate a little story of nut and bolts and seats.  I heard
stories of Government expenses long before working for NASA when I was
in college.  I took a my first full time job will Ball Aerospace working
at JPL (answering an ad in the LA Times).  It was working on Synthetic
Aperature Radar for SEASAT.

My first job was to assemble a PDP-11 (note: I did not name the
manufacturer).  We needed a little cable to attach an additional VT52 to
the PDP, you know RS-232.  Government regs typically require competitive
procurement on these types of things (first order costs).  The
manufacturer wanted $120 (1977 dollars) for this cable.  In the end, I
petty cashed it for $20 (6 feet long) from the Byte Shop [since out of
business] on Lake in Pasadena, CA: $20.  That is a factor of 6.  Free
enterprise in action.

Recently, I needed a book on parallel processing.  It took 8 weeks to
get thru procurement.  I saw it at Computer Literacy bookstore just
three miles away [what baud rate is this?].

I've have given up blaming anybody, everybody is guilty: our procurement
officers, the companies, etc., myself.

"An indictment of the American system."  -- Animal House.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #336
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  6 Sep 87 09:10:07 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19584; Sun, 6 Sep 87 03:17:58 PDT
	id AA19584; Sun, 6 Sep 87 03:17:58 PDT
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 87 03:17:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709061017.AA19584@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #337

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 337

Today's Topics:
	     Re: costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"
    Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want
		      want Sally Ride reference
		  Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"
			Re: Asteroid Collision
			Re: Asteroid Collision
	     Re: costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"
		  Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"
			     Ride report
  Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 15:18:08 GMT
From: amelia!msf@ames.arpa  (Michael S. Fischbein)
Subject: Re: costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"

In article <8708202006.AA04119@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>> Newsweek
>I have to get around to reading this.
>
>>It tells why we spend millions instead of thousands, billions instead
>>of millions,
>

Horror stories of government procurement elided...

>
>I've have given up blaming anybody, everybody is guilty: our procurement
>officers, the companies, etc., myself.
>

Me too.  Not only do the procurement regulations COST far more than they
save (although they were well intended), the TIME that must be expended
is amazing to anyone not familiar with the process (like >30 MONTHS for
a medium sized workstation network).  This leads to incredible amounts
of frustration for the people involved -- both the companies and the
government employees.  After starting the maze for a major competitive
procurement, one quickly develops the attitude of 'anything to get this
over with.'

In fairness to some of the companies involved with price 'gouging,' it
should be remembered that these extra costs (for the delay) must be
recovered somewhere.
		mike
Michael Fischbein                 msf@prandtl.nas.nasa.gov

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 21 Aug 87 15:30:39
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 August 21 15:30:39 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 August 21 16:08:21 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want

<HS> Date: 18 Aug 87 16:25:14 GMT
<HS> From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want

<HS> The trouble with this idea is getting everyone to go along with it.
<HS> Sagan and Van Allen, to name two, have been knocking space projects they
<HS> don't like for twenty years now.

Suppose we start pushing what we want, while Sagan and Van Allen keep
knocking what they don't like. What's the result in public perception?
Lots of people talking about our projects, pro and con, hardly anybody
talking about Mars landing. Which projects get the attention? (Ours)
Which projects die from lack of publicity? (Mars) Which people start
to sound like they are OPPOSED to space? (Sagan and Van Allen)

<HS> Like it or not, this *is* an adversary process at the moment.

But it isn't stable. Anyone major group that ceases being adversary
makes the others seem anti-space. Thus we can take over by
unilaterally switching to a non-adversary mode. (It isn't like
weapons&war where anybody who unilaterally disarms gets killed.)

(I'm not very good at psychology and politics, so I'm sure there's
some good rebuttal to my opinion, let's hear it.)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 19:17:29 GMT
From: decvax!linus!philabs!sbcs!bnl!allard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (rick allard)
Subject: want Sally Ride reference

Recently I read something (can't remember where) that referred to an
article by (?, perhaps about) Sally Ride about our space goals.  It
seemed to be an update to something older by a few months.  A main point
was that we shouldn't race to Mars but get the base well established at
Moon.  (These were 2 points of an earlier 5 point goal.)  I think this
was in Aviation Week.  Question is: what issue?

Please mail, I'll be away 2 wk.

Thanx, Rick

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 00:53:04 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"

I have some reservations about the Newsweek articles -- the reporting is
slanted to the point of borderline lying in places -- but on the whole
I too recommend them.
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 01:41:41 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Asteroid Collision

> > ... If there is any truth to this, what schemes might
> > be used to deflect and/or destroy the object?  Should we even bother?
> 
> Oddly enough, this problem was studied in detail by a class at MIT some
> years ago. The class was given the problem of deflecting the asteroid
> Icarus. Their solution was to detonate one or more thermonuclear devices
> near the asteroid some time before impact...

They didn't have terribly long to work with, actually, because they were
assuming a hit at the time of the 1968 (?) encounter, and getting the
hardware ready in time wouldn't be easy.  I think their first bomb was
scheduled for about two months before impact, with three others following
in fast succession.  The total of four was based on the assumption that
a maximum-effort crash project could have six Saturn Vs ready to fly by
then, and two would be needed for tests.  Been a while since I read
their report, but I think those numbers are about right.

Note that the whole scheme relied absolutely on a heavylift launcher with
interplanetary capability, something the US hasn't had for ten years and
won't have again for at *least* another six or seven.
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 22:36:19 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Re: Asteroid Collision

> In article <647@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> I wrote:
> >[The asteroid] does cross the Earth's orbit, so it has to hit the
> >Earth some day (presumably millions of years from now, but the orbit
> >is not well enough known to say when).

Then in article <3993@osu-eddie.UUCP>, nolan@osu-eddie.UUCP 
(Michael C. Nolan) replied: 
> The orbits of asteroids are continually perturbed by the planets etc.

Right; that's one reason the orbit is poorly known.

> It could hit the Earth, but the probability isn't that large, probably
> a few percent. (which isn't really that small either).  That's over an
> assumed lifetime of about 40 million years before it's gone, either by
> running in to something or by being ejected from the solar system by
> the perturbations.

Perturbations for most Earth-crossing asteroids are not nearly large
enough to eject them from the solar system.  They stay in orbit until
they do "run in to something".  That "something" is usually the Earth
because 1) Many don't cross the orbits of other planets; 2) The Earth is
the biggest inner planet; 3) Most of the time the body is relatively far
from the Sun, favoring collisions with Earth or Mars rather than Mercury
or Venus.  This particular asteroid (3200 Phaethon) crosses the orbits
of Mercury and Venus, so it could hit one of them instead, but hitting
the Earth is much more likely.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123          Bitnet: willner@cfa2
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                     ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 87 19:30:09 GMT
From: adelie!infinet!rhorn@xn.ll.mit.edu  (Rob Horn)
Subject: Re: costs: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"

In article <2557@ames.arpa> msf@amelia.UUCP (Michael S. Fischbein) writes:
>In article <8708202006.AA04119@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>>I've have given up blaming anybody, everybody is guilty: our
>>procurement officers, the companies, etc., myself.
>
>Me too.  Not only do the procurement regulations COST far more than
>they save (although they were well intended), the TIME that must be
>expended is amazing to anyone not familiar with the process (like >30
>MONTHS for a medium sized workstation network).

This problem affects the contractors as well.  They must also suffer all
the cost and delays because their purchases must also be made in
accordance with government regulations.  In the last major government
procurement that I helped bid (approx 5x10^7 dollars) over 30% of the
labor costs were related to compliance with procurement regs.  It upsets
a great many of the managers and engineers to see so much money spent on
paperwork.

I don't know where the right balance is, but at the moment we are
spending much more on paperwork than is being saved by catching
criminals and poor contracting practices.

				Rob  Horn

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 16:53:35 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Michael Lodman)
Subject: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"

In article <8456@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>I have some reservations about the Newsweek articles -- the reporting is
>slanted to the point of borderline lying in places -- but on the whole
>I too recommend them.

Let's have some details. I want to know where the articles were slanted
or misleading. I thought that they were cynical, but not that biased.

Michael Lodman  (619) 485-3335
Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego
mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 22:27:48 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Ride report

The following article is from the August 1987 CANOPUS.  I have posted it
early and in full because of its importance.  Material in {brackets} is
from me.  I'll post the July summaries in about a week and the August
summaries about a week after that.  This article will go to the mailing
list with the rest of the August articles.

CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu).
Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and
registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely,
either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do, however, please
send a brief letter estimating how many others receive copies.  CANOPUS
is partially supported by the National Space Science Data Center.

RIDE REPORT STRESSES PLANETARY EXPLORATION - can8873.txt - 8/23/87

Planetary exploration highlights three of four "leadership initiatives"
detailed in NASA's report on "Leadership and America's Future in Space."
The report was written by ex-astronaut Sally Ride who has left NASA to
return to Stanford University.

"The United States has clearly lost leadership [in planetary exploration
and manned space flight] and is in danger of being surpassed in many
others during the next several years," the report notes.

The Ride report follows the National Commission on Space Report and the
Rogers Commission investigation in the Challenger disaster.

"Two fundamental, potentially inconsistent views have emerged," reads
the preface to the Ride report. "Many people believe that NASA should
adopt a major, visionary goal. They argue that this would galvanize
support, focus NASA programs, and generate excitement. Many others
believe that NASA is already overcommitted in the 1990s; they argue that
the space agency will be struggling to operate the Space Shuttle and
build the Space Station and could not handle another major program."

The report notes that elements of both must be in the solution since
goals are needed to keep the program from floundering, and the agency
must not tackle too much. It also notes that "leadership in space does
not require that the U.S. be preeminent in all areas of space
enterprise."

NASA Administrator James Fletcher formed a task group, chaired by Ride,
to "define potential U.S. space initiatives, and to evaluate them in the
light of the current space program and the nation's desire to regain and
retain space leadership."

The four initiatives identified by the task force are:

   o Mission to Planet Earth.  This would involve nine platforms, four
     in polar orbit and five in geostationary orbit, to study the
     terrestrial environment and how it is shaped. The issues discussed
     are essentially those raised in the Earth Systems Sciences
     Committee in 1986. The platforms would be supplied by the U.S.,
     Europe and Japan.

   o Exploration of the Solar System. In this category the Ride report
     endorses three missions each to address different aspects of the
     solar system: the Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby (primitive
     bodies), the Cassini orbiter/probes to Saturn and Titan (outer
     planets), and a trio of Mars surface sampler missions (terrestrial
     planets).

   o Outpost on the Moon. This would be a three-phase effort starting
     with an unmanned search for ideal landing sites rich in
     oxygen-bearing ores. Included would be the Lunar Geoscience
     Observer, followed by landers and rovers. The second phase would
     have a series of week-long manned sorties to the surface to set up
     oxygen refineries. Finally, by the year 2010, the lunar outpost
     would have a permanent staff of 30.

   o Humans on Mars. "This bold initiaitive is committed to the human
     exploration, and eventual habitation, of Mars." The goal would
     require the Mars surface sample missions, "an aggressive Space
     Station life sciences program," and development of a fast
     round-trip capability. Each mission would require two craft, a
     slow, unmanned cargo craft followed by a 6-man "sprint" ship that
     would make the whole trip, including a 10- to 20-day stay, in a
     year.

As with many reports since the 1950s, the Ride report notes that
transportation is the single tightest bottleneck on our way to space:
"From now until the mid-1990s, Earth-to-orbit transportation is NASA's
most pressing problem." In addition to a blend of Shuttle and
expendables as launchers, the report urges that NASA develop an unmanned
cargo version of the Space Shuttle.  Such a "request for proposals" for
a Phase B study effort was released the same week as the report by
Marshall Space Flight Center. Shuttle-C, as it is called, would be able
to launch 100,000 to 150,000 pounds into low Earth orbit. Man-rated
expendables with capsules also are suggested in the Ride report.

The report concludes by noting that its intent was not to develop a
single goal for NASA to follow. Indeed, that would cripple other space
efforts as the Space Shuttle has done.  However, space science will have
to take a back seat, the Ride report implies, until the technology and
transportation are developed to explore space with a rational, mature
strategy.

"It would not be good strategy, good science, or good policy for the
U.S. to select a single initiative, then pursue it single-mindedly,"
the report states. "The pursuit of a single initiative to the exclusion
of all others results in leadership in only a limited range of space
endeavor."

----
Footnotes:

An interesting portion of the 63-page Ride report is the listing of
"Additional Studies" and references consulted by the task group.
Requests for copies should be addressed to the Office Of Exploration,
NASA, Washington, DC 20546.

Of the 74 workshop participants, reviewers and consultants, the heaviest
representation was from NASA headquarters -- 24 members.  Goddard Space
Flight Center had 7 members, Johnson Space Center and the Jet Propulsion
Laboratory each had 6, other NASA centers had a total of 7. The
remainder were from academia and contractors.

{I can't tell from the above whether the report endorses all 4 goals,
none of them in favor of working on transportation, or something in
between.  I've asked for clarification and will post if I find out more.
--SPW}
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123          Bitnet: willner@cfa2
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                     ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 18:38:44 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Don't knock Mars, rather eagerly push everything else we want

> Suppose we start pushing what we want, while Sagan and Van Allen keep
> knocking what they don't like. What's the result in public perception?
> Lots of people talking about our projects, pro and con, hardly anybody
> talking about Mars landing. Which projects get the attention? (Ours)
> Which projects die from lack of publicity? (Mars) Which people start
> to sound like they are OPPOSED to space? (Sagan and Van Allen)

The trouble is that S&VA are also pushing their projects.  So we have
Mars getting positive press, with the Moon getting both positive and
negative.  Which will the politicians look more favorably on, other
things being equal?

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is for good men to do
 nothing."
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #337
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  7 Sep 87 08:16:07 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21059; Mon, 7 Sep 87 03:17:26 PDT
	id AA21059; Mon, 7 Sep 87 03:17:26 PDT
Date: Mon, 7 Sep 87 03:17:26 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709071017.AA21059@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #338

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 338

Today's Topics:
	 newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article
	       Re: Sally Ride's Future-of-Space Report
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 25 Aug 87 07:38:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article


                            Newspeak in Orbit
       A Review of The Newsweek Article on the Space Program(8/17/87)
                     Copyright 1987 Dale L. Skran Jr.
                 Part I, America Grounded, by Larry Martz

       Recently an article appeared in Newsweek that appeared to take a
       hard look at the space program and NASA's current difficult
       situation.  In reality it is typical of the misinformed
       anti-space views common in media circles, especially the New York
       Times. In a true Orwellian fashion, these writers are "for"
       space, of course, a smaller, cheaper, program with less focus on
       manned fight, with no trips to Mars or the moon, with a few more
       robots for the scientists, and a few more dollars for the
       universities.  Another variation suggests a massive Apollo style
       Mars shot, but drawn out over 20 or 30 years to "keep the cost
       down."  These writers do not really believe humanity has a long
       term future in space.

       The very first paragraph of the article states that after the
       Challenger blew up, and "a few ritual resignations", that "the
       agency has 35 percent more money in its pocket.  After 20 years
       of lessons like that, failure is endemic in the U.S. Space
       program." This suggests that there have been a long series of
       major NASA blunders, each followed by an extra boost in funds. It
       is far more correct to say that NASA functioned extremely well as
       long as it was funded well, and fairly well even as its funding
       declined.  There is no pattern of blunders followed by rewards.
       Instead, we see a pattern of enormous success, followed by
       punishment in the form of budget cuts. As the agency struggled to
       survive, it was punished still further by additional cuts.
       Finally, in the wake of the Challenger disaster it is being
       recognized that(as space advocates have been saying for about 20
       years) NASA is dangerously underfunded. I personally never
       expected the Shuttle program to get as far as it did. As a
       working engineer, it appeared clear to me that it was
       under-tested by a large factor, mainly to save funds and cut
       costs. I expected that one of the first three or four flights
       would be lost. Consider that the main engines were assembled
       entire and tested "all at once" to avoid the cost of testing the
       components. The first ones blew up, of course, at a cost of
       millions.  It is a tribute to the excellence of the engineers
       that remained at NASA that the shuttle ever got off the pad.

       First the article berates NASA for continuing to work with Morton
       Thiokol, a decision made because it "had the tools and could do
       it quickly," and then lists all the payloads waiting to go,
       continuing to add to the pressure to rush the shuttles to the
       pad. If NASA engineers rush to put the shuttle back into service,
       they are callous and expedient.  If they are slow and careful,
       they are incompetent, overpaid, and lazy. I suggest that Mr.
       Martz be put in charge of the program, and report back to us in a
       year on how easy it is to run.

       Later we are told that in spite of all this, the US is still
       ahead in space. This is a crucial myth being propagated by the
       media. The article states that "Except for their undoubted lead
       edge in manned space flight and biomedical research, the answer
       is no [the Soviets are not ahead]. If they launch more rockets
       than we do every year, it is largely because most of their
       satellites have lives far shorter than the US models. .. But the
       Soviet technology is improving, ..  It is almost as though the
       writer did not read his own article. An objective writer would
       have to state that the Soviets are clearly ahead. They are
       launching ambitious new planetary probes. They operate an LEO
       station.  They have a large heavy lift vehicle. They launch a
       major flight twice a week. We put up one every two months - if
       that.

       After more glowing description of the "backward" Soviets, we are
       told "The shuttle had no real mission, just a succession of
       errands; it was a way to keep men in space while we figured out
       what to do there."  This myth has been pounded out so many times
       I am weary from refuting it. The shuttle (or something like it)
       is absolutely essential to any large scale orbital activity. It
       is absolutely unnecessary for a program of robotic probes to the
       distant planets. It has been justified over and over again. You
       must have a station if you want to construct, manufacture,
       re-fuel, etc. in orbit.  NASA always knew what the shuttle was
       supposed to be, and so did the Proxmires and the Mondales. The
       difference is that the Proxmires and Mondales wanted it to fail,
       and they may well have gotten their wish.

       Generally, people who oppose a long term future in space oppose
       both the shuttle and the station.  Martz quotes station enemies
       repeatedly, including Pike and Alex Roland, while echoing Carl
       Sagan. To be "fair" he balances his article by saying "The case
       isn't that clear: the space program is not simply a conspiracy to
       complicate technology, build bureaucracies, and fatten budgets.
       But there is no denying that this mind-set exists ..."  Never is
       the pro-station case presented. Not a word.

       Finally, Martz gets to his own space program, or non-program, as
       will become clear. First he "talks the talk," saying "the most
       basic reason for a national program is simply that the Soviets
       are right: man is evolving into space, and is going to operate
       there."  Wow! A closet L5-er, right? Guess again.

       First, Mars, "Someday, it will make sense to go to Mars ...  But
       there's no need to set dates, or starting to spend what may
       amount to hundreds of billions of dollars.." Second, the Moon:
       "Sometime sooner, we may want to return to the moon, to set up
       observatories or even factories. But for now, even the scientists
       have largely lost interest in the moon; Cornell's Carl Sagan, a
       dedicated Mars man, calls the moon, "a pretty boring place."
       Third, the space station, which "doesn't make sense."  It
       "doesn't give the scientists what they want, its industrial
       potential is blue sky, and it can't be justified as a step to
       future goals."  Finally Martz gets around to the long time
       proposal of the anti-station folks, the extended duration
       shuttle, saying that "that might make them more useful as
       laboratories, though Logsdon and many scientists disagree." He's
       all for robotic probes, of course.

       Martz concludes by saying that "These suggestions will find few
       endorsements in the space community.  ... In the end, no whipped
       up frenzies of jingoism or planetary stunts are needed to get
       America into space - or get Americans behind the space program."
       Since Martz's program is nothing new, nothing different than what
       NASA has done for the last five years, plus a few more robotic
       probes, it certainly will cede the lead in space to the Soviets
       for the forseeable future. It also would seem likely that the
       Europeans and Japanese would build their own space stations
       sometime soon after 2000, and quickly dominate all commercial
       space applications.  Far from presenting a reasonable program,
       Martz has outlined a method to make American the Portugal of the
       Space Age.

       More than Proxmire or Mondale, the Martzs of the world are the
       reason we have such a pathetic space program. Their little minds
       are unable to contain a vision of tomorrow larger than today.
       And they run the so-called "fifth branch of government," the mass
       media.  They are the people who decide every night not to report
       what the Soviets are doing in space because they have already
       decided that it cannot be of importance, whatever it is. They are
       the people that reported that the discovery of a plastic sack in
       the Mir docking shroud was a disaster comparable to the explosion
       of the Challenger. This article is typical of their non-vision.

       Summary of media myths about the space program:

         1.  The only reason to be in space is science and already
	     developed commercial applications such as weather
	     satellites.

         2.  The Soviets are behind the US in space.

         3.  The Shuttle and the Space Station have no purpose and
             cannot be justified by any long range goals.

         4.  There need be no sense of urgency about space; it will
             always be there.

         5.  NASA is well-funded.

         6.  The Shuttle's problems were mainly blundering by NASA,
             and had little to do with the funding cuts NASA got
             throughout the 70s.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 25 Aug 87 16:19:11 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Sally Ride's Future-of-Space Report
Newsgroups: sci.space

In article <603@mtuxo.UUCP> Tim writes:
>the panel expressed some support for this. Then Howard(?) mentioned
>that NASA management was trying to distance themselves from this
>report, although I didn't hear any details on how or why.
>
>Sorry for the (?) and lack of details, but I thought even this sketchy
>report would be of some interest. Does anyone have more information on
>this? If Ride's report was intended to back some predisposition on the
>part of NASA's management toward the megabuck-Mars proposals, I might
>understand why they would distance themselves from the report. It was
>heartening to hear of a NASA report which backs much of the sentiment
>of recent sci.space articles, but disheartening to also hear that it
>would probably be ignored by NASA management.
>-- Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee

Not one for conspiracy theories, you should understand, and the rest of
the net, that NASA is just another bureaucracy.  Sally Ride, McCulla
[noted below], nor I can speak policy.  It's not that NASA is distancing
for denial, it's trying distancing to give Dr. Ride credit, while
saying: "This is not our plan yet."  It will not be ignored.  It will be
cited in more bureacratic reports in the future, and perhaps, some day,
this citation will come true.  This is how the Viking lander came about,
and how Magellan came about, and so on.  There are alot of tidal forces
forcing acting in different directions for future projects.  What
happens ten years from now depends on the persistence of those who stick
with their projects.  There are other messages inside NASA floating
around giving her credit and wish her good luck.  Don't forget that
sci.space does not represent the current thinking of any space Agency:
ESA, Soviet, JSA, etc. [How many do you think are working on FTL
travel?]

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya (agency puppet?)
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

Attached:

Subject: Q & A/Ride Report
Approved: telemail

Aug. 17, l987

TO:      Bill Sheehan
         Shirley Green

FROM:    Jim McCulla

SUBJECT: Q&A: The Sally Ride Report 

Here are Q & As concerning the Sally Ride Report.  Any further questions
should be referred to Alan Ladwig at 202/453.8435.  The questions are as
follows:

Q. For the last year and a half there has been a great deal of talk at
conferences and in publications that Mars should be the next big
objective.  Virtually no one has been talking about the moon.  Does
Sally's endorsement of going to the moon before Mars that this is the
route that NASA wishes to take?  Is she speaking for the organization?

A. No. She is speaking for herself and her study group.  NASA will make
recommendations to the President only after we have examined the four
initiative areas she has outlined very carefully.  We need to know a
great deal more about the technology required, interrelationships
between initiatives, cost, possible international participation, impact
on on-going programs, manpower requirements both in numbers and skills
and so on.  The chief reason we announced the new Office of Exploration
a few weeks ago was to carry on these further studies in the manned
flight areas.  Other aspects of the initiatives will be examined by
other offices in NASA, such as Space Science and Applications and Space
Flight.  Having said all this, I should note that the recommendations of
Sally and her group are based on prolonged study by a largey deserve
special consideration.

Q. Can you give us some indication as to when you will be ready to go to
the President?

A. That is difficult to predict.  I can assure you, however that these
continuing examinations are not back burner projects.  They have top
priority.  It would be hard to keep our people from giving them top
priority if we wished otherwise.  Our people want to get going.

Q. Sally says in this report that although that no one is going to the
moon or Mars for a number of years, it is important to start preliminary
work now.  One thing she recommended is development of a heavy lift
launch vehice, and she specifies a Shuttle derived vehicle.  Can you
brief us on what is happening to this proposal?  Doesn't the Air Force
oppose it?

A. We have taken the first step in this project and the Air Force does
not oppose it.  Last week, after consultation with the Air Force and the
OMB, we announced that we were going ahead with a study to determine
whether a Shuttle-derived cargo vehicle - the Shuttle C - would be
useful in launching space station elements thus freeing the Shuttle for
more manned scientific activity.  The information will be melded into
another heavy lift study being led by the Air Force with NASA
participation which

To put this another way, NASA's Shuttle C study will concentrate on a
vehicle that could use existing systems and facilities.  The Air
Force-led ALS study concentrates on systems incorporating advanced
technologies.  The results of both studies will be integrated to allow a
steering group to formulate a national heavy lift vehicle strategy that
might best accommodate near-term requirements, such as Space Station
assembly, as well as long term.

Q. In this report Sally echoes a recommendation already made by a number
of organizations - that work begin immediately on advanced technology
required for the future missions.  In fact, she says that if you delay a
start on the technology you can delay human exploration of the moon or
Mars for two decades.  Do we understand correctly that you have twice
proposed a start on a thing called Project Pathfinder and have twice
been ordered to pull back the funding request?  Do you intend to do it
again?

A. It is true that we twice sent Pathfinder packages to OMB for
inclusion in our budget submission to Congress, and that the proposals
did not go beyond that.  However, there were other big issues in
consideration at those time, like the Space Shuttle recovery and
initiation of the mixed fleet.  Also, there was growing anticipation of
this and other studies of long-term goals and, therefore, Pathfinder did
not get the strongest emphasis.  Now it will be considered in the
context of this and other reports strongly recommending immediate
attention to new technology.

Q. Aren't you running the danger of disappointing a lot of people by
building up expectations of new adventures without any real prospect of
getting started?  Is the White House going to give you more money for
new rockets, artificial intelligence, smart robots, and all that good
stuff?  Only last week the President said again that reducing the
deficit was his number one priority.  What would be the effect, for
example, if you propose Pathfinder again and it gets turned down?  Isn't
that a signal that the top policy makers really don't believe in the
necessity of giving the space effort greater momentum; that all this
current talk is just a lot of smoke and mirrors?

A. People have to understand that a major new space project will not be
something you accomplish in just a few years.  We are talking about huge
programs requiring long-term, consistent support from succeeding
administrations and congresses.  As far as Pathfinder goes, I have no
doubt that once everyone is agreed on taking a bold new step in space we
will get the start-up funding.  And by agreement I don't mean agreement
on a specific project involving the moon or mars, but rather agreement
that the nation needs to take a big step whatever that turns out to be.

Q. Why does the country have to take a big new step?

A. Lots of reasons: 

     a. To maintain U.S. leadership in space. 
     b. To drive national economic development based on new technology.
     c. To advance scientific knowledge in numerous areas. 
     d. To protect global habitability.
     e. To advance international cooperation and reduce the causes of
	international conflict.
     f. To energize our society and avoid intellectual stagnation.

Q. What do you personally want NASA to do?  Go to the moon?  Mars?  Do
the other things she recommends?

A. I agree with her that we have to help preserve the environment and
keep up our outstandinge moon or Mars, either place would be a
productive undertaking and a great adventure.  Let's see how the studies
come out.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #338
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Sep 87 00:16:09 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00597; Tue, 8 Sep 87 08:14:32 PDT
	id AA00597; Tue, 8 Sep 87 08:14:32 PDT
Date: Tue, 8 Sep 87 08:14:32 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709081514.AA00597@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #339

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 339

Today's Topics:
       Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article
	     Candidates & space issues (Gore likes Mars)
		     Re: Cooperation uber alles?
	   Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract?
		      Congresscritter committees
       Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article
	   Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract?
	   Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract?
			     Rocket parts
		Soviets to compete with Landsat & SPOT
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 87 15:55:08 GMT
From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article

Like the Newsweek article, this rebuttal chose to ignore a couple of
things which would have weakened the author's premise that the media is
antispace. For example, the $30 billion yearly government subsidy to the
aerospace industry. I think the article made a good case that it is
unreasonable to expect the development of cheap transport to orbit when
aerospace companies are getting paid to do paper studies and develop
technology, rather than to put up as much freight as possible. The
$5000/lb. lauch cost for the Shuttle v.s. the $750/lb.  cost for the
Soviet Proton was a result of this emphasis on technology development at
the expense of manufacturing and delivery (a trend which, incidently,
pervades other areas of the US economy). With the projected commercial
market at only a fraction of the subsidized one, it would be poor
business for the aerospace companies to do otherwise. The first step to
making America competitive is to start paying for delivered, properly
functioning *hardware* (well, also the software needed to make it work)
and stop paying for paper.  The space station is yet another example of
this. While it took maybe a year or so to convert the upper stage of a
Saturn into Skylab, the projected space station is going to take ten
years and be enormously expensive, simply because the intent of the
project is not to get up a functioning space station, but to develop
technology for putting up a functioning space station. Even though, with
minor modifications, something like the shuttle external tank could be
used for the purpose. The fact that a functioning space station might
result from the exercise is irrelevent.

Face it, the Soviets got Big Dumb Booster, we got the MacIntosh. Who's
better off? I don't know. The benefits of having a MacIntosh are
certainly available to more people. It's hard to justify a space station
to the man in the street, unless you take the long view.

	Jim Kempf	kempf@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date:     Fri, 21 Aug 87 16:27 CDT
From: <HIGGINS%FNALE.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  Candidates & space issues (Gore likes Mars)

To all the discussion of Presidential candidates and space, I'd like to
add a datum: According to Carl Sagan, Senator Albert Gore is the only
Presidential candidate who has endorsed a joint US/Soviet Mars program.

Those of you who, like Adam Richter, are itching to do something about
making space an issue in campaigns might contact

Robert Zimmermann
Space Frontier Society of New York City
2819 42nd St.
Apt. D-1
Long Island City, NY 11103

I was impressed by the survey Bob conducted during the 1986 campaign.
He queried all the candidates for the House in the New York City area
about their positions on space issues (National Commission report, new
Shuttle orbiter, etc.) and published the results.  He is now trying to
perform a wider survey including candidates for Congress in other parts
of the country and Presidential candidates.  I'm sure he'd be pleased to
share the results with you, and even more pleased if you volunteered to
help collect information on candidates in your area.  The project has
been conducted by National Space Society members up to now; however, my
guess is Bob would welcome help from any interested party.

			     Bill Higgins
			     Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory
			     HIGGINS@FNALB.BITNET
			     HepNet/SPAN:  43011::higgins

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 04:35:41 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
Subject: Re: Cooperation uber alles?

I believe that I was also at that Boskone Mars talk, and I believe that
the viewpoints presented represent only a particular segment of the
pro-space community.

A similar panel was held at the Pittsburg Space Development Conference,
with a similar pro-Mars tenor, but I read the audience (and the panel)
very differently in this case.  I think few people really believe that
going to Mars is the best next step, even from the point of view of
"grabbing $$$."

What I heard was a feeling that given the nutty way our system works, a
Big One Shot Mars program is already underway, and may be inevitable.
NSS/L5 probably can't stop it, so the real question is what our postion
should be.

Keep it clearly in mind that the great friend of space, Proxmire,
endorses a Mars mission. Personally, I think he's just giving us the
rope to hang outselves with.

Dale Skran

------------------------------

Date: 24 Aug 87 19:01:36 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract?

> For that matter, how did we escape the Moon Treaty?  I'm truly
> surprised that more of those short-sighted politicians didn't sign
> that to mollify those other nations; does anyone (Henry?) know the
> story behind that?  Thank God *SOMEONE* had some sense!

The credit for this one goes 100% to the L5 Society.  For this its name
will be remembered, if for nothing else.  At a time when almost everyone
else was either neutral about the Moon Treaty or solidly in favor of it
(on the grounds that it was a harmless gesture of international
cooperation), the L5 Society came down solidly against it, hired a
Washington lobbyist, and managed to generate enough doubts and outright
opposition in the relevant Senate committee that the issue of ratifying
the thing was shelved permanently.  Had L5 not acted, the treaty would
almost certainly be US law today.  (Well, let me modify the above
slightly; it was not the L5 Society, which is/was tax-exempt and thus
could not get involved in such things, but an utterly unrelated :-)
organization that just happened :-) to involve a lot of the same
people.)
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 26 Aug 87 14:56:55 EDT
From: purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU
Subject: Congresscritter committees

Someone asked for the names of the congresscrittern on the committees
that do space related stuff.  According to the "1987 Congressional Staff
Directory" (Charles B. Brownson (ed), published by Congressional Staff
Directory, Ltd., Mount Vernon, VA, 22121-0062), here they are:

Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology
    Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Space

    Sen. Donald W. Riegle (D-MI) (chair)

    Majority: Sens. John F. Kerry (D-MA); Albert Gore (D-TN); Lloyd
Bentsen (D-TX); Brock Adams (D-WA); and John D. Rockeffeller (D-WV).

    Minority: Sens. Pete Wilson (R-CA); Nancy L. Kassbaum (R-KS); Larry
Pressler (R-SD); and Paul S. Trible (R-VA).


    [To write a senator, address your letter to:

      The Honorable (name)
      Senate Office Bldg.
      Washington, DC  20510

    and start the letter "Dear Senator (name)".]


House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology
    * =member Subcommittee on Space Science and Applications (Bill
Nelson (D FL 11) chair) which covers most of NASA;
    # =member Subcommittee on International Scientific Cooperation
(Ralph Hall (D TX 4) chair) which has oversight on the Space Station.

Rep. Robert Roe (D NJ 8) (chair) [That's 8th Congressional district.]

Majority (all D's): Reps. Norman Mineta* (CA 13); George E. Brown* (CA
36); David E. Skaggs (CO 2); Buddy McKay*# (FL 6); Bill Nelson* (FL 11);
David R. Nagle* (IA 3); Richard Stallings# (ID 2); Terry L.  Bruce (IL
19); Lee Hamilton (IN 9); Dan Glickman (KS 4); Carl C.  (Chris) Perkins*
(KY 7); Jimmy Hayes* (LA 7); Tom McMillen* (MD 4); Harold Volkmer* (MO
9); Tim Valentine (NC 2); David E. Price (NC 4); Robert Torricelli*# (NJ
9); James H. Scheuer*# (NY 8); Henry J. Nowak (NY 33); James A.
Traficant, Jr.* (OH 17); Dave McCurdy (OK 4); Doug Wlagren (PA 18);
Marilyn Lloyd# (TN 3); Jim Chapman* (TX 1); Ralph Hall*# (TX 4); and
Frederick Boucher (VA 9).


Minority (all R's): Reps. Ron Packard*# (CA 43); Ernest L. Konnyu* (CA
12); Joel Hefley* (CO 5); Tow Lewis* (FL 12); Harris W. Fawell# (IL 13);
Robert Smith (NH 1); Constance A. Morella* (MD 8).  Paul B.  Henry (MI
5); Jack Buechner* (MO 2); Manueal Lujan, Jr (NM 1); Sherwood L.
Boehlert# (NY 25); Don Ritter (PA 15); Robert S. Wlaker* (PA 16);
Claudine Schneider (RI 2); Lamar Smith (TX 21); D. French Slaughter,
Jr.* (VA 7); Sid Morrison (WA 4); and James Sensenbrenner# (WI 9).


    [To write to a representative, address your letter to:

      The Honorable (name)
      House Office Bldg.
      Washington, DC 20515

    and begin the letter "Dear Congressman (name)".]

There is also the "Space Caucus".  All that's listed are the co-chairs,
Reps. George E. Brown (D CA 36) and Herbert H. Bateman (R VA 1).

NOTE: There very well may be transcription errors here, especially in
the spellings of names.  Please check (e.g. in the phone book) to make
sure you don't misspell your congresscritters' names.  Also, just
because your critter(s) aren't on these committees dosn't mean they
don't have influence on space policy.

 +---+
/^.-.^\ Mark Purtill
\(("))/ purtill@math.mit.edu | purtill@multics.mit.edu
 =====

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 27 Aug 87 00:35:25 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article
Newsgroups: sci.space
Keywords: Free speech

Re: Mike's followup to Dale.  I sent a letter to Dale on this.  It was
based on impressions before reading (only the masthead) and after read
it.  While I don't always agree with Dale, I strongly recommended
cleaning it up and sending it as an Editorial to a magazine or
newspaper (clean == too much like Usenet writing style).  Upon occasion,
people on this net do produce little gems.  Some of you readers should
consider the same: send hardcopy letters to papers rather than post to
the net.

--eugene

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 01:34:56 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract?

> I want to know things like (1) what method of propulsion (chemical,
> ion, or what)?, (2) what capabilities (cis-lunar only, or maybe could
> push a probe all the way to an asteroid)?

If it's the TRW OMV you're thinking of, it's chemical and its
capabilities are pretty limited.  Basically meant as a LEO-only vehicle.
I don't know of any other such project that actually has real funding.

> If it's an ion rocket with deep space capability, then I'd like to
> start planning a mission that travels to some tiny asteroid (the
> smallest chondrite we've ever spotted), attaches a thermonuclear
> device and baffle plate to one side of it, backs off, triggers
> detonation, then catches up with the Earthbound asteroid again...

To avoid splitting the thing with the shock, it would probably be
necessary to use many bombs rather than a few big ones.  (Also, don't
forget that nuclear explosions in space violate one of the test-ban
treaties, which was ratified by the Senate and hence has the force of
law in the US.  As I recall it there's a clause that says "peaceful uses
are subject to negotiation", but the problems of trying to get that done
boggle the mind.  Until then, you are *breaking the law* if you try to
launch such a mission from the US.)

> ...if we promise the rest of the world some fraction of the benefit we
> may be able to get permission to use the thermonuclear detonation
> propulsion method in this special case.

I'd bet a modest sum that signing the Moon Treaty would be the first
non-negotiable demand from the rest of the world.  Forget it, not worth
it!
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Aug 87 20:16:06 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract?

In article <8459@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>(Also, don't forget that nuclear explosions in space violate one of the
>test-ban treaties, which was ratified by the Senate and hence has the
>force of law in the US.  As I recall it there's a clause that says
>"peaceful uses are subject to negotiation", but the problems of trying
>to get that done boggle the mind.  Until then, you are *breaking the
>law* if you try to launch such a mission from the US.)
>
>> ...if we promise the rest of the world some fraction of the benefit
>> we may be able to get permission to use the thermonuclear detonation
>> propulsion method in this special case.
>
>I'd bet a modest sum that signing the Moon Treaty would be the first
>non-negotiable demand from the rest of the world.  Forget it, not worth
>it!

  Still, isn't it obvious that the U.S. will have to abrogate this
treaty sooner or later?  It was signed at a time when the Congress did
not take space resources seriously; they killed the Orion project
completely (which p*ssed me off very much!).  When they wake up and
desire to have regular traffic back and forth to the Belt or anywhere
else outside the Earth-Moon system, they'll *have* to kill it.  (Can you
see us waiting for an open-end fusion system--I think that would be the
minimum non-bomb process to move an asteroid in a reasonable time.  Any
comments?)  Of course, somebody else will probably get there first (did
Japan sign the Moon Treaty or that no-nukes-in-space treaty?)  and make
this discussion null.  Frankly, people nowadays are far too paranoid
about *The Bomb*, and they ignore its peaceful uses.
  For that matter, how did we escape the Moon Treaty?  I'm truly
surprised that more of those short-sighted politicians didn't sign that
to mollify those other nations; does anyone (Henry?) know the story
behind that?  Thank God *SOMEONE* had some sense!

  Keith Mancus  <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>
                <6106728@PUCC>

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 16:37:55 GMT
From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Brett Van Steenwyk)
Subject: Rocket parts

TITLE:  Use Shuttle Components?

    It occurred to me the other day that while many people were talking
about "better" rocket designs, and what a tragedy that the tooling for
the Saturn V was destroyed, etc., that several viable rocket components
are still lying around.  If one could use existing components from the
shuttle and other relatively recent rocket designs, one should come out
ahead on development costs (especially if that enabled assembly line
style production of these components).  If I remember right, the orbiter
main engines have one of the best specific impulse ratings around, and
are re-usable (though that may be better once one is in space).  I would
never consider solid fuel boosters on any man-rated design (except for
maybe an escape system :-), but those shuttle boosters should be the
basis for getting a good-sized payload into orbit as they pack a few
million pounds of thrust.
    My belief is that the components of the Shuttle were designed fairly
well.  However, the overall system is dismal and should never be flown
again--you just don't do certain things like mix solid and liquid fueled
systems on a manned flight.  Apollo, Gemini, and Mercury all had means
for the astronauts to escape if something went wrong during boost phase.
The Shuttle doesn't.  The system is a crock, and it doesn't matter how
hard the engineers at the subsystem level try to make their respective
parts reliable--something will break sometime.  Its just that a failure
should not be so catastrophic, and that is a responsibililty of the
overall system.  The shuttle system concept was conceived of by a bunch
of lawyers (Congress) and it shows.  I can still hear John Tunney
(Senator from California at that time) brag about how they selected the
best and cheapest design.  How cheap is it now?
    Is it possible to design another launch system using these
components?  I hope they don't have: U.S. Government Property, Don't
Touch! stamped on them.
				--Brett Van Steenwyk
				<uw-beaver!uw-nsr!brett>
				brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu

------------------------------

Date: 22 Aug 87 07:36:56 GMT
From: mcvax!enea!erix!howard@seismo.css.gov  (Howard Gayle)
Subject: Soviets to compete with Landsat & SPOT

According to an article in the Swedish newspaper Dagens Nyheter
of 21 August, the Soviet Union, via a company named Sojuzoarta,
is going into the commercial remote sensing business.  They
will sell 5 m resolution imagery of anywhere outside the
Eastern bloc at lower prices than Landsat and SPOT charge.
Several different kinds of image processing will be available.
The information comes from the Swedish Technical Attache in
Moscow, Per Olof Sj|stedt.  I have no other information about this.

TN/ETX/TX/UMG Howard Gayle        UUCP : seismo!enea!erix!howard
Telefonaktiebolaget L M Ericsson  Phone: +46 8 719 55 65
Ericsson Telecom     	      	  Telex: 14910 ERIC S
S-126 25 Stockholm                FAX  : +46 8 719 64 82
Sweden

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #339
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Sep 87 12:47:11 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02295; Wed, 9 Sep 87 03:18:42 PDT
	id AA02295; Wed, 9 Sep 87 03:18:42 PDT
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 87 03:18:42 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709091018.AA02295@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #340

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 340

Today's Topics:
		  Re: SDI funding of space research
			   Re: Space Debris
	 international cooperation, share launch capability?
		The Rocket Team #4 - A4's Underground
	      Re: The Rocket Team #4 - A4's Underground
			    space weapons
       Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Aug 87 14:35:50 GMT
From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Mack)
Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research

In article <1864@sfsup.UUCP>, glg@sfsup.UUCP (G.Gleason) writes:
> In article <1400@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
> >The SDIO is painfully aware that the present cost of space
> >transportation makes deployment of a defensive system in space
> >prohibitively expensive.  Because of this, they are spending $70
> >million this year and more in the next several years to develop space
> >transportation technology.  The
> 
> This is a joke, right?  $70 million out of a several billion dollar
> budget is hardly significant.  You mention other activities that "may"
> be usefull for space transportation, they are not really relavent to
> my point.

$70 million *per year* for research (not hardware) is pretty
significant.  The fact that the entire SDI budget is in the billions is
irrelevant.

> I admit that I don't have access to references on this, so any input
> from those more knowledgable is welcome.  Millitary research is
> notoriously inefficiant, in a large part because the results are often
> classified.  I don't think the SDI money will be very effective in
> furthering space research or access to space.

It may come as a bit of a surprise to you to find out that NASA can get
access to classified information. Remember the snafu in the first shuttle
launch where NASA inadvertently gave away classified information by asking
the Air Force to use their cameras at Science City in Hawaii to count the
number of tiles lost during the launch? Also, not all of the results of
SDI research will necessarily be classified.

If the SDI people come up with a cheap workable HLV, it won't be
significant? Bull!

> What really disturbs me about the "Star Wars" program is that we are
> bringing the same stupid arms race mentality to space, the one place
> it isn't yet.  (I know the military uses space, but there aren't any
> major weapon systems there yet.)  I might be interested in working in
> a space colony some day, and I don't like the idea of a large military
> presence there.

Unless you consider Soviet ASATs as weapon systems.

Grow up, Gerry. The military is going to go into space if anyone else
does.  A military presence in space is inevitable. If you don't like it,
stay here.  These Utopian fantasies about space colonies (communes,
actually) achieve nothing and actually hurt the effort to establish a
human presence in space.  No one is going to spend tens (hundreds?) of
thousands of dollars to put you in space just because you want to go.
Viable space colonies will be there primarily for economic or military
reasons.

> Gerry Gleason

  Dave Mack

------------------------------

Date: 21 Aug 87 16:19:49 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Debris

> ...most of the junk launched into LEO from Kennedy was headed
> in pretty much the same direction 

With respect to the Earth at launch time.  But don't forget that it was
launched at different times of the day (and year).  The orbits are all at
pretty much the same angle of tilt, but they are tilted in different
directions.  So relative velocities can be substantial.
-- 
Apollo was the doorway to the stars. |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
Next time, we should open it.        | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 23 Aug 87 01:24:35
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: international cooperation, share launch capability?

<KL> Date: 31 Jul 87 17:44:55 GMT
<KL> From: tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Keith Lofstrom)
<KL> Subject: Re: Cheap ways into space please.

... michaelm@3Com.COM (Michael McNeil) writes:
> ... launching cheap vehicles to orbital altitude, but with much, much
> less than orbital velocity, and then *catching* them into a space
> station using a "reverse mass driver."

<KL> "The Spaceport" in the November and December 1979 Analog.  This,
<KL> like most low cost systems, is premature to build if you launch 6
<KL> missions a year.  As Roger and others have argued on the net, you
<KL> have to get the launch rate up to get the costs down.  When the
<KL> market is large enough to support large scale launch systems, they
<KL> will appear.

It seems to me part of the problem is each nation (USA USSR Japan China)
or consortium (ESA) is trying to invent their own launch methods to
achieve complete launch capability without putting any payloads on the
launch vehicles of the other nations. Why does the USSR need both a
shuttle and a heavy launch vehicle, and USA both, and Japan both, and
ESA both, etc.? Why can't there be a total of two shuttle systems in the
world (for redundancy in case one is grounded), two heavy launch vehicle
systems (ditto), etc., with nations (usage here and below includes ESA)
sharing launch capability? There must be some way around export
restrictions that say we can't launch our satellite on their vehicle
because that's like exporting our technology to them during the time the
satellite is on their launch pad.

If the whole world bought launch capability from the one or two
suppliers of a given launch technology which was optimal for a
particular weight and safety class of payload, maybe there'd be enough
market to make the unit-launch cost reasonable? But if each of five
nations insists on duplicating the effort of the four others, no one
nation has the market to make it properly inexpensive.

<AM> Date: 5 Aug 87 15:00:07 GMT
<AM> From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@seismo.css.
gov  (Alastair Mayer)
<AM> Subject: Re: Still more infighting

<AM> We [USA] need assembly lines, computer-integrated manufacturing,
<AM> the production methods of the 80's, not the 50's.

Or maybe just buy launch vehicles from other nations, such as the USSR,
if we can't do a good enough job ourselves?


<HS> Date: 10 Aug 87 23:09:06 GMT
<HS> From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: space news from June 29 AW&ST

<HS> The White House might balk at funding two different heavylift
<HS> launchers with different objectives and design philosophies; the
<HS> Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting might balk at funding SDV
<HS> on top of the shuttle and the space station.

Why all this duplication? Just buy vehicles from USSR, then we don't
need to develop the technology again even once?

<HS> James Beggs, ex-NASA admin, cleared of fraud charges related to his
<HS> prior employment with General Dynamics.  He now feels free to speak
<HS> out about the Challenger accident.  In particular, he says he would
<HS> fly on a shuttle tomorrow with the old boosters, provided the
<HS> temperature was above 50F.

(:- Let's take him up on it; advance launch date to 1987.Oct :-)

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 00:08:52 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: The Rocket Team #4 - A4's Underground

    Missile assembly at Mittelwerk was accomplished in a facility
possessing approximately 1,200,000 square feet of usable floor area,
consisting principally of two long main tunnels (Fahrstollen) some 35
feet wide, 25 feet high, and about 500 feet apart.  Extending over a
mile beneath the overlying hill, they were connected by 47 cross tunnels
or `Hallen', each approximately 30 feet wide and 22 feet high.  The soft
mountain rock above ranged from 140 to 200 feet thick.  ...
    Physically, the huge underground plant seemed ideal for the task
established by the Munitions Ministry.  But the human conditions in it
were not.  When Speer visited Niedersachswerfen on December 10 [1943],
he was shocked at the state of what were euphemistically called East
workers.  "The conditions of these prisoners," he later recalled, "were
in fact barbarous, and a sense of profound involvement and personal
guilt seizes me whenever I think of them."  He immediately ordered that
food, living and sanitary conditions be improved.
	Conditions in the tunnels were described by Hannelore Bannasch,
who from November 1939 to the time she reported to Mittelwerk had worked
first as a secretary to von Braun at Peenemunde and then with A4
contractors at Weilheim and the Rax-Werke in Wiener-Neustadt:

    	There was much hard work.  We all labored for 12 hours a
    day, and occasionally for stretches up to 72 hours virtually without
    stopping.  Most of the time we didn't see daylight.
    	We lived in a hotel named Netzkater near Ilfeld.  At first
    the laborers slept in the tunnels - Germans and foreigners alike.
    Because of the dampness, many died of pneumonia.  Actually, as time
    went on we got to work quite well with the foreigners - it was a
    veritable melting pot.  But they often fought amongst themselves.
    Remember, many had become prisoners for criminal and homosexual
    reasons as well as for their political and religious beliefs.  We
    needed the laborers, so we tried not to mistreat them.  It
    [Mittelwerk] was a top secret operation, so once you were in you
    stayed.

    As the nearby Dora concentration camp was built up, conditions did
improve to an extent.  Control was absolute over the prisoners, and
their German co-workers could only communicate with them in the presence
of SS guards.  Rudolph recalls that many were highly intelligent indivi-
duals who had formerly occupied distinguished positions in their own
countries.  A French university professor, for example, was assigned to
check out electrical equipment.  As time went on, the number of forced
laborers was reduced, since they became more inefficient in their work.

[from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press,
 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ]
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 15:04:35 GMT
From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
Subject: Re: The Rocket Team #4 - A4's Underground

In article <1343@ihlpm.ATT.COM>, dcn@ihlpm.ATT.COM (Dave Newkirk) writes:
> Physically, the huge underground plant seemed ideal for the task
> established by the Munitions Ministry.  But the human conditions in it
> were not.  When Speer visited Niedersachswerfen on December 10 [1943],
> he was shocked at the state of what were euphemistically called East
> workers.  "The conditions of these prisoners," he later recalled,
> "were in fact barbarous, and a sense of profound involvement and
> personal guilt seizes me whenever I think of them."  He immediately
> ordered that food, living and sanitary conditions be improved.

This statement seems to indicate some compassion on the part of Speer
and the Nazi hierarchy in general for conditions of workers in forced
labor camps, which, according to other sources I've seen is a gross
misrepresentation of the facts. There was an article in West magazine
(supplement to the Sunday San Jose Mercury News) about 6 months ago
describing the conditions at Doria and Mittelwerk. According to this
report, prisoners who violated even the smallest rule were hung from the
high ceiling of the tunnels by meathooks. The actual tunnels themselves
were carved out of the rock by the prisoners, without breathing
apparatus, so that they were forced to inhale dust.

According to the West article, one of the Peenemunde team (I think it
was Dornberger(?)) was fully aware of conditions in Mittelwerk, visiting
periodically. In fact, the only reason conditions improved was that the
V2's being produced at Mittelwerk were so poorly built. Dornberger and
the others thought that by improving working conditions, they might be
able to improve the quality of the resulting rockets. So the real reason
conditions improved had nothing at all to do with Speer's compassion.

Dornberger actually had retired in San Jose, but was expelled by the US
Government when the extent of his knowledge of conditions at Mittelwerk
and involvment in the prison came to light. He was heavily involved in
the Apollo program, and was responsible for co-ordinating the assembly
of the Saturn rocket among the various subcontractors. Supposedly, he
did a pretty good job at it too, and was awarded some kind of
Congressional medal.
		Jim Kempf	kempf@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 16:54:53 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space weapons

> Do you really think that banning space weapons would lead to a ban on ICBMs?

No, because a "ban" on space weapons will inevitably be phrased in such a
way as to exclude ballistic missiles.  This is irrational but unavoidable.

> Despite the fact that their only conceivable use would be illegal, they would
> still exist.  After all, the UN ruled that war was illegal.  That is why
> countries never officially declare war anymore...

UN rulings do not have the force of law in most countries.  This makes a
difference.  Treaties signed by the US and ratified by the US Senate do
have the force of law in the US, and similar rules apply in most other
nations.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 87 17:19:56 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Michael Lodman)
Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article

In article <3005@mtgzz.UUCP> dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes:
|       In reality it is typical of the
|       misinformed anti-space views common in media circles,
|       especially the New York Times. In a true Orwellian fashion,
|       these writers are "for" space, of course, a smaller,
|       cheaper, program with less focus on manned fight, with no
|       trips to Mars or the moon, with a few more robots for the
|       scientists, and a few more dollars for the universities.

What I see is a difference in opinion with the "let's spend all the
taxpayer's money on blue sky adventures" approach to the space program.
I see an emphasis on scientific gathering of data and military intelligence,
rather than support for commercial ventures. The technolgy exists for
commercial launchs of commercial payloads at a resonable price.

|       These writers do not really believe humanity has a long term
|       future in space.

Maybe they just don't think the government should pay for it.

|       in the wake of the Challenger disaster it is being
|       recognized that(as space advocates have been saying for
|       about 20 years) NASA is dangerously underfunded. 

Or maybe it is correct to say that NASA is under-focused. It has no
business launching commercial payloads with the taxpayer's money 
underwriting everything.

|       As a working engineer, it appeared clear to me
|       that it was under-tested by a large factor, mainly to save
|       funds and cut costs. I expected that one of the first three
|       or four flights would be lost.

As a working engineer, it is clear to me that it isn't even economical
to adequetely test a design of something as complex as the shuttle
to the level that we wouldn't expect a few failures "in the field".
For this reason, I too, expected a failure early on.

|       It is a tribute to the excellence of the engineers that 
|       remained at NASA that the shuttle ever got off the pad.

Given an idiotic assignment, I think that all of the engineers    
involved did a commendable job.

|       and could do it quickly," and then lists all the payloads
|       waiting to go, continuing to add to the pressure to rush the
|       shuttles to the pad. 

Most of which shouldn't even be launched by the shuttle.

I'm tired of replying to this for now. Maybe more later.

-- 
Michael Lodman  (619) 485-3335
Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego
mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM 
{sdcsvax,cbatt,dcdwest,nosc.ARPA,ihnp4}!ncr-sd!ivory!lodman

When you die, if you've been very, very good, you'll go to ... Montana.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #340
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU;  9 Sep 87 23:20:22 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03600; Wed, 9 Sep 87 20:17:34 PDT
	id AA03600; Wed, 9 Sep 87 20:17:34 PDT
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 87 20:17:34 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709100317.AA03600@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #341

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 341

Today's Topics:
	UCLA Course - Power and Propulsion for Access to Space
		   Mir Orbital Elements, 25 Aug 87
		Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on
			"responding carefully"
		       Re: FTL and time travel
			Sub Launched A4 info?
		      Cuisine out of this world
		    Re: Cuisine out of this world
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 20:49:56 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: UCLA Course - Power and Propulsion for Access to Space

I thought sci.space readers might be interested in the following, even
if, like me, they won't be able to attend this course. The following is
plagiarized without permission. I hope they won't mind. This article is
rather long. I hope you don't mind.

I just received notice of a UCLA Extension Short Course being offered by
the UCLA Dept. of Eng. (which I have no association with, although I
pretend to be an engineer and I have been to LA-Disneyland). The course
is on "Power and Propulsion for Access to Space," and it will be taught
November 3-5, 1987 at Embassy Suites, El Segundo, CA (near LAX). Cost is
$895 (and includes as the text "Space Nuclear Power" by Joseph A.
Angelo, Jr., and David Buden, Orbit Books, 1985). It's worth 1.8 CEU.

Those involved:
Coordinator:
Kenneth Moore - Assistant Vice President and Manager, Program
		Development, Strategic Defense Program Office, Science
		Applications International Corporation, Hermosa Beach,
		CA -"He currently manages programs at SAIC which support
		the design of cost-effective, survivable, autonomous
		future space systems."
Lecturers:
Joseph Angelo, Jr. - chairman of Space Technology Program, Florida
		Institute of Technology, Melbourne, Fla. and Chief of
		Electro-Optics Branch, Advanced Technology Center,
		Patrick Air Force Base,Fla.  "Most recently developed
		and operated the Space Experimentation Center at Cape
		Canaveral." "........" He is about to retire from the
		Air Force to "assume the position of Director of
		Advanced Technology for EG&G, Inc."
Robert Salkeld - consultant, Phoenix, AZ, he has worked for NASA, System
		Development Corporation, Aerojet-General Corporation,
		United Aircraft Corporation, and the Aerospace
		Corporation. He wrote the book "War and Space," a
		"pioneering treatment of new aerospace technologies as
		they affect political and military doctrine."
UCLA Faculty Rep:
Cornelius T. Leondes - professor, Mechanical, Aerospace, and Nuclear
		Eng., School of Eng. and Applied Sciences.

For technical information, call Kenneth Moore at (213) 318-2611.  For
registration information, call the Short Course Program Office at (213)
825-3344.

Course Overview (with minor editing-TE):

This course focuses on the power and propulsion subsystems concepts
being developed for future commercial and gov't activities in space. An
intro summarizes the forecast needs of the DoD for SDI and improved
communications and surveillance platforms. Fundamentals of technologies
relevant to powering the emerging space infrastructure are discussed.
NASA's projected power needs for space stations, lunar and Mars
settlements, asteroid mining, and planetary exploration are reviewed.
Commercial power requirements for manufacturing in space and large
communications platforms are considered. For each technology area,
fundamental principles of prime heat sources (solar, chemical, and
nuclear) as well as secondary storage devices (batteries, fuel cells,
and flywheels) are analyzed. The course evaluates the status of these
technologies and the operation of various power plant elements,
including heat source, power conversion, and thermal management.
Significant technology gains are forecast for solar photovoltaics and
radioisotope thermoelectric generators.  Fundamentals of pulsed-power
options, including chemical and nuclear power sources, are presented.
Since practical access to space and maintenance of on-orbit control is
the first prerequisite to realizing our goals there, technologies
underlying earth-based vehicle launch and on-orbit propulsion are
examined. A view of trades and methodologies for selecting specific or
integrated spacecraft propulsion subsystems is discussed. System
architectures, the type and number of engines to use, tank
configurations, and materials are also covered.

(Sounds good, huh! No prerequisites are mentioned, either. #:O) )


Daily Schedule

Tuesday Morning
-Emerging Needs for Space Power (Angelo)
  -NASA, DoD, Civilian
-Thermophysics of Power Subsystems (Angelo)
  -Power Sources
  -Thermal energy transport
  -Energy conversion techniques
  -Heat rejection techniques

Tuesday Afternoon
-Solar-Photovoltaics (Angelo)
  -Fundamentals of solar cells
  -Solar cell technology
  -Solar panels
  -Historical performance
  -Use of concentrators
-Solar-Thermal (Angelo)
  -Fundamentals of solar thermal design
  -Dynamic systems with thermal storage

Wednesday Morning
-Energy Storage Devices (Angelo)
  -Batteries, fuel cells, flywheels
-Radioisotope Generators (Angelo)
  -Fundamentals
  -Radioisotope thermal generators (RTGs)
  -Historical performance
  -Dynamic isotope power subsystems (DIPs)
  -Safety Considerations

Wednesday Afternoon
-Nuclear Reactors (Angelo)
  -Fundamentals
  -Historical performance
  -SP-100 program for 1 MW system
  -Multimegawatt technology
  -Safety considerations
-Trends in Power Technology (Angelo)
  -Power projections
  -Candidate power technologies for emerging needs

Thursday Morning
-Earth-Based Propulsion for Access to Space: Status (Salkeld)
  -Traffic (Earth-to-orbit and beyond)
  -Transportation economics
  -Dependability and risk
-Advanced Propulsion Technologies (Salkeld)
  -Technical tools (in-hand and foreseeable, terrestrial and beyond)
  -Airbreathing propulsion
  -Rocket propulsion

Thursday Afternoon
-Operational Considerations (salkeld)
  -Design for effectiveness (vehicles, propulsion, cargos, turnaround)
  -Resource management (propellants, materials, human)
  -Environmental factors
-General Considerations (Salkeld)
  -Harnessing technologies to challenges-a propulsion strategy
  -Space access fleet optimization
  -International factors, politics, planning and commitment

----------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a lot of material to cover in three 8-hour days, but if any of
it is worthwhile, it might be worth a second mortgage to go. If any of
you are going, I would appreciate some sort of summary of what is
presented. Maybe we could take up a net.collection to send someone who
reports back to us.  I'll make the sacrifice and volunteer. Send lots of
money to me, quickly. #:O) Thanks.

Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 87 05:22:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Mir Orbital Elements, 25 Aug 87


Are the readers of this group sufficiently interested in observing Mir
for me to post its orbital elements periodically?

The latest set (25 Aug):
	Epoch day:			1987 236.84174199
	Inclination:			51.6310
	AR of ascending node:		163.9797
	Eccentricity:			0.0037757
	Argument of periapsis:		57.9236
	Mean anomaly:			302.5475
	Mean motion:			15.79270649
	Mean motion acceleration*:	0.00017745

			Source: NASA Goddard
				via Henry Vanderbilt of NSS

* ``Falling, yes I am falling....''  -Beatles

Kevin Kenny - {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny - kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 87 15:10:00 GMT
From: irwin@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Gird for battle: Darth Proxmire on

According to an article in the local paper last night, Proxmire is going
to retire, he is not going to run for another term. Let's hope he does
not put many more "nails in NASA's coffin" before the retirement time
arrives.

------------------------------

Date: 	Fri, 28 Aug 87 06:10:13 PDT
From: ATTENBERGER%ORN.MFENET@nmfecc.arpa
Subject: "responding carefully"
Comment: From ATTENBERGER@ORN.MFENET on 28-AUG-1987 09:11:29.02 EDT

>>All you great scientists, respond very carefully, else you might be
>>embarrassed within your lifetime.  Does anybody remember the person
>>who proposed that the British Patent Office be closed because
>>everything had already been invented?
>>-- Rahul Dhesi UUCP: {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi
      Speaking of responding carefully, it was Charles H. Duell of the
** U. S. ** patent office in 1899, who said, "Everything that can be
invented has been invented."
   Stan Attenberger

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 87 00:06:33 GMT
From: trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!rod@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Rodney Doyle Van Meter III)
Subject: Re: FTL and time travel

In article <649@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM> dleigh@hplabsz.UUCP (Darren Leigh) writes:
>Simultaneity?  Just say no!
>
>I could go on, but you really ought to pick up a book on relativity
>(can anyone recommend a good one?).  

For the basic ideas, I found Einstein's book (I believe it was just
titled "Relativity") quite readable even when I was young. I don't
offhand know where it is, or I could tell you more (I haven't actually
read it five years or more). Also Feynman's Lectures on Physics has a
good discussion, but I can't remember which volume.

--Rod

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 1987 22:15-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Sub Launched A4 info?

Mike Trout: Could you send me source info on the German project and them
being interested in hitting Pittsburgh with a submarine launched A4? I'm
sure some of the Pittsburgh L5 chapter people would get a hoot out of
it!

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 09:15:41 GMT
From: mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!bruno@seismo.css.gov  (Bruno Poterie)
Subject: Cuisine out of this world

[This is a bit long (~~90 lines) - i promise not to do so every day!]
   This is an [unauthorised] reproduction of an article in the
International Weekly edition of "The Guardian/Le Monde/The Washington
Post" (vol. 137 nb. 8)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
		CUISINE OUT OF THIS WORLD
		By Paul Webster in Paris

   Soviet cosmonauts have again beaten the Americans to new heights.
>From next year they will be eating three-star gourmet meals in space
while the Americans are still struggling with hamburgers in tubes and
Coca Cola pills.
   Instead of the traditional Soviet cosmic diet, which the French
astronaut Jean-Loup Chre'tien described as tasting like rancid almonds,
the Russians will be eating Canard a` la cuiller aux artichauts, or
Compo^te de pigeon aux dattes - duck in artichockes, or pigeon with
dates.

  The gourmet meals have been developed by two French chefs from
Toulouse, Pierre Roudge and Lucien Vanel, whose haute cuisine is
considered among the best in France.

   The meals will be packed in small 80-gramme tins to fit into space
microwave ovens. Instructions will be in both Russian and French, as the
food is destined for a 1988 flight when a French scientist will join
three Russians in a 38-day trip to the Mir space station.

   The French National Centre for Space Studies [CNES] was behind the
project, intended to produce at least 10 possible gourmet meals to break
the routine Russian diet that Chre'tien, who went on a space mission
with the Russians, found almost uneatable. According to him it consisted
of whitened balls of meat [Hi Robert Crumb: Meatballs!] in vacuum packs
and "energy pastilles" wrapped in aluminium.
   It needed months of testing to meet the special demands of space
dinners and the fussiness of the Russians, who ruled out red meat or
offal.
   Even some of the final choices, recently presented to delegations
from the Soviet health and agricultural ministries in Toulouse, were
ruled out either because there was too much sauce which flew about in
zero gravity or because they were considered too dry, like the lobster.
   The Russians were particularly attracted by the fondue de queue de
boeuf (oxtail fondue) and the Magret de canard.  They took hundreds of
tins of the six most appreciated recipes home for further testing after
being satisfied, among other things that they had extra salt - a key
element of all orbital diets.
   The Russians also wanted to be sure there were no stray chicken bones
to cause problems and say they needed time to invent new eating
ustensils, to deal with zero gravity.
   Meanwhile, a factory which has been involved in the development has
decided to market the space food complete with Russian instructions from
October [;-)].  Each tin will carry the slogan "Gastronomy is the
empress of the world".
------------------------------------------------------------------------

A few comments:

	- few investments, visible results (and appreciable, too)
	- bringing profit back to earth (in 1 or 2 fiscal term - yes Sir)
	- space will definitely be decimal - no chance for ft. and oz.
	- good news for tired language students: 
	     you don't need to learn *both* French *and* Russian for space
	     - one is enough, instructions come bilinguals!

	- somebody said recently there: 
	[...no cooperation with murderers and thieves...] (speaking of
	the S.U.)  Well... cooperation does works, and will be the key
	for the space future.  Join the movement, don't stay alone in
	your small corner.

For Yankees mostly (I don't include all in the same box, though):

	   Quite al lot of you yankees speak alot about millions /
	billions of bucks, regaining the leadership in space, building
	an AmericaInc-alike space civilisation, planting 6 stations
	around Earth, with maybe few of them sub-contracted to Europe
	and Japan...
	   Be realistic for a while! Stop all that dogmatic, look at the
	real life.  Europe and Russia are already in space, and Asia Co.
	will soon come too.  So please, be less arrogant, participate to
	the global task instead of trying to rule everything under your
	own rules.
	   We plainly know here the fantastic lead and impulse that is
	due to America, and clearly rekon that we couldn't have made it
	ourselves then.  But past is past, and the fact is that Europe
	will almost be obliged to build its own space station, instead
	of doing a common one with the United States, because of your
	political/military intransigence. It will be wasted time and
	money, and create unnecessary wounds.
	   I could never insist enough. Cooperation, Equality, Good
	Will. These are the keys. It is the only sensible way. Don't
	spoil your chances!  Otherwise, we will end up with a
	compartimented, military dominated, unfriendly Weltraum. It is
	nice to be able to do things alone, but it is even nicer to be
	able to do the same with the others.

Bruno Poterie      # ... une vie, c'est bien peu, compare' a un chat ...
ECRC GmbH	   #		tel: (49)89/92699-161
Arabellastrasse 17 #		Tx: 5 216 910
D-8000 MUNICH 81   #		mcvax!unido!ecrcvax!bruno
West Germany	   #		bruno%ecrcvax.UUCP@Germany.CSNET

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 87 20:44:58 GMT
From: daemon@cs.rochester.edu  (Brad Miller)
Subject: Re: Cuisine out of this world


    Date: 27 Aug 87 09:15:41 GMT
    From: bruno@ecrcvax.UUCP (Bruno Poterie)

       Be realistic for a while! Stop all that dogmatic, look at the
    real life.  Europe and Russia are already in space, and Asia Co.
    will soon come too.  So please, be less arrogant, participate to the
    global task instead of trying to rule everything under your own
    rules.
    . . .

I agree with you. Pity we can't seem to get out of the role of world
policeman either, which is proceeding to bankrupt our country at a rapid
rate, and creating unending friction with other autonomous entities on
this planet. We don't need to export that to other planets.

miller@cs.rochester.edu {...[allegra|seismo]!rochester!miller}

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #341
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Sep 87 06:20:52 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04554; Thu, 10 Sep 87 03:17:13 PDT
	id AA04554; Thu, 10 Sep 87 03:17:13 PDT
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 87 03:17:13 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709101017.AA04554@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #342

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 342

Today's Topics:
		    space news from July 20 AW&ST
		    space news from July 27 AW&ST
			       Re: FTL
			   Space Telescopes
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 87 00:40:21 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from July 20 AW&ST

[This one will be particularly terse, I'm about to leave for a short
vacation.		-- HS]

JPL is using Voyager 1 to try out attitude-control software meant for
Voyager 2's Neptune flyby.

After NASA spent weeks trying to get a Soviet-space-program briefing on
Reagan's calendar, the President's science advisor cancelled it.  Fletcher
is not pleased.

For the second year in a row, Senate approves NASA authorization bill calling
for a National Aeronautics and Space Council to get space decision-making
done properly.  Sen. Donald Riegle:  "It has become painfully clear that
there is no one in charge of space policy within the Administration."

Latest interesting Spot pictures, this time of a Soviet missile-sub base
on the Kola peninsula.

Dept of Commerce's final rules on US commercial remote-sensing satellites
give secretaries of State and Defense veto power over licensing applications
and the power to suspend operations of licensees.  The government will also
have the power to seize "any object, record, or report" from a private
satellite operator, given "probable cause to believe" that it was being
used in violation of the rules.

Interestingly, this won't apply to Spot Image, because DoC has deemed Spot
to be a "public system" because of its French government backing.

[THIS is the administration that favors free enterprise over government
involvement?!?  Coulda fooled me.  -- HS]

US/French lightning-study project starts at KSC.  Fifth in a series, not
related to recent events.

Ball Aerospace gets DARPA contract for satellite "to detect and inspect
nuclear material in space".  [It's not clear what this means.]

McDonnell-Douglas gets first firm order for commercial Deltas, from Hughes
aircraft on behalf of British Satellite Broadcasting.  First launch mid-89.
Hughes signed with BSB last week, a contract calling for delivery in orbit
rather than on the pad.

Japan to develop new modest-sized three-stage solid-fuel launcher, to
succeed the MU-3S-2 for modest science payloads and small planetary
missions.  Payload 4400 lbs into low orbit.  Possibility of international
customers also mentioned.

USAF awards contracts for Phase 1 of the Awesomely Lucrative Spacelauncher,
er excuse me the Advanced Launch System.  Interestingly, one item required
in the contracts is a look at the possibility of volume production of simple
expendables rather than reusability.  [Maybe there's hope for ALS.]

Titan SRB successfully fired at Edwards, clearing Titan 34D to fly again.

Yet more mess:  access platform ruins Centaur hydrogen tank of Atlas-Centaur
being prepared for DoD comsat launch.  This isn't just a little hole -- in
the picture, the tank looks like a crumpled beercan.  General Dynamics says
the tank is a writeoff.  There will be no new tanks until mid-1989, and
there are no spares; however, there is a Centaur test unit that might be
cannibalized to launch late this year.

Three more test firings of the redesigned shuttle SRB have been added to
the test program, although it is not vital that they precede STS-26.

NASA microgravity task force recommends major shakeup in NASA microgravity
program, to eliminate waste and make it more competitive with other nations.
One embarrassing problem is that foreign Spacelab flights have priority over
US ones (because foreign users pay for theirs); the task force recommends a
dedicated US materials-processing Spacelab flight in 1990.

Eosat to market Landsat data from Chinese ground station.  Lots of interest,
because there has been poor coverage in the region.

Eosat and Hughes evaluate putting a "mediasat" sensor for newsgathering
on a future Landsat; seems feasible.  It would have pointing capability
for same-day coverage anywhere on Earth.  Cost and weight depend on the
resolution.

NASA DepAdmin Myers approves new commercial space policy directives.
Alas, they raise more questions than they answer.  They *still* haven't
settled the vital issue of priorities for secondary shuttle payloads,
in particular.  The new policy on joint ventures with industry also has
warts:  it gives more bureaucrats veto power.

ESA selects Aeritalia to develop new microgravity facility for Spacelab,
aimed at fluid dynamics in particular.

Pictures of the interior of the Mir mockup the Soviets displayed at the
Paris Air Show.  Looks like a space station, all right.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 00:40:07 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from July 27 AW&ST

[Minor note on format:  in the interest of saving keystrokes, I'm going
to stop signing all of my interjections with "-- HS"; material in brackets
henceforth should be assumed to be from me unless otherwise marked. --HS]

Editorial titled "Space Leadership Void".  "...the sad truth is the US
space program, most notably the NASA portion, is foundering under the
worst management crisis it has faced since the agency was formed in 1958."
Theme is that Fletcher should either stand up for the agency or resign.

Shuttle-escape engineers are looking at a fire-pole scheme as an alternative
to the tractor-rocket scheme.  The idea is to just stick out a guide rod to
carry escaping crew downward clear of the wing.

[This is a fine idea, simple, reliable, and without the safety problems of
the rocket method.  I give it a 50-50 chance of being adopted, assuming
that it does turn out to be as superior as it looks.  (He who believes that
superior ideas automatically get adopted is dreaming.)]

China will buy comsat components from Germany for the next Chinese comsat.

Hughes is looking at Palmyra Island in the Pacific as a launch site for the
ALS.  It is privately-owned US territory near the equator.

House subcommittee slams White House for doing nothing about the space
program in general and the National Commission on Space report in particular.

US and European delegations to meet to work towards a trade agreement on
commercial launch operations.  The hope is that other nations might join in.
For example, the Europeans are expected to protest the US-only clause in a
recent Commerce launch procurement.

NASA receives space-station proposals from six bidders.  Evaluation board
will report to Fletcher late Oct, final decision Nov.  Rockwell and
McDonnell-Douglas are bidding on structure and distributed systems (plus
propulsion and EVA gear); Martin Marietta and Boeing are fighting over
the pressurized modules; Rocketdyne is sole bidder on power; GE Astro Space
[formerly RCA space div. as I recall] is sole bidder for free-flying
platforms and payload-attach hardware.  Two or three pages of detail on
who's doing what within the various bids; these are all complex teams.

White House begins a complete reassessment of US space policy.  Reaction
from space-related agencies is basically "AGAIN?!?".  This just might lead
to major action on space for the FY89 budget, Reagan's last.

USAF-NASA squabble over new boosters worsens.  NASA wants to move ahead
on a shuttle-derived study, the USAF sees this as competition for ALS and
opposes it.

More comments on the Ride report.  Ride emphasizes the need to build
infrastructure, and the risk of a Mars mission turning into a one-shot.

NASA vs. the Office of Mismanagement and Beancounting again.  [Yes, I know
that's not its real name...]  OMB criticizes NASA for a statement about
buying expendables, on the grounds that it undercuts presidential decision-
making.  NASA says this is ridiculous because existing presidential policy
already calls for more expendables.

NASA will try to get $11.9G budget past OMB for FY89.  (FY88 is $9.5G.)
Fletcher calls for firm future $12G budgets, also wants $100M supplemental
in FY88 for buying expendables.

Soyuz launched to Mir, two Soviet cosmonauts and one Syrian guest.  It
will dock to the rear port, on Kvant.  Progress 30, which docked in May,
was jettisoned and reentered July 19.

Arianespace sets Sept 11 as tentative launch date for next Ariane.

Aerojet fires first full test of Titan 4 first-stage engine; successful.

Color pictures of the multi-port docking hub on the Mir mockup shown at
Paris.

Leningrad conference on satellite systems yields surprise:  Soviets fail
to discuss their Glonass (Navstar lookalike) navsat, prompting speculations
on why.  One possibility is that they want to improve Glonass to match
Navstar accuracy, so a receiver built for both would not make Glonass look
inferior.  Another very good possibility is that the Soviet military may
want to keep Glonass for their own; the Pentagon wanted to keep Navstar
until it decided that civil users should help pay the bills, a problem the
Soviet military may not have.

Large article on technological advances going into the space station; of
note is oxyhydrogen propulsion for station-keeping.

The [small] organization representing Europe's astronauts calls for an
interim expendable manned capsule, partly to get manned work going before
Hermes and partly as an escape system for a European space station.  One
awkward issue is that Ariane 5 will be over-sized for just the capsule,
while the smaller Arianes are not man-rated.  Piggybacking on another
payload is a possibility.

Rep. Manuel Lujan criticizes NASA's astronaut-selection procedure, noting
that of the last 45 astronaut candidates selected, only three were neither
military officers nor NASA employees... and those three were an Army civilian
employee, a JPL employee who is also son of a former NASA DepAdmin, and the
first female black astronaut.  "Are we being asked to believe that out of
the thousands of applicants that coincidentally the best qualified were all
NASA employees or from the military?"  "If the qualifications for astronaut
are best met by serving an apprenticeship with NASA... you owe it to the
American people to state that publicly."

[Personally, I think that (a) there is little doubt that NASA has several
silly prejudices, including this one, about astronaut selection, and (b) it
really doesn't matter very much, because the problem remains one of finding
ways to *eliminate* most of the well-qualified people.  As long as there are
far more amply-qualified applicants than positions, irrelevant and silly
selection criteria are inevitable.  The right fix for this is not to change
from one silly set of rules to another.  -- HS]

Another big spread on Chinese aerospace.  McDonnell-Douglas is about to
start talking to China about putting the PAM upper stage on the Long March.
McD-D recently got permission from the State Dept to discuss the matter (!).
A formal export license will be needed to pursue it in depth.  There is
foreign interest, notably from Australia's Aussat.

AW&ST visits Chinese booster factory.  "...a continual stream of horse-drawn
carts passed the facility's security wall next to small peasant cottages with
chickens running in the street..."  A movie about the plant showed a wind
tunnel test plainly involving an ICBM prototype, although the Chinese will
not confirm ICBM work at the plant.  They are getting ready for a stretched
version of Long March 2, preferably with a PAM as third stage.  The movie
also showed as many as four boosters in checkout simultaneously.

Another interesting story of how *competent* people respond to a failure.
The first flight of the oxyhydrogen upper stage on Long March 3 was a partial
failure, with premature shutdown during the second burn.  The factory
diagnosed the problem as bubbles in propellant lines, developed and tested
fixed components, ran four ground firings, and then flew the new hardware
carrying China's first Clarke-orbit comsat -- SEVENTY DAYS AFTER THE FAILURE!

More indications that the Chinese are not fussy about clean-room procedures
except where it really matters.

The first-stage engines of Long March 2 run at less than 85% of their rated
maximum thrust, to provide a safety margin.  The same engines will be used
in the strap-on boosters for the L.M. 2-4L version.

China is preparing to launch another photographic spysat, the same type they
are marketing for civilian payloads.  AW&ST saw it being readied.  The most
remarkable thing is that it uses a *wood* heatshield.  They say that they
tested various fancy materials, but concluded that a thick layer of oak
worked well and was good enough.

US State Dept. openly and loudly refuses to grant export licenses for
shipment of satellites to the Soviet Union for launch on Proton.  At least
one test-case application has been denied (the companies by and large
expected this, but wanted firm responses rather than the waffling that
they got when they asked).  Everyone is waiting to see whether European
nations will allow satellites built there onto Proton.  State says that
even if the Administration were interested in changing its policy, which
it is not, it would take several years before results would be seen.

An "Aerospace Forum" article by a fellow named Eugene Meyers, strongly
pushing a space station based on the shuttle external tanks.  [Frankly,
the guy comes off as a flake, although he has some interesting ideas.]

Much more detailed Halley-nucleus photos, obtained by processing and
compositing of Giotto images.  The increase in detail is fairly striking.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date:           Sat, 29 Aug 87 20:49:39 PDT
From: Richard Petkiewicz <bilbo.rick@cs.ucla.edu>
Subject:        Re: FTL

With all of this discussion about whether or not it will ever be
possible to travel faster than light, something we should not overlook
is that there may be alternate solutions.

It seems to me that the real problem is how to get from point A to point
B as quickly as possible, from the point of view of Earth.

Earlier this year, I attended a lecture series on astronomy at UCLA.
One of the speakers was Dr. Kip Thorne, who was introduced as the
world's leading living expert on General Relativity.  One of the things
that he pointed out in his lecture was that worm holes are a valid
solution to Einstein's equations.  A worm hole is a warp or tunnel in
space that would allow two arbitrary points in space to be connected.
Dr. Thorne pointed out that worm holes are inherently unstable, and are
unlikely to be found in nature.  He did say, though, that it may be
possible to artificially create and maintain a worm hole.  Something he
wasn't sure of was if it is physically possible to create a material
with a high enough tensile strength to keep the worm hole from
collapsing.

Even if worm holes turn out to be a dead end (so to speak) there may be
another as yet undiscovered solution to the problem.  I suspect that at
some point it will become important enough that we will have to find a
solution.

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Aug 87 20:15 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Space Telescopes

MacLeod made a comment about the HST being overtaken by ground based
instruments, and the possibility that it wouldn't be launched.  I find
that hard to swallow.  I don't think the techniques for getting rid of
atmospheric distortion are panaceas.  Moreover, the cost of launching
the telescope is a small fraction (even with the shuttle) of the cost of
building it.  I might believe they wouldn't service the thing, just
leave it in space while it slowly degrades.

Mark Brader asked where the best place for a space telescope would be.
Since most of the debris the scope will encounter is anthropogenic,
you'd like to place it above low earth orbit. However, you don't want to
put it in the radiation belts, since that messes up the detectors. You'd
also want to put it far enough away so that debris in geosynchronous
orbit does not drift into the field of view.

The advantage of putting something on the moon would be the possibility
of anchoring the scope to something large and steady. I suppose it would
also be easier to have a manned scope on the moon rather than in high
earth orbit, since shielding and building materials are available on the
moon. In the nearer future it will be much easier to put an unmanned
scope in high earth orbit.

There's one kind of "telescope" that would work on the moon but not by
itself in space: a neutrino detector. Neutrino detectors must be
shielded by thousands of feet of rock to screen out cosmic rays. On the
earth, cosmic ray nuclei interacting in the upper atmosphere produce
pions that decay to neutrinos and muons, both of which cause background
activity in the detector. On the moon, more pions will collide with
nuclei in the regolith rather than decay, so the background activity
will be lower. For this reason the moon will also be a good place to put
a nucleon decay experiment (probably using liquid oxygen rather than
water). An asteroid would also work, and the low gravity would make it
easier to dig large caverns.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #342
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 10 Sep 87 23:20:01 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06050; Thu, 10 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT
	id AA06050; Thu, 10 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709110317.AA06050@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #343

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 343

Today's Topics:
			   Two space talks
		       Mir Elements, 3 Sep 1987
			   Newsweek Article
			 Re: Space Telescopes
	     Space Telescope-proposals deadline extended
	    SN1987A pulsar already observed via neutrinos?
		   Re: Mars Orbiter name - results
			     Shuttle TPS
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Sep 87 11:20:42 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Two space talks


>From IEEE Grid:
Redwood Empire Section
Barney Oliver
SETI
Tues. Sept. 15 730pm
H-P, 1400 Fountaingrove Parkway, Santa Rosa, CA
No reservations
Key words: multichannel spectrum analyzer, hydrogen, Drake equation,

SCV Antennas and Propagation Society
Dan Held (JPL)
Earth Observation with Spaceborne Imaging Radar
Wed. Sept. 23 
Cocktails 6pm dinner 630pm talk 8pm
Columbus Street Restaurant 4898 El Camino Real, Los Altos, CA
Reservations (408)-247-6301
Keywords (geez, I know these off the top of my head, he's one of my old
group sups): SEASAT-A, SIR-B, Magellan [lesser degree], PRF,
side-lobes, azimuth ambiguity, range ambigity, oceanography,
radar geology, remote sensing, L-band, X-band, dielectrics,

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 18:42:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Mir Elements, 3 Sep 1987


Satellite:			Mir
Catalog ID:			16609
Epoch day:			87245.82572306
Inclination:			51.6299		degrees
Right ascension of node:	117.4562	degrees
Eccentricity:			0.0036501
Argument of periapsis:		92.1879		degrees
Mean anomaly at epoch:		268.3426	degrees
Mean motion at epoch:		15.79658282	revs / day
Acceleration of mean motion:	0.00020303	revs / day**2

Source: NASA Goddard via Henry Vanderbilt of NSS

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 7 Sep 87 13:24:31 PDT
From: pplace!waterworks!taw@sun.com (Tom Wadlow)
Subject: Newsweek Article

Some comments on Dale Skran's Newsweek review (Excerpts from him
indented):

       In a true Orwellian fashion, these writers are "for" space, of
       course, a smaller, cheaper, program with less focus on manned
       fight, with no trips to Mars or the moon, with a few more robots
       for the scientists, and a few more dollars for the universities.
       Another variation suggests a massive Apollo style Mars shot, but
       drawn out over 20 or 30 years to "keep the cost down."  These
       writers do not really believe humanity has a long term future in
       space.

That's not the impression the articles left with me.  I felt that the
authors were generally in favor of much more space activity, but were
expressing a deep dissatisfaction with the way that current and past
spaceflight costs have been inflated because of the way NASA (as a
government agency) procures hardware.

       The very first paragraph of the article states that after the
       Challenger blew up, and "a few ritual resignations", that "the
       agency has 35 percent more money in its pocket.  After 20 years
       of lessons like that, failure is endemic in the U.S. Space
       program." This suggests that there have been a long series of
       major NASA blunders, each followed by an extra boost in funds.

"This suggests" nothing of the sort.  If you'd bothered to read the
entire article before commenting, you'd realize that the additional
money was money budgeted for missions that didn't take place.  NASA was
given a 1986 budget for N missions at X million dollars per mission.
Most of those N didn't fly so the money is still around for other uses.
This is a gross oversimplification, of course, but I believe the same
thing happened with Apollo 1 and Apollo 13.  Please note that I am *not*
proposing a conspiracy, just pointing out a fact of government
budgeting.

                                          It is almost as though the
       writer did not read his own article. An objective writer would
       have to state that the Soviets are clearly ahead. 

Being "ahead" in the spaceflight game is like MIPS in the computer
field.  It is a term that means whatever the writer thinks/hopes/wants
you to believe that it means.  I usually take the extended use of either
expression as an indicator that the user is hand-waving.

       After more glowing description of the "backward" Soviets, we are
       told "The shuttle had no real mission, just a succession of
       errands; it was a way to keep men in space while we figured out
       what to do there."  This myth has been pounded out so many times
       I am weary from refuting it. The shuttle (or something like it)
       is absolutely essential to any large scale orbital activity.

It is not surprising that you are worn out from "refuting" the claim
that the Shuttle is a compromise vehicle, because it is difficult to
refute the truth.  The original NASA concept was: "We need a space
station to do anything useful in orbit.  Oh, and it'll be permanent, so
we'll also need some kind of truck to get stuff up there.  We'd like
that truck to be re-usable, so it'll be cheaper to run."  The Nixon
administration took this, and the cost estimate for it, and when the
dust settled, all that was left was the truck.  The truck was modified
to do some space-station-like things, and when the money got tight, the
DoD was persuaded to step in, and the truck was compromised again.  You
are absolutely correct when you say that something similar the Shuttle
is necessary for large-scale orbital activity.  In a perfect world, that
something sure wouldn't be a bastard vehicle like Shuttle, but that's
all we got, right now.

The Newsweek articles pointed out a lot of very valuable things, all of
which seem to have been lost on you.  It asked the question: "Why is
spaceflight so expensive?" which seems like one that should never be far
from the thoughts of anyone dedicated to getting humanity into space.
Sure, spaceflight costs because of physics, but the cost because of poor
design, or hidden political agendas is much, much greater.  That is a
fortunate state of affairs for you, because while it is unlikely (but
not impossible) that you, or I or anyone reading this can squeeze many
orders of magnitude out of the physical costs, there is a fairly good
chance that something can be done about the political costs of space
travel.  If you want to get people into space, wouldn't it be better to
work on those problems?  The Newsweek series was a potential opportunity
that you missed.  For a few minutes, during one week, every Newsweek
subscriber in the world actually thought about spaceflight.  If you
alone had been extrodinarily ambitious, you might have extended that
time.  If you, and all your friends, and all their freinds had been only
moderately ambitious, you might have had the same effect.  Would it have
done any good?  Perhaps.  Who knows?  If you create a demand for cheap
spaceflight in a capitalist society, then you might actually find a
supply.

One of the disturbing things about the "space movement" is that most of
the activity of it's membership is directed toward arguing with each
other about trivial issues, rather than convincing people who can have
some effect.  I have been to meetings where a Fortune 500 executive sat,
bewildered and alone on the sidelines, while the "activists" argued with
each other about whether to call the Earth's major satellite the moon,
or the Moon.  Regardless of your political or economic leanings, I claim
that if you convince the CEO of each and every Fortune 500 company that
"Space is Good", you will have cheap spaceflight within a decade.  But I
don't think anyone in the "space movement" has ever even given it a
try.....  --Tom

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 87 14:03:12 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Re: Space Telescopes

in article <8708310414.AA08396@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") says:
> MacLeod made a comment about the HST being overtaken by ground based
> instruments, and the possibility that it wouldn't be launched.  I find
> that hard to swallow.  I don't think the techniques for getting rid of
> atmospheric distortion are panaceas. [...]

They are potentially very interesting, but you're right. Most of the
ones I've heard about require a bright star to guide on. The technique
is not proven yet, either (except maybe in a DoD installation, where
they have megabucks to throw at it to keep them working). I'm guessing
the techniques will be difficult in practice. There is some early work
on using a laser to scatter off the sodium layer in the atmosphere and
create your guide star to order.

> There's one kind of "telescope" that would work on the moon but not by
> itself in space: a neutrino detector. Neutrino detectors must be
> shielded by thousands of feet of rock to screen out cosmic rays. On
> the earth, cosmic ray nuclei interacting in the upper atmosphere
> produce pions that decay to neutrinos and muons, both of which cause
> background activity in the detector. On the moon, more pions will
> collide with nuclei in the regolith rather than decay, so the
> background activity will be lower. For this reason the moon will also
> be a good place to put a nucleon decay experiment (probably using
> liquid oxygen rather than water). An asteroid would also work, and the
> low gravity would make it easier to dig large caverns.

I don't understand - are you saying pions are produced only by an
atmospheric interaction? This I doubt. Or that, once produced in the
rock, they will produce fewer neutrinos because of the higher local
density and chance of collision? This I also doubt.

Given the large detection masses and depth of the cavern required,
it'll be impractical, and probably unnecessary for a very long time to
come. Even the Earth's natural radioactivity is pretty easy to exclude
from the counted events.
-- 

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu
      BITNET:  wyatt@cfa2
        SPAN:  17410::wyatt   (this will change in June)

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 87 23:05:03 GMT
From: amdcad!cae780!leadsv!meri@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Ernie Meri)
Subject: Space Telescope-proposals deadline extended

(Excerpts from the Lockheed MSC Star)
The deadline for amateur astronomers to submit proposals for observing
time on the NASA/LMSC Hubble Space Telescope has been extended from 1987
to June 1988. Amateurs are invited to compete for two to three hours of
observing time annually on this telescope.

  "Linking the deadline to the resumption of Space Shuttle operations -
now scheduled for June 1988 - will give amateur astronomers extra time
to submit their proposals," said Stephen Edberg, chairman of the Hubble
Space Telescope Amateur Astronomer Working Group. Edberg also stated
that "response from the amateur astronomer community on this project has
been very enthusiastic. We've received more than 450 unquires and all
show lots of imagination."

  "Serious amateur astronomers deserve a chance to use the most powerful
of astronomical instruments....it is likely that amateur projects will
yield important contributions to the field and amateurs would ask
refreshing new questions," said Riccardo Giacconi, director of the Space
Telescope Science Institute.

 For more information about submitting a viewing time proposal, send an
inquiry to:
	    American Association of Variable Star Observers
			25 Birch Street
		Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Sep 87 15:11:06
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 September 06 15:11:06 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 September 06 15:20:55 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: SN1987A pulsar already observed via neutrinos?

According to an article in Science News (1987.Aug.22), the neutrionos
observed earlier this year from SN1987A seem to have occurred at
intervals consistent with a period of 8.9 MS, such as would occur if they
were mostly generated from a hot spot on the surface of a neutron star
rotating with that period. In a few months the gas around the supernova
may thin enough to see the supernova remnant, predicted to be a neutron
star rotating at a similar rate, and we may receive optical or other EM
pulses and be able to compare that rotation rate (pulse rate) with the
earlier possibly-observed neutrino pulse rate (it should have slowed
slightly by then).

Too bad we don't have more kinds of space telescopes up there now to get
better observations. Good thing we DO have some up now.

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 87 23:42:58 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Mars Orbiter name - results

> Stickney		1	(Sorry - I don't recognize the reference)

If I recall correctly -- it's been a long time since I read about this
-- Asaph Hall, the discoverer of the Martian moons, almost gave up at
one point.  The moons are small and close in, not easy to see, and of
course he didn't know whether there were any or not.  His wife
encouraged him to persevere, which he did, successfully.  Her name was
Stickney.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 03:47:49 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Shuttle TPS

In response to my posting on ICs and NASA, where I also referred to
the Shuttle tiles as a dead-end technology, Eugene Miya writes:

> While I have no qualms about ICs (NASA really deserves no credit), and
> tiles have been replaced to a degree with some new technologies.  Back
> in the 1970s, I wonder what you would have suggested to keep a big
> flying rock cool?
> 
> We were given histories of our Center recently.  The tiles were
> developed at Ames (not the glue).  But what would you have suggested?
> Circulating fluids was proposed and rejected as too complex during the
> design.  I'm just trying to find out if you have a better way or
> whether you are being critical for argument's sake.
> 
>   eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

If I were faced with the requirement to keep a big flying rock cool, I
doubt that I could have come up with anything as good as--much less
better than--the tiles.  When I referred to them as "marvelous", I
wasn't being sarcastic.  They represent a brilliant technological
solution to a specific set of difficult requirements.

They are a dead-end technology nonetheless, because the requirements
they were designed to address were not grounded in reality.  They were
imposed by managers and bureaucrats operating more from considerations
of politics, image, and territorial interest, than engineering sense.

Achieving economical space transportation in no way required a vehicle
with the specifications of the Shuttle.  What it mainly required is what
we are still sorely lacking, 15 years later--a reusable booster.

There is nothing as frustratingly unproductive as working hard to solve
the wrong problem.

- Roger Arnold				..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 87 13:17:26 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utcsri!hogg@rutgers.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

In article <502@uop.UUCP> robert@uop.UUCP (Glen Fiddich) writes:
>now if they could put the propellant into a big cardboard tube, like
>in a model rocket...and stuff it up into the booster!! ;-)

Is that smiley face necessary?  Would it be possible to weld the SRBs
together empty, then lower cast segments of pure fuel (sans cardboard)
down from the top?  (That end's much easier to deal with.)

The immediately obvious problem with this is the necessary clearance
between the booster wall and the fuel.  How critical would that be?
Would the fuel start burning ``from both sides'' in an unpredictable and
unpleasant manner?  If so, would it be practical to inject some sort of
sealant around each segment to avoid that problem?

I somehow doubt that nobody at NASA has ever thought of this, so what
are the technical difficulties?

John Hogg ...!{seismo,utzoo}!csri.toronto.edu!hogg

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 21:29:00 GMT
From: irwin@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs


It would seem that if they can move the shuttle piggy back on a 747,
that they could haul the one piece boosters in the same fashion. Or
else, strap on some wings and tow them glider style, how much does
one of them weigh anyway? Now there is a use for the "Spruce Goose"
which I saw recently while on the west coast. :-) (320' wingspan)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #343
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Sep 87 06:20:04 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06988; Fri, 11 Sep 87 03:17:50 PDT
	id AA06988; Fri, 11 Sep 87 03:17:50 PDT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 87 03:17:50 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709111017.AA06988@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #344

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 344

Today's Topics:
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Rocket parts
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			   Re: Welded SRBs
			 The SRB lives again!
		       Re: The SRB lives again!
	       Re: More on Shuttle (Parts Don't bother)
		      Re: More on Shuttle Parts
			Re: Things aint so bad
    commercial space incentive, good idea but work out details now
    commercial space incentive, good idea but work out details now
		  Re: space news from July 20 AW&ST
			    NASA spinoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 15:42:18 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

in article <5227@ihlpa.ATT.COM>, animal@ihlpa.ATT.COM (D. Starr) says:
> In article <1406@ssc-vax.UUCP>, eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>> 
>> The reason for joints in the first place: When Thiokol was awarded
>> the contract for the Solid Rocket Motors, there had to be a way to
>> get them from Utah to Florida.
> 
> This leads to the fundamental question of what is a solid rocket plant
> doing in the middle of Utah?

Well, I live in Utah, and I know several people who work for Thiokol and
Hercules (another major solid rocket motor manufacturer based in Utah).
I know a lot more about the history of Hercules than I do about Thiokol,
I used to work for Hercules. Utah has a lot of mineral deposits. Mineral
deposits attract the mining and chemical industries.  Mining needs
explosives. Chemical companies make explosives. The military needs
explosives. Chemical companies start making explosives packed in the
kinds of containers that the military wants them in, things like shells
and bombs and rocket motors.

Thiokol did not build an SRB plant in Utah. They added a little tooling
to the existing HUGE plant they already had that had been built up over
at least 40 years.

My office is on the east bench of the Salt lake valley. If I walk over
to the southwest corner of my office and look west northwest, I can see
the Hercules plant and the Kennecott copper mine. I can see the mine all
the time, but a corner of the next building north cuts of the view of
the Hercules plant. Hercules started out making blasting powder for the
miners, then rifle powder for WWI, then...

Industrial plants of the size needed to build major rocket motors (or
anything else for that matter) are not created out of whole cloth for a
single project. They grow over time. The rocket plants in Utah have
their roots in a hundred years of history.

FYI: Thiokol manufactures the first stage for MX, Hercules has the third
stage, I think the second and fourth stages are built in california. The
MX stages are not very big, especially when compared to the SRB.

If you haven't stood next to an SRB segment, you have no idea how big
they really are.

Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 87 23:45:05 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Rocket parts

> ...  If I remember right, the orbiter main engines have one of the
> best specific impulse ratings around, and are re-usable (though that
> may be better once one is in space)...

Unfortunately, they are also extremely expensive, and not nearly as
reusable as they were originally supposed to be.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 87 23:49:53 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

> Is that smiley face necessary?  Would it be possible to weld the SRBs
> together empty, then lower cast segments of pure fuel (sans cardboard)
> down from the top?  (That end's much easier to deal with.)
> 
> The immediately obvious problem with this is the necessary clearance
> between the booster wall and the fuel.  How critical would that be?
> ...

Pretty critical.  Solid fuel has to be pretty thoroughly bonded to the
wall, not just close to it.  A modest bonding failure is thought to have
been the cause of the fireworks over Vandenberg early in 1986 that
grounded the big Titans for a year and a half.  (The photos in AW&ST did
indeed look like an enormous fireworks display -- that thing really
*blew*!)  I don't know a lot about the fine points of solid-rocket
design, but I doubt that it's workable.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 87 16:18:00 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utcsri!hogg@rutgers.edu  (John Hogg)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs

In article <163400021@uiucdcsb> irwin@uiucdcsb.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>It would seem that if they can move the shuttle piggy back on a 747,
>that they could haul the one piece boosters in the same fashion. Or
>else, strap on some wings and tow them glider style, how much does one
>of them weigh anyway?

>From ``The Space Shuttle Operator's Manual'', essential reading for the
Space Cadets of tomorrow:

	Orbiter weight (empty):  75 000 kg.
	SRB weight (at launch): 590 000 kg.

Nice idea, but I think that Dani Eder will turn thumbs down.  The real
answer is to build or refurbish the SRBs adjacent to a convenient body
of navigable water, and pay off Utah campaign contributors from some
other pork barrel.  The hard problems aren't technical.

John Hogg		...!{seismo,utzoo}!csri.toronto.edu!hogg

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 87 03:07:44 GMT
From: lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@AMES.ARPA  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Welded SRBs


Senator Jake Garn of Utah.

Who was originally planned to go up on 51L, apparently, with Christie
McAuliffe going up on the shuttle he went up on. Luckily for him, he was
in a hurry.  It would have been superb irony if he'd been on 51L as
planned.

Peter da Silva

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 87 00:31:23 GMT
From: amdahl!kim@ames.arpa  (Kim DeVaughn)
Subject: The SRB lives again!

Congratulations and thanks to all the Engineers, Scientists, and other
contributors from Morton-Thiokol, NASA, and elsewhere for the seemingly
successful 2-minute test firing of an SRB in Utah earlier today!

It was really GREAT to see one of those monsters roaring again!

/kim

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 30 Aug 87 21:23:03 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: The SRB lives again!
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

>Congratulations and thanks to all the Engineers, Scientists, and other
>contributors from Morton-Thiokol, NASA, and elsewhere for the seemingly
>successful 2-minute test firing of an SRB in Utah earlier today!
>It was really GREAT to see one of those monsters roaring again!

Just to let it be known (again).  Some of us are not happy with just a
horizontal test.  I work in the aero codes neither had any thing to do
with this or any say.  But I can pass this on.  My suggestion is use
hard copy next time, since most don't read this.

>[ just say NO! ]

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Sep 87 18:58:27 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: More on Shuttle (Parts Don't bother)
Newsgroups: sci.space

Brett writes:
>    I was suggesting the use of the shuttle main engines in other
>rocket designs when Henry Spencer made note that they were too
>expensive for the performance.

I have one thing to let you and the net know about SSME use in other
vehicles.  Don't bother.  Don't ask me for details, I am not allowed to
mention it beyond that (the issue is sensitive).  There may be some AIAA
papers from the yearly Reno Conference, but that's all I should say.

--eugene

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 87 15:21:20 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: More on Shuttle Parts

in article <1114@uw-nsr.UUCP>, brett@uw-nsr.UUCP (Brett Van Steenwyk) says:
> I was suggesting the use of the shuttle main engines in other rocket
> designs when Henry Spencer made note that they were too expensive for
> the performance.

Henry is right.

If you really want to build a cheap booster based on Space Shuttle
technology you are looking at the wrong engines. Start with the SRBs.
Design two motors based on a single SRB segment case and forward dome.
Design a fast burning high thrust grain and nozzle to match, and a long
burning low thrust grain and nozzle to match. To keep nozzle assemblies
simple and cheap use gas injection for thrust vectoring. Design an
interstage assembly that supports clustering.

What do you have? A set of motors that can be clustered and stacked to
make up boosters with a wide range of payloads and reasonable control
over max g loads. Also, existing handling, check out, transportation
systems, and tooling can be used with little or no modification.

> 		brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu
Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 19:10:16 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

> Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else
> presently has anything nearly as zippy...

Anything nearly as zippy, no.  This has nothing much to do with
usefulness, though.  The Soviet hardware consistently does almost
everything better than the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously.
Almost the only thing the Shuttle does better is return of payloads from
orbit -- something that it does only occasionally and which is no longer
seen as a major use for it.  (By the way, the Soviet shuttle is
apparently on the pad at Baikonur.)

> ...  Come on now, we know how to build expendable lift vehicles; there
> is no fundamental problem stamping out more Titans and designing a new
> heavy-lift vehicle.  A few years and a few billion dollars, and our
> short-term problems will be solved.

However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too much
and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way.  This is a big,
nasty, serious problem in both the short term and the long term.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 2 Sep 87 14:48:44
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: topaz.rutgers.edu!rubin@rutgers.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:commercial space incentive, good idea but work out details now

<MR> Date: 11 Aug 87 22:46:28 GMT
<MR> From: topaz.rutgers.edu!rubin@rutgers.edu  (Mike Rubin)
<MR> Subject: Re: Government in space

<MR> ... the government ...  What they *should* be doing is facilitating
<MR> private enterprise.  This means a guarantee of initial launch
<MR> business; an insurance setup (fully or quasi-public) that can
<MR> protect against Acts of Congress and other such external
<MR> impositions, as well as solve the thorny problem of accident
<MR> liability; loosening of antitrust and SEC regulations if necessary
<MR> (and certainly removal of the silly stuff like import duties from
<MR> orbit); and subsidy in the form of tax breaks only to counter
<MR> foreign subsidies.

This is a good start, you are on the right track, now we need to work
out the details. Do you like the "commercial space incentive act" or
whatever that was proposed a couple months ago, for the basic guaranteed
launch business? I pointed out the "thorny problem of accident
liability" and I see you agree it needs to be added to the basic
incentive, but we need a specific proposal for how the Government can
pick up the tab without being sucker for random fly-by-night company
that puts a payload on a worthless piece of junk and then gets paid when
it blows up as it always will, but without forcing a good-intentionned
company to take all the risk. Would Lloyds of London be willing to
provide insurance if they can inspect the technology being used? Would
the federal government be willing to provide the insurance if they get
to regulate the technology (or would that simply allow DoD and NASA to
effectively veto all private launch facilities like they do now?)? What
answer do you propose?? I agree with tax breaks, although the launch
subsidy would seem to subsume that, i.e. if the guaranteed launch
subsidy is large enough they don't need any additional assistance such
as tax breaks, unless you mean that for launching non-government
payloads the guaranteed launch subsidy is not applicable so the tax
break would be needed?

------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 87 17:24:17 GMT
From: ihnp4!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dennis Grittner)
Subject: commercial space incentive, good idea but work out details now

If the government facilitates 'private enterprise' through guarantees,
subsidies, insurance, etc. it isn't 'private enterprise'. Why even make
such a silly proposal?

Let's work toward having a good program without guarnateeing any
privateers their profits. If they want to take risk, let them - that's
'private enterprise'.

Dennis Grittner		City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
(612) 298-4402		Room 700, 25 W. 4th St. 55102
"Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!"

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 87 00:23:27 GMT
From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: space news from July 20 AW&ST

> Dept of Commerce's final rules on US commercial remote-sensing
> satellites give secretaries of State and Defense veto power over
> licensing applications and the power to suspend operations of
> licensees.  The government will also have the power to seize "any
> object, record, or report" from a private satellite operator, given
> "probable cause to believe" that it was being used in violation of the
> rules.

The US government's incredibly asinine, myopic and ultimately futile
stand on this issue is one of the many reasons I'm so glad there are
Western space programs and launch facilities that are completely
independent of the US.  Just who are they keeping secrets from? The
Soviets?

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 87 15:07:23 GMT
From: PT!k.gp.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay@cs.rochester.edu  (Donald Lindsay)
Subject: NASA spinoffs

>They were build by IBM Federal Systems Division, using a custom
>developed technology called ASLT ("Advanced Solid Logic Technology").
>ASLT was obsolete, or close to it, by the time the first Saturns flew.
>I don't think it ever saw application outside of the Apollo program.
>An expensive technological dead end--rather like those marvelous
>Shuttle thermal tiles are destined to become.
>- Roger Arnold				..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

IBM currently uses TCMs - Thermal Conduction Modules - in all its big
and midsize toys. They are a reasonably amazing interconnect/ packaging
technology, and I was under the impression that they grew out of ASLT.
The differences:
 - now they interconnect VLSI instead of whatever-it-was.
 - now they use 30-35 metal layers baked into a single ceramic, instead
	of one metal layer on each of 2 or 3 ceramic pieces. Gee,
	the little sandwich was cute.
 - now the ceramic is hundreds of cm**2 instead of 1 cm**2.
 - now they try (hard) to extract heat.

The similarities:
 - screening conductors onto ceramic
 - coping with the shinkage of green ceramic when fired
 - materials issues
 - flip-bonding issues - ovens, solder bumping, solder alloys

Sounds to me like ASLT was an attempt to push a mainstream technology.

	Don		lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu    CMU Computer Science

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #344
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 11 Sep 87 23:36:18 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA00994; Fri, 11 Sep 87 20:17:05 PDT
	id AA00994; Fri, 11 Sep 87 20:17:05 PDT
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 87 20:17:05 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709120317.AA00994@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #345

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 345

Today's Topics:
			    NASA spinoffs
		     CANOPUS Excerpts - July 1987
			    NASA spin offs
		      Space Technology Spinoffs
			    NASA Spin-offs
			     Hybrid IC's
			       Spinoffs
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 30 Aug 87 06:52:58 GMT
From: ece-csc!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!telesoft!roger@mcnc.org  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: NASA spinoffs

> >ASLT was obsolete, or close to it, by the time the first Saturns
> >flew.  I don't think it ever saw application outside of the Apollo
> >program.  An expensive technological dead end--rather like those
> >marvelous Shuttle thermal tiles are destined to become.
> 
> IBM currently uses TCMs - Thermal Conduction Modules - in all its big
> and midsize toys. They are a reasonably amazing interconnect/
> packaging technology, and I was under the impression that they grew
> out of ASLT..
>
> [description of differences and similarities elided]
>
> Sounds to me like ASLT was an attempt to push a mainstream technology.
> 	Don		lindsay@k.gp.cs.cmu.edu    CMU Computer Science

Hmm.  It would take more of a historian of IBM technology than I am to
say how much of TCM technology grew out of FSD's ASLT work and how much
came from independent development on the commercial components side.
The flip chip bonding was in use prior to ASLT, and the R&D on the
commercial components side was well funded by IBM itself, independent of
FSD.  But it's hard to imagine that the ASLT developments in materials
and tolerances didn't have an impact on the commercial side.

My original point was that ASLT focused on packaging technology, and not
on the technologies that were central to development of IC chips.  For
that program, at least, NASA deserves no credit for development of ICs.
But your point is well taken--the technology developed was almost
certainly NOT wasted, and it was inappropriate to label it a "dead end"
technology.

Hell, if we're lucky, maybe I'll be wrong about the Shutle tiles, too.

---
Roger Arnold				 ..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 87 13:44:02 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: CANOPUS Excerpts - July 1987

This is a posting of articles from CANOPUS for July 1987.  Three
articles are given by title only, and six in condensed form.  Material
in {braces} is from me.  I still regard these postings as experimental;
please e-mail any comments to me.  The complete CANOPUS is available
from me by e-mail; please specify which month you want and/or if you
want to be added to the regular mailing list.  Those on the mailing list
should receive the unabridged July issue very shortly; if not, please
let me know.

CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu).
Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS and
registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS widely,
either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do, however, please
send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many others receive
copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the National Space Science
Data Center.

{3 articles by title only.}
PERSONNEL:  Bartoe, Hinners, Townsend, Luest, Grage - can7872.txt - 7/7/87
STOFAN DEFENDS SPACE STATION COST ESTIMATES - can7874.txt - 7/13/87
{previously posted}
PERSONNEL - can7878.txt - 7/28/87  {JPL asst. lab. directors}

{6 condensed articles} PLANETARY ASTRONOMY RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENT -
CAN7871.TXT - 7/7/87

NASA has issued a "Research Announcement" for a planetary astronomy
program.  A total of 100 investigators will be selected under the $8
million program.  For funding evaluation in August proposals must be
submitted by July 31 to: Jurgen Rahe, NASA -- EL, Washington, DC 20546
(phone 205-453-1597). Other deadlines are Dec. 31 for evaluation in
February 1988 and July 31, 1988, for evaluation in August 1988.

PUBLICATIONS - can7873.txt - 7/7/87

Jet Propulsion Laboratory Annual Report for 1986. 

TRW 1986 "Space Log." Copies may be obtained by writing on letterhead
to: Editor, TRW Space Log, MS 135/1477, TRW Space & Technology Group,
One Space Park, Redondo Beach, CA 90278.

SIXTEENTH INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON SPACE TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE
 
The Sixteenth Symposium on Space Technology and Science (ISTS) will be
held at the Hokkaido University Conference Hall, Sapporo, Hokkaido, May
22-27, 1988.  This time, a special session will be held to present and
discuss emerging expectations for Hokkaido as Japan's new space port.

Inquiries regarding the Symposium should be addressed to:
               Ms. H. Sakurai, 16th ISTS Secretariat
               c/o Institute of Space and Astronautical Science
               4-6-1 Komaba, Meguro-ku
               Tokyo 153 JAPAN
 Telephone: 03-467-1111,Telex: J24550 (SPACE TKY), Facsimile: 03-485-6872
 
SHUTTLE NEWS

Recovery of the Space Shuttle booster design is "right on target,"
according to Design Team Manager John Thomas of NASA's Marshall Space
Flight Center. The next development motor firing is scheduled for August
at the Morton-Thiokol plant in Ogden, Utah. Meanwhile, the first of
three new main engines to be used in the STS-26 launch has been received
at the National Space Technology Laboratories in Bay St. Louis, Miss.,
for acceptance testing. A separate engine has been test fired in a
single 1,000- second run, the longest ever for the main engine. Shuttle
launches are to resume in June 1988.

ELECTRON BEAM OBSERVATION OPPORTUNITY - can7876.txt - 7/21/87

Ionospheric researchers will have the opportunity to conduct coordinated
radio, radar, and optical observations in conjunction with other
space-based electron beam experiments as part of the upcoming
Cooperative High- Altitude Rocket Gun Experiments (CHARGE) 3 rocket
flight in November 1988 at White Sands Missile Range.  The flight will
be particularly interesting because of the high power planned for the
electron gun (3.5 kV at 5 A).

Interested investigators may contact Brian Gilchrist, STAR
Laboratory/SEL, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305-4055
(SPAN:STAR::GILCHRIST, telephone:415-725- 1637 or leave a message at
415-723-3687).

RESEARCH ANNOUNCEMENTS - can7877.txt - 7/28/87  {last article}

The National Aeronautics and Space Administration has issued two
"Research Announcements" for activities in the planetary sciences.

The first is the Planetary Instrument Definition and Development Program
(PIDDP). Its purpose "is to define and develop a variety of measurement
techniques and spacecraft instruments for remote sensing, in situ
analysis, and radio science investigations in order to prepare for
planetary missions that may take place between the present and the year
2000," according to the PIDDP Announcement.

The NRA recommends the Solar System Exploration Committee reports,
"Planetary Exploration Through the Year 2000, A Core Program" and
"Planetary Exploration Through the Year 2000, An Augmented Program," as
references. Although instruments for the Magellan, Mars Observer, and
Comet Rendezvous/Asteroid Flyby missions have been selected, the NRA
suggests that other "proposals to define or develop instruments for
[other missions outlined in the reports] would be appropriate."

The Lunar Observer, Cassini Saturn Orbiter/Titan Probe, Mars Soil Sample
Return/Rover, Comet Nucleus Sample Return missions are suggested as
possible front runners. The NRA also directed attention to a report on
"Trajectory Determination and Collection of Micrometeroids on the Space
Station, Lunar and Planetary Institute Report 86-05.

The second NRA is for work in the planetary geology and geophysics
program, and includes cartography, and geologic mapping. Work may
include laboratory, theoretical, and Earth analog studies of the
surfaces and interiors of planets and of their evolution. Work may cover
laboratory experimentation, photointerpretation, theoretical,
analytical, field and comparative studies. Included is the Mars
1:500,000 mapping project. "Modest" requests for imaging and non-imaging
data will be supported.

-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123          Bitnet: willner@cfa2
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                     ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date:         Wed, 02 Sep 87 11:20:04 EDT
From: Al Lester <ALESTER%UGA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      NASA spin offs

COSMIC is the NASA Software Management and Information Center located at
the University of Georgia. At this time we have almost 1200 programs
developed by NASA. We have programs dealing with expert systems, image
processing, control systems and robotics, structural analysis and
CAD/CAM just to mention a few.  Feel free to contact me for additional
information or help. Phone: 404-542-3265

------------------------------

Date: 4 September 1987, 10:42:30 EDT
From: Joshua Knight <JOSH@ibm.com>
Subject:  Space Technology Spinoffs

 amelia!msf@ames.arpa  (Michael S. Fischbein) writes:
 >
 >  roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:
 > >In SLT, conductor patterns and resistors were screened and fired onto
 > >
 > >An expensive technological dead end--rather like those marvelous
 > >Shuttle thermal tiles are destined to become.
 >
(1.
 > The SLT and ASLT sound a lot like the forerunners of the TCM chip
 >
(2.
 > Is that an application outside of the Apollo program?
 >

(1. Indeed and (2. Yes.  For a review of IBM packaging technology see:

 IBM J R&D Vol. 27, No. 1, January 1983, "Manufacturing Technology
   - Packaging" is the topic for the entire issue.

 IBM J R&D Vol. 26, No. 3, May 1982, "Packing Technology" is the
   topic for the entire issue.

 IBM J R&D Vol. 26, No. 1, January 1982, "IBM 3081 System Development
   Technology" is the topic fof the entire issue, in particular:
 "Thermal Conduction Module:  A High-Performance Multilayer Ceramic
  Package" by A.J. Blodgett and D.R. Barbour, pp. 30-36.

 IBM J R&D Vol. 25, No. 5, September 1981, 25th Anniversary Issue,
   in particular:
 "Electronic Packaging Evolution in IBM" by D.P. Seraphim and
   I. Feinberg, pp. 617-629.

Although there is no specific mention of ASLT in any of these articles,
it is clear from these and other articles that the technology for C4
(controlled collapse chip connection) is constantly being refined and
the ASLT work no doubt contributed to the further development of the
technology.  This chip mounting technique is used not only in the "high
end" TCMs but also in all MCMs (multi-chip ceramic modules) that are
used in the manufacture of mid-range systems, e.g. the 4381.

As others have mentioned, development of special products, often from
scratch, causes people to think in ways that they might not for more
"standard" products.  This can lead to innovations that would otherwise
probably not have been developed.  However, this type of "spinoff" is
very difficult to evaluate.

Sorry this is so long and marginally space related.

Josh Knight (josh@ibm.com josh@yktvmh.bitnet)

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 04 Sep 87 14:40:03 EDT
From: Al Lester <ALESTER%UGA.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      NASA Spin-offs

COSMIC Presents a NASTRAN Beginners Workshop

COSMIC announces the one-week NASTRAN Beginners Workshop, taught by
Myles Hurwitz, lecturer and consultant.  He has been involved with
NASTRAN since 1970 and has taught more that 30 introductory and advanced
classes.

The workshop is scheduled for November 2-6, 1987 on the University of
Georgia campus in Athens.

The course is designed to allow participants as much hands-on experence
with NASTRAN as possible; one-third of the sessions are devoted to
workshops with participants setting up and solving problems.

For additional information please contact Nan Hull at COSMIC, the NASA
Software Management and Information Center. Phone: 404-542-3265

------------------------------

Date:           Fri, 4 Sep 87 15:22:00 PDT
From: Dana Myers <bilbo.dana@cs.ucla.edu>
Subject:        Hybrid IC's

  Hybrid IC's are very popular these days. Many Analog to Digital (ADC)
products are made using hybrid technology. I know that the ignition
control units in all of the modern Japanese motorcyles use a big hybrid
to set the parameters.  Some circuit board assemblies are constructed
using "reflow" soldering, which is the method those "SLT" and "ASLT"
circuits were built with. A PS/2 mother board is built this way...

  Though NASA may have developed some obsolete technology, the generic
technology involved in making hybrid IC's is not obsolete or useless.

Dana H. Myers

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 5 Sep 87 13:52 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Spinoffs
To: sundc!hadron!cos!smith@seismo.css.gov, space@angband.s1.gov

I said:
>>The Apollo program paid the economy back, ignoring spinoffs?
>>Unlikely, unless you assign a very high value to data about lunar
>>geology.

Steve Smith said:
> Like most people, you are confusing "NASA" and "the Apollo program".

No, I'm not.  If I had meant the space program as a whole, I would have
said that.  The message I was responding to (from G. Gleason) talked
about "research prompted by the needs of the Apollo program".

>>it seems obvious that R&D targeted at specific terrestrial application
>>areas (microelectronics, energy, biotechnology, for example) should
>>have a much higher spinoff potential than R&D targeted at space.

>This is true if you subscribe to the "bean counter" school of research.
>Research into, say, integrated circuits will produce slightly better
>integrated circuits with a high enough probability to satisfy the
>accountants.  Its chance of coming up with a real breakthrough (say,
>something that makes integrated circuits obsolete) is negligable.

Bean counters can be harder to snow, which makes them unpopular. Is NASA
research is going to accidently discover something that could make ICs
obsolete (or something similarly impressive)? I seriously doubt it. I
know of no evidence they've done anything of the sort.

>Note that space research is extremely technology intensive.  A solution
>to a problem usually has to be built from scratch - giving lots more
>opportunity for inventiveness.

(What does "extremely technology intensive" mean: very expensive?) Space
research also gives you lots of opportunities for inventing technologies
that are so specialized they are only useful in space. Can you give me
some examples of breakthrough technologies that were invented
exclusively for the space program?

>REAL research (that with no obvious short or medium term payoff) is the
>equivalent of seed corn - eat your seed corn and you do just fine - for
>a while.  What will be the next big payoff area?  I wish I knew.

Of course I support basic research. But NASA spends only a small
fraction of its budget on this (an increasing fraction, I hope).
Running a trucking service to orbit is not basic research.

> Other aspects of the space program have paid off in enough green and
> crinkly to make worry about spinoffs an acedemic excercise.  The
> obvious big two are weather satellites and communications satellites.
> Care to estimate the value of satellite communications?

You are trying to slip under the door the assumption that comsats would
not have happened, or would have been delayed, without the Apollo
program. I don't buy that. The first comsat was privately built. The
ability to launch unmanned payloads into space would have been developed
even if Kennedy hadn't wanted to land men on the moon. We might have had
cheaper boosters sooner if so much engineering talent and resources had
not been consumed by the Apollo program.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #345
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Sep 87 07:06:02 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01653; Sat, 12 Sep 87 03:16:58 PDT
	id AA01653; Sat, 12 Sep 87 03:16:58 PDT
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 03:16:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709121016.AA01653@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #346

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 346

Today's Topics:
		    CANOPUS Excerpts - August 1987
		   NASA 'Tethers in Space Handbook'
	     Storage costs for the Hubble Space Telescope
	   Re: Storage costs for the Hubble Space Telescope
		      Re: Apollo Command Module
			   Memo for Kremvax
       Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 87 15:48:27 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: CANOPUS Excerpts - August 1987

This is a condensation of CANOPUS for August 1987.  Two articles are
given by title only, four in condensed form, and one short one in
full.  Material in {braces} is from me.  The unabridged CANOPUS is
available from me by e-mail; please specify which month you want
and/or if you want to be added to the regular mailing list.  Those on
the mailing list should receive the August issue very shortly; if
not, please let me know.  Expect the September excerpts to be posted
early in October.

A few responses to these postings have shown confusion over who is
responsibe for items reported.  Please note that neither the CANOPUS
editors nor I am responsible for statements quoted from reports or
from other individuals.  The editors of CANOPUS are responsible for
choosing items to cover and for the accuracy of quotations and
summaries.  I am responsible for choosing lengths of condensed
articles and for errors in the (sometimes drastic) condensations.  By
all means let's have discussion and criticism, but please try to keep
straight who is responsible for what.

CANOPUS is published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.  Send correspondence about its contents to the executive 
editor, William W. L. Taylor (taylor%trwatd.span@star.stanford.edu).
Send correspondence about business matters to Mr. John Newbauer, AIAA,
1633 Broadway, NY, NY 10019.  Although AIAA has copyrighted CANOPUS
and registered its name, you are encouraged to distribute CANOPUS
widely, either electronically or as printout copies.  If you do,
however, please send a brief message to Taylor estimating how many
others receive copies.  CANOPUS is partially supported by the
National Space Science Data Center.

{Two articles by title only}
CHANGE OF LOCATION OF CANOPUS STORIES FOR COPYING - can8871.txt - 8/3/87
RIDE REPORT STRESSES PLANETARY EXPLORATION - can8873.txt - 8/23/87
{This article already posted in full.  I've requested a copy of the full
Ride report and will post my own summary if that seems worthwhile.}

{Four condensed articles plus short one in full}
SPACE STATION AUTOMATION CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT - can8872.txt - 8/7/87
{condensed - speakers' names omitted}

Announcement: Space Station Automation III conference will be held at
Cambridge, MA on Nov 1-6, 1987 in conjunction with SPIE Advances In 
Intelligent Robotics System Symposium and IECON '87. The Space Station 
Automation III cooperating organizations are: American Association for 
Artificial Intelligence, IEEE Robotics and Automation Council, and NASA.


HINNERS NAMED NASA CHIEF SCIENTIST - can8875.txt - 8/24/87 {condensed}

Effective Aug. 24, Noel Hinners will serve as the NASA chief
scientist in addition to his responsibilities as associate deputy
administrator/institutions.  Frank McDonald, who has been chief
scientist since September 1982, will return to the Goddard Space
Flight Center as associate director/chief scientist.

SUBORBITAL ACTIVITIES - can8876.txt - 8/25/87  {condensed}

Goddard Space Flight Center has selected New Mexico State
University's Physical Science Laboratory at Las Cruces for
negotiations on a contract to operate the National Scientific
Ballooning Facility in Palestine, Texas. The contract comprises a
$26.1 million, 3-year base plus two 1-year options worth $9.5 and
$9.9 million each. The contract had been held by the University
Center for Atmospheric Research.

Recent sounding rocket launches at White Sands, N.M., include
{Nike-Orion for ionosphere probe, Nike-Black Brant VC for solar wind
studies, and Black Brant IX for X-ray imaging of the solar corona.}

A series of three rockets and two balloons was launched July 26-
27 at Wallops (Island, Va.) Flight Facility for the Wave Induced 
Particle Precipitation (WIPP) campaign studying natural and 
manmade plasma waves and their effects on the ionosphere. 

MARS STUDIES - can8877.txt - 8/25/87  {unabridged but short}

Martin Marietta Corp. and FMC have been selected by CalTech/JPL for
final negotiation of parallel $250,000 studies of Mars surface rover
mobility and rendezvous. The one-year studies are to start in
September. A team to be selected by Johnson Space Center will address
aerocapture of the carrier spacecraft and landing.  Martin Marietta
built the Viking landers and orbiters.  FMC is best known as a
builder of military assault vehicles.

SPACE TELESCOPE AMATEUR ASTRONOMERS RECEIVE PROPOSAL EXTENSION - can8874.txt
- 8/24/87  {condensed but long; last article}

Deadline for amateur astronomers to submit proposals for observing
time on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope has been extended from 1987 to
June 1988, according to Stephen J. Edberg, Chairman of the Hubble
Space Telescope Amateur Astronomer Working Group.

Edberg said that "response from the amateur astronomer community on
this project has been enthusiastic. We've received more than 450
inquiries about the amateur astronomer participation project, and the
proposals we are getting show lots of imagination."  

Amateur astronomers were invited to compete for 2 to 3 hours
observing time annually on NASA's Hubble Space Telescope last year by
NASA officials and Space Telescope Science Institute's Director,
Riccardo Giacconi. Giacconi believes serious amateur astronomers
"deserve a chance to use the most powerful of astronomical
instruments," and emphasized that "it is likely amateur projects will
yield important contributions to the field and amateurs would ask
refreshing new questions".

Inquiries about how amateurs submit proposals for viewing time on
Hubble Space Telescope should be sent to: American Association of
Variable Star Observers, 25 Birch Street, Cambridge, Mass., 02138

The association is one of seven amateur astronomical organizations
that make up the Hubble Space Telescope Amateur Astronomers Working
Group. The others are: Association of Lunar and Planetary Observers,
Astronomical League, Independent Space Research Group, International
Amateur-Professional Photoelectric Photometry, International
Occultation Timing Association, and Western Amateur Astronomers.
-- 
Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123          Bitnet: willner@cfa2
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                     ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 87 14:51:42 GMT
From: eagle!csw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (C.S.Welch)
Subject: NASA 'Tethers in Space Handbook'

I'm interested in obtaining a copy of the NASA 'Tethers in Space
Handbook'.  I'd be greatful if someone out there could tell me the
correct place in the U.S. to write to, and what price the book itself
and the postage are. This would save me having to wait for two way
transatlantic communications to take place before I could actually order
said tome.

I'll say thanks now as I can't mail the USA, only post to newsgroups.

Cheers,

Chris Welch,
Cranfield Institute,
U.K.

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 87 23:52:03 GMT
From: jumbo!stolfi@decwrl.dec.com  (Jorge Stolfi)
Subject: Storage costs for the Hubble Space Telescope

I have read in a recent Sky & Telescope and other places that it costs
about $7,000,000 a month to keep the Hubble Space Telescope in storage.

Is this just for storage (as the references seem to imply), or does
this include the costs of keeping alive other pieces of the project,
such as the Space Telescope Institute?  

If it is just for storage, then why does it cost so much? I can believe
the HST requires a controlled environment and periodic care, but
$7,000,000 a month seem a bit too much. Maybe they scrub the mirror 
three times a day with diamond-encrusted gold scouring pads? :-)

  Jorge Stolfi
  stolfi@src.dec.com, ...!decvax!decwrl!stolfi
  Usual claimers and disclaimers implied.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "There's a lot more to do in space than sending people to Mars." --Bova
  "There's a lot more to do in space than sending people." --Me
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 13:23:39 GMT
From: fritz@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Fritz Benedict)
Subject: Re: Storage costs for the Hubble Space Telescope

In article <922@jumbo.dec.com>, stolfi@jumbo.dec.com (Jorge Stolfi) writes:
> I have read in a recent Sky & Telescope and other places that it costs
> about $7,000,000 a month to keep the Hubble Space Telescope in
> storage.

The storage itself is not that much. Paying the hundreds of experts who
are necessary for the safe awakening and final testing of HST before it
is shipped to Canaveral for launch is the major cost factor. If NASA
doesn't keep these people on the payroll, they go work someplace else.
Their expertise is lost. The probability of HST scientific success
drops.  Finally, we scientist types begin to rend our garments and make
the lives of NASA managers not worth living ( 8-) ).

The HST Science Institute budget is not part of the $7M.

Fritz Benedict

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 22:53:25 GMT
From: mike@AMES.ARPA  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo Command Module

In article <369@ncspm.ncsu.edu> jay@ncspm.UUCP (Jay Smith) writes:
>In article <2545@ames.arpa> mike@ames.UUCP (Mike Smithwick) writes:
>>Ignore the gold color on the large Monogram model.
>
>Then why is the CM of the Apollo-Soyuz backup CSM on display at the Air
>& Space Museum gold?  Is my memory failing, or my color vision faulty,
>or could it be the lighting at the museum?

I was at the A/S museum a couple of years ago, but don't remember the
gold on the CM. I saw one of the ASTP CSM trainers at the Hutcheson
Cosmosphere in Kansas about 5 years ago, and it was the appropriate
silver mylar. My guess is that perhaps the silver was merely dirty (not
surpising, considering the lack of care those things recieve once on
display) or possibly discolored due to the sunlight from those awful
windows next to it. But the REAL color of the Apollo lunar CSMs is in
fact silver. The Skylab versions had some sort of white insulation over
the back part of the craft.

Cheers!

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 87 00:17:32 GMT
From: jaw@AMES-AURORA.ARPA  (James A. Woods)
Subject: Memo for Kremvax

The circular below has gotten a few snickers in our workplace ...

	National Aeronautics and Space Administration
	
	Ames Research Center
	Office of the Associate Director
						August 26, 1987
	TO:  All Organizational Directors
	
	Dr. Shapley, Associate Administrator-Policy at Headquarters, has
	notified the International Relations Division that, reportedly,
	invitations from the Soviet Union are being sent to Key
	Individuals at various NASA Centers, asking that these
	individuals participate in the "30th Anniversary of the First
	Sputnik".  The catch...  at the time of this celebration there
	will also be a Forum to discuss future Space Science
	Technology".
	
	Staff members at Ames are *not to accept* any invitations
	pending further guidance from the State Department.
	
	In addition...anyone receiving an invitation should submit their
	name, title, and office affiliation to their respective
	Directorate Offices, who, in turn, will report it to me.
	
	(signed)
	
	Jack D. Stanley

...  I think I'm safe, never having had the chance to give away
(or sell) space secrets to Big Brothers of any stripe.  To belabor the
point, talking to Ivan would be a bit like like telling Yehudi Menuhin
how to play violin.

     For a real sneaky public relations turnaround, though, the U.S.S.R.
ought to train ace pilot Mathias Rust as a cosmonaut, in lieu of him
serving a sentence.  That positive-think countercoup would surely get us
back!

     -- James Alien (ames!jaw, or jaw@ames-aurora.arpa)

------------------------------

Date: 26 Aug 87 19:43:06 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article

In article <3005@mtgzz.UUCP>, dls@mtgzz.UUCP (d.l.skran) writes:

>                             Newspeak in Orbit
>        A Review of The Newsweek Article on the Space Program(8/17/87)
>                      Copyright 1987 Dale L. Skran Jr.
>                  Part I, America Grounded, by Larry Martz

> <I've deleted the text of Dale's article.  This is not meant to be a
way of selectively adjusting information; I'm just trying to keep this
as short as possible.  My $0.02 is worth just $0.02, and I don't want to
tie up the net with a monster article.  If I replied to each of Dale's
points individually, this posting would be ridiculously long.  It's too
long as it is.  If you read Dale's article, you should remember the
basic ideas he presented>

When I first started reading Dale's article, I was delighted.  I was
hoping for some careful analysis of the _Newsweek_ articles in
sci.space.  I found some things in the _Newsweek_ article I thought were
incorrect or badly presented--not to mention some questionable
theories--and wanted to see what the sci.space experts had to say about
all this.

Dale did a terrific job of analyzing the article.  He pointed out quite
a number of goofs--some considerable--and many lapses in logic presented
in Martz' _Newsweek_ article.  I commend his exceptional work in finding
the errors, inconsistencies, and bad ideas.

Unfortunately, as I read further, he lost all my support.  He begins
using the same tactics of which he accuses the media.  His basic
conclusion is that it's all the media's fault.  This is a sweeping
generalization that is so over-simplistic it appears Dale is looking for
an easy target to blame things on.  The explanation as to why things are
wrong is not a simple one.  Many things have gone wrong and continue to
go wrong.  There's plenty of fault to go around.  NASA, the Congress,
the contractors, the beancounters, the engineers, the fund-cutters, the
politicians, the bureaucrats, the space freaks, the public, the voters,
AND the media; we are all are to blame.

Dale tells us what Martz' opinions about space REALLY are.  I wasn't
aware that Dale had mastered the art of remote psychoanalysis.  I
believe what Dale tells me about Dale's opinions, but I don't think he's
an expert on anybody else's--particularly when his thoughts on Martz'
opinions are in direct contradiction to what Martz says Martz' opinions
are.  Dale also extrapolates his ideas about Martz to ALL journalists.
Why doesn't he just ask them for their opinions, rather than presenting
his own ideas about what they are?  I don't want anybody speaking for
me--I can present my own opinions, thank you, and I am offended when I
see Dale telling me what my opinions REALLY are.  Dale gives us the REAL
motivation behind those who oppose the Shuttle and/or Station; again, an
unsubstantiated theory arrived at through the "guilt by association"
method.  Something akin to "they're against vanilla, therefore they must
be against ice cream".

Dale accuses the media of having "little minds".  Well, we're all human,
and we sometimes act that way.  Sometimes I have a "little mind", and
sometimes Dale does too.  Dale then rattles off the reasons why the
media reports space the way they do.  From considerable experience, I
know that his ideas about this are turned 180 degrees from reality.
Dale has given us his opinion about how editing decisions are made, and
then expects us to accept his opinion simply based on face value.  He
gives no evidence whatsoever to support his claims--exactly what he
bitterly accuses Martz of doing.  Editing decisions within the media are
made in a very complex framework and involve incredibly painful value
judgements.  After being involved with the process for many years, I
have nothing but respect for the men and women journalists who struggle
with these overwhelming decisions every day.  Of course, bad decisions
are often made, and there are many bad editors/reporters/etc. in the
field.  In general, I'd agree that the media has often done a
fair-to-poor job of covering space, but there are many exceptions.  The
news media is doing a job the best way they know how.  When they make
mistakes, it's the responsibility of those who discover the mistakes to
make sure that those responsible are aware of the errors.  I always do.
The media doesn't want to make mistakes or distort information, but
they're humans and sometimes it happens.  A lot of time they're just not
aware of their errors, but people like Dale would rather spout venom
than try to work to deal with the situation.  Journalists appreciate
constructive criticism and suggestions (in general, of course--not ALL
do).  And like other human beings, they don't lend much credence to
inflammatory personal attacks on their philosophies or motivations.  Any
editor of a major news organization will tell you about the thousands
and thousands of readers/viewers that complain about the "waste of
time/ink" anytime ANY space story is run.  Many news people (Cronkite,
Bergman, to name just a couple) have had to wage a never-ending battle
with producers (who answer "only" to the public's opinions as reflected
in ratings) to get any space coverage at all.

Dale ends with a list of six myths about space perpetuated by the news
media.  He neglects to mention that this list is entirely his personal
concoction, and he supplies no evidence whatsoever to back the validity
of his list.  I kept saying "huh?" each time I read an item on the list.
Now I will grant that Dale is far more qualified than I to discuss the
details of the space program.  I will further grant that he is also more
qualified to find mistakes made by the news media concerning space.  But
he has no special qualifications to "tell" us what the media has REALLY
been telling us.  I found no evidence whatsoever within my personal
experience to substantiate his list; if anything, I would probably come
to six opposite conclusions.  I'm sorry, but if you accuse someone of
having ulterior motives, you'd better be prepared with some ammunition
for your charges.

Further, it's my opinion that, despite the errors, the _Newsweek_
article will have an overall positive effect.  The average man in the
street couldn't care less about space, and this article will help to
wake some folks up.  The mainstream opinion is "we went to the moon--so
there!"; the general public needs to be informed that there's more to
the story than that.  The general idea presented by _Newsweek_ is that
things are not good.  This is new information to the average person, and
the article's errors will not have a major impact on the public, who
doesn't bother to let the text sink in anyway.  The cover of the
magazine, with the bold "Lost in Space" typeface, will have far greater
impact than the text inside.  Isn't that the message that we're all
trying to present--that things are not good and that something needs to
be done?  Exactly what it is that needs to be done is not as important
as getting people to realize the basics.  I notice quite an argument
within sci.space about our next steps in space. But doesn't everybody at
least agree that if everybody in the US read sci.space--even with all
the arguments--that the general result would be positive?  I feel that
this _Newsweek_ article will create greater interest in the subject
within the media itself as well.  This could lead to more stories, more
interest, more correction of errors, more discussion, and so on.
Contrary to Dale's opinion, I believe that this _Newsweek_ article could
very well be the shot in the arm that space needs.  SOMETHING will get
the ball rolling again, and it certainly won't be Dale's anti-media
diatribe.

I apologize for the length of this posting, as well as its
semi-relevance to sci.space (something I have been guilty of before).
But I refuse to allow Dale's charges to go unanswered.  His work at
pointing out the _Newsweek_ errors was fine.  But when he launches his
political opinions on how the media are a bunch of devious little
idiots, I must speak out.  Neither engineers nor journalists are
perfect, but they must work together if we are to explore space.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1) =-=-=-=-=-=-= UUCP:ihnp4!dartvax!brspyr1!miket
BRS Information Technologies, 1200 Rt. 7, Latham, N.Y. 12110  (518) 783-1161

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #346
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 12 Sep 87 23:18:01 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02583; Sat, 12 Sep 87 20:16:24 PDT
	id AA02583; Sat, 12 Sep 87 20:16:24 PDT
Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 20:16:24 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709130316.AA02583@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #347

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 347

Today's Topics:
       Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article
		  Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"
			  Things aint so bad
	   Re: Things aint so bad (and Government in space)
	   Re: Things aint so bad (and Government in space)
    CANOPUS, office of exploration, why just Moon&Mars emphasis??
		    Ride report on NASA priorities
		   Dale Skran's "newspeak in orbit"
			     Moon Colony
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 87 06:49:29 GMT
From: ihnp4!cuae2!killer!elg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Eric Green)
Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article

in article <1714@brspyr1.BRS.Com>, miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) says:
> Unfortunately, as I read further, he lost all my support.  He begins
> . . . 

Well, there were bad things about the Newsweek articles. And there were
good things about the article. For example, it pointed out the absolute
ridiculousness of trying to supply a space station of the scale proposed
with a fleet of only 4 or 5 shuttles, and the expense involved. And
eventually proposed a cheaper method of getting all that stuff into
space, and basically relegate the shuttle to passenger-carrier duties.
By which I refer to the "Big Dumb Booster" concept. Off-hand, it sounds
reasonable. I have always been irritated with applying complex solutions
to simple problems, of which building a functioning rocket certainly is
simple (see Henry Spencer's description of the Chinese "Long March"
system in the last AWS&T summary, the ultimate in "crude and simple").

The question is whether the cost reductions envisioned really are
possible. My initial reaction is "Yes". We don't need all those exotic
alloys and super-thin skins just to improve the efficiency of the
rocket, if a bigger but less efficient rocket could be built for much
less.  The savings in process costs (no problem welding aluminum &
steel, like there is with "exotics", auto industry does it all the
time!) would far offset the increase in raw materials needed to build a
bigger lower stage to offset the increased weight of the "skin". After
all, when you're talking aluminum and steel, you're talking about a very
minor part of the cost of the rocket. The manpower to turn them out,
test them, service them, and launch them is the main cost.  The
"build-it-simple" approach reduces testing and servicing costs, as well
as manufacturing costs, simply because there's less to go wrong!

If we can advocate KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) when it comes to
computer software, why not with rocketry? Whenever I hear stories about
how complex the Shuttle is, I really get quite perturbed, because there
really isn't all that much involved in building a simple functional
rocket. Even control systems can be made fairly simply nowadays, with
today's microprocessor technology controlling whatever your favorite
system is (swivelling engines, course-correction rockets, or what have
you). Of course, any people-carrying vehicle will HAVE to be more
complex in design than a cargo-carrying one, because of life-support
considerations, but still, there's really no excuse for the current
Shuttle design, which basically is a two-stage rocket (counting boosters
and fuel tank as a "stage", which is really stretching things), with
(horror of horrors) the main engine cluster being carried all the way
into orbit (thus the need for the main engines to be small, light, and
ultra-high efficiency, and thus complex and hard to manufacture).

In other words, we need the simplest possible working solution,
amortized over 90 launches per year (a' la' USSR), instead of all the
hi-tech "Shuttle-derived" technologies that are being pushed by the
aerospace industries. Flying a Shuttle to deliver communications
satellites to orbit is like buying a Cray ][ for word processing. A
<insert favorite microcomputer here> does the job just as well, for a
heckuva lot less money.  And flying a Shuttle to deliver the massive
quantities of raw material needed for a sizable space station, is about
as rational as chartering a Concorde to fly 50 tones of food to the
starving in Ethopia... you're gonna be making a helluva lot of trips to
deliver an amount of food that would have gotten there much faster and
cheaper on any old tramp freighter that happened to be lying around.

Eric Green   elg@usl.CSNET

------------------------------

Date: 29 Aug 87 23:39:30 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Newsweek Magazine tells "ALL"

> >I have some reservations about the Newsweek articles -- the reporting
> >is slanted to the point of borderline lying in places -- but on the
> >whole I too recommend them.
> 
> Let's have some details. I want to know where the articles were
> slanted or misleading. I thought that they were cynical, but not that
> biased.

I was thinking more of the second article (about the Big Dumb Booster)
than the first one.  I pretty much agree with Dale Skran's comments on
the first one.  In the second one, basically the reporting was quite
one-sided.  In places this did indeed reach the point of borderline
lying.

Case in point: the F-1 main engines of the Saturn V were *not* super-
sophisticated by mid-1960s standards.  They were fancy compared to the
BDB concept's engines, but the F-1 was a very ordinary, almost obsolete,
engine by the normal standards of the time.  This was deliberate; Del
Tischler and the others involved in setting the specs felt (correctly)
that the sheer size of the engine was ample challenge and that trying to
push the state of the art in other ways would be a mistake.

This was the grossest case, but there were several other places where I
said "now wait a minute, that point is open to debate".  (I would be
more specific but the article isn't handy right now.)  I would say that
the article's technical pronouncements should be taken with a grain of
salt, but otherwise I think it's okay.

"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 31 Aug 87 17:49:26 GMT
From: craig@think.com  (Craig Stanfill)
Subject: Things aint so bad

Bashing the U.S.  space program seems to be very much in vogue these
days.  Our long-term position, it has been claimed, has badly
deteriorated, this being a result of short-sighted policy making.

I beg to disagree.

The problems in our current space program are not the result of
short-sightedness so much as long-sightedness on the part of NASA
coupled with blindness on the part of Congress; our problems are not so
much long-term as short-term.

What do I mean?

Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else
presently has anything nearly as zippy.  This is an important long-term
asset.  The problem is that it is not as good in the short-term as had
been billed; NASA oversold the STS as the sole solution to our near-term
orbital needs.  This led to the disasterous policy of scrapping our
expendible launch capability.

I speculate that this happened because of NASA's judgement that, a
re-usable space transport is, in the long term, essential.  The problem
came about when NASA's vision came into collision with Congress's
blindness with respect to funding the space program; to get the shuttle
at all, they had to oversell it.  This also led to the Challenger
accident; NASA got out onto a limb in overselling the shuttle initially;
they were under intense pressure to deliver on their promises.  So, when
technical problems kept causing schedule slip, NASA got sloppy.

So where are we left?

We have some serious short-term (the next 5 years) problems; U.S. space
activity has ground to a halt, and will not recover for a while.
However, recovery is certain, provided sufficient money is forthcoming.
Come on now, we know how to build expendable lift vehicles; there is no
fundamental problem stamping out more Titans and designing a new
heavy-lift vehicle.  A few years and a few billion dollars, and our
short-term problems will be solved.

The real long-term problem is Congress: they have to realize that space
is the growth industry of the 21'st century; that we have certain short
term needs, but that if they don't provide enough money to solve both
short-term and long-term problems, one or the other will suffer.
Fortunately (or we would be in fundamentally bigger trouble than we are
now), NASA succeeded (in the 1970's) in keeping the focus on the long
term problems with the Shuttle program.

If congress forces NASA to focus on our short-term problems, but does
not provide sufficient money to attack both the short-term and
long-term, we are doomed to lose, and all our 30-year old space program
will have done is to have created yet another industry for the Japanese
to come in and kick our butts in.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 31 Aug 87 14:03:33 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad (and Government in space)
Newsgroups: sci.space.shuttle,sci.space

> Posting by some people on Governments in space and Privae Industry.

> Second posting about the "vision of NASA" and the short-sightedness of
> Congress.

Governments will (hopefully) always "be in space."  [Figurative and
literally.]  This is because we can't rely on private industry to do
everything.  My principal interest is exploration (as I am certain many
readers are interested), but for the purposes of research rather than,
say colonization.  That's fine to a degree.  Both communities will have
shady dealings, but the purpose of private industry is, by and large
profit.  It has to survive in the short-term.  This is where it would be
hoped that governments provide long-term continuity (at least longer
than an elected term).  Government runs for the welfare of all, and
their are both good and bad bureacracies: USGS, NOAA, NSF, NIH, DOE,
DOE, DARPA, HHS, DOEd, etc.  There are similarly, good and bad
companies.  It's amazing that we have Good as well as bad monopolies: a
surprisingly good one was probably AT&T before break-up, bad one are the
concessionaires to National Parks.  Competition is not alway good, we
still have problems with some fire departments on boundary areas.

A friend, a Branch chief, bemoaned there are no real leaders, only
managers in this country.  (A leader is defined as a person who would
get you to do something you might otherwise not, from Time).  If there
is any place where we may lack vision and a lack of a sense of
direction, it must be the American public.  The USA has to realign
itself, put its future in perspective with its present.  Space is just
one concern, and it must be balanced with the other concerns.  Federal
Government must get out of some areas in order work on real areas for
the future [no comment on which areas].  Anyway, I blab too much you
guys have to stop me.. The net is seductive, the dark side.....

Last comment. Yes, Promire is gone, but I wish someone at least get rid
of the $500 T-seats flying past my window every five minutes.  It's not
what he did was wrong, it was how he directed attention, maybe he was
really a DOD pawn.....;-)

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  "Send mail, avoid follow-ups.  If enough, I'll summarize."
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 87 01:13:28 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad (and Government in space)

> [..]
> Last comment. Yes, Promire is gone, but [..]
> 
> --eugene miya

Uhm, announcing that one will not be running for reelection is not
quite the same as being "gone".  His term runs for almost another 
year and a half, if I recall, and he's announced that for that period,
he intends to keep working.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 4 Sep 87 00:27:06
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: CANOPUS, office of exploration, why just Moon&Mars emphasis??

<SW> Date: 19 Aug 87 22:27:56 GMT
<SW> From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
<SW> Subject: CANOPUS - June 1987

<SW> NASA ESTABLISHES OFFICE OF EXPLORATION - can6872.txt - 6/9/87

<SW> A new Office of Exploration has been established to coordinate
<SW> agency activities that will "expand the human presence beyond
<SW> Earth."  Administrator James Fletcher says "This office will
<SW> analyze and define missions proposed to achieve a goal of human
<SW> expansion off the planet.  It will provide central coordination of
<SW> technical planning studies that will involve the entire agency.  In
<SW> particular, it will focus on studies of potential lunar and Mars
<SW> initiatives."

Why Moon and Mars?? Why not freefloating habitat in LEO or GEO or
L-4/L-5 or LLO or Earth/Mars transfer orbit or LMO or in asteroid belt,
or mini-gravity habitat on surface of Demos or Phobos or some asteroid?

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 6 Sep 87 15:52:50
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu
Subject: Ride report on NASA priorities

<SW> Date: 24 Aug 87 22:27:48 GMT
<SW> From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
<SW> Subject: Ride report

<SW>    o Outpost on the Moon. This would be a three-phase effort starting
<SW>      with an unmanned search for ideal landing sites rich in
<SW>      oxygen-bearing ores.

Am I missing something? The Apollo samples showed every kind of rock and
dirt to be about 50% Oxygen. Generally, Oxygen will be a waste product of
just about any mineral processing we do on the Moon or in space from
lunar materials. So just throw a dart at a map of the Moon and there's a
landing site with lots of Oxygen. Surveying for Hydrogen would seem to be
more urgent.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Sep 87 18:02 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Dale Skran's "newspeak in orbit"
To: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        space@angband.s1.gov

Dale Skran recently posted a review of the Newsweek "Lost in Space"
article.  The level of invective and ad hominem argument in his posting
was surprising, even to me.

Dale implied that those who oppose the shuttle and the space station are
opposed to long term human activity in space.  As a person who thinks
the shuttle a dismal failure and opposes the current plans for a
station, and is also convinced that human movement into space is
inevitable (although apparently not at the pace Dale would predict), I
wonder how he came to this conclusion.

Lack of a space station, especially the current design, is not the most
important obstacle to large scale space activity.  Lack of cheap,
reliable launchers is.  This was true when NASA was justifying the
shuttle, and it's still true.  We should delay the station and use
finite NASA budget to develop a better way to get to orbit.
Simultaneous development of cheaper launchers and the space station
doesn't seem possible unless one accepts a tight budget for both
projects, which is probably a bad idea.

Dale repeats the excuse about lack of funding causing the shuttle mess.
While this certainly played an important part in the tragedy, I have
little sympathy for the NASA managers that assured congress the funding
was sufficient, that choose a flawed design then issued glowing
projections of the shuttle's capabilities, that misinformed the
President about the need for backup expendable boosters, and that
ultimately, to meet those outrageous promises, operated the program in a
way that made 51-L inevitable.  An honest statement by NASA
administrators about the performance of the shuttle, even a few years
ago, would have done much to prevent the current mess.  Of course, they
couldn't have gotten Reagan to promise them a space station if they had
done that.

Dale's comments about the "little minds" of the "Martzs of the world"
and about the "fifth branch of the government" are ad hominem arguments
of the lowest sort.  I suppose it's natural to get upset when the media
start attacking your fundamental beliefs.  In a situation like that I'd
at least entertain the possibility that my belief system is imperfect,
and that honest people can disagree, instead of assuming that journalism
has become the domain of idiots and scoundrels.

	Paul F.  Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 87 22:56:22 GMT
From: devvax!jplpro!des@elroy.jpl.nasa.gov  (David Smyth)
Subject: Moon Colony

Would it be practical to build a space port on the Moon, where
we actually manufacture interplanetary spacecraft?  The advantages
would be:

*	Lower launch escape velocity
*	Gravity assist off the Earth (I think)
*	Easier to move big things around in lower gravity, and it seems
	manned interplanetary spacecraft will be big things.

Drawbacks:

*	Where would the fuel come from (Oxygen plentiful, but what about
	hydrogen?  Or perhaps something new-cue-lar?
*	Who would really want to live on the moon?
*	Water???

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #347
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Sep 87 06:32:16 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA03222; Sun, 13 Sep 87 03:16:55 PDT
	id AA03222; Sun, 13 Sep 87 03:16:55 PDT
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 87 03:16:55 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709131016.AA03222@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #348

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 348

Today's Topics:
			  Re: Space tourism
			  Space vs. Defense?
			Re: Space vs. Defense?
	   Lower the flame, please (Was: Newspeak in Orbit)
		    Re: Cuisine out of this world
			   Re: Moon Colony
			   Space Magazines
	    Political can of worms space discussion issue
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Tue,  8 Sep 87 21:41:04 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Space tourism
To: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, Poli-Sci@red.rutgers.edu

> From: sundc!hadron!inco!mack@seismo.css.gov  (Dave Mack)

>> Ultimately, to live free of any Earth government, and of the threat
>> of war.

> Unless, of course, the government of the L4 colony decides to attack
> the L5 colony, etc. There is no group of people on Earth who do not
> have a de facto government. This is because the vast majority of
> people *want* to be lead. The people who migrate into space will be
> no different. Space colonies will not change the fundamentals of
> human nature.

I said, free of any *EARTH* government.  I am not an anarchist.  I do
have very different ideas as to the role of a proper government than
are embodied in any government on Earth.  Many people agree with these
ideas, but not enough that we can change any government, at least not
yet.  And it is no longer possible to go out to the frontier and start
a new nation.  Not on Earth, anyway.

In space there is room for any number of new nations.  And plenty of
room for true anarchists as well.  While every GROUP of people on Earth
has a de facto government, some INDIVIDUALS don't.  Hermits and the
like.  Fewer than in the past.  In space, there may be more.  There is
plenty of room.

Antarctica?  While easier to get to, it is much more hostile than
space, actually.
							...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Tue,  8 Sep 87 21:45:40 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Space vs. Defense?
To: umnd-cs!umn-cs!ems!rosevax!pwcs!dennisg@crys.wisc.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!ems!rosevax!pwcs!dennisg@speedy.wisc.edu  (Dennis Grittner)
> I think that it is admirable to have the GOAL of the US and the USSR
> devoting more of their money and energy to spaceflight than to weapons
> and other military expenditures.

Sounds good to me.  We can start converting as soon as the Soviets do.

No space exploration is of any value if it means losing our freedom.
And if we were to dismantle our military, we WOULD lose our freedom.  In
any case, the funding source for one government program is NOT the
shrinkage of another government program - it is the taxpayer.  If less
was spent on defense, this wouldn't do anything for space exploration.
And if it would, it isn't defense you should be attacking.  It consumes
less than 20% of the tax dollar.  Attack social spending instead.  Can
you imagine what kind of space program we could have for the cost of the
social security program?

> I, for one, think that the goal of having MORE money spent on space
> and less wasted on military trash is a wonderful one.

So do I.  It really pains me that some governments are so evil and
aggressive that it is necessary for us to spend so much on bombs and
bullets when it could be spent on much nicer things.  Unlike you, the
much nicer things I am thinking of are private uses, by the owners and
creators of the wealth, rather than huge government programs, but we
agree that it would be nice if military expenditures didn't have to be
so large.

It's like having locks on your doors.  People could save a lot of money
if they just didn't buy locks.  And if everyone behaved reasonably,
locks wouldn't be needed.  But not everyone does, so they are needed.

> A move toward JOINT, peaceful exploration of space with the USSR
> wouldn't bother me either.

Would you advocate joint peaceful missions with Nazi Germany if they
were still around?  Why or why not?

Instead of you buying locks to protect from burglars, why not get
together with the man who wants to burglarize your house, and who has
successfully burglarized your neighbor's houses and killed many of your
neighbors, and work on some joint peaceful project?

> I'm just not ready to accept the reality that almost none of the
> electorate is ready to STOP wasting money, and start having vision.

Why don't you stop locking your door - so what if your neighbors have
been robbed and killed? - and start having visions?

There is also the question of what do we do if partway through the
cooperation for a Mars mission or whatever, the Soviet government does
something really brutal again, like Afghanistan, Czechoslovakia, flight
KAL 007, etc, etc?  Either the whole project gets tossed, or we have to
grit our teeth and continue, which sends the message that we don't
really mind their brutality.  Boys will be boys, right?

> "Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!"

Then who will fight to keep YOU out of the communist's jails?

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 04:03:54 GMT
From: topaz.rutgers.edu!josh@rutgers.edu  (J Storrs Hall)
Subject: Re: Space vs. Defense?

KFL:
 Instead of you buying locks to protect from burglars, why not get
 together with the man who wants to burglarize your house, and who has
 successfully burglarized your neighbor's houses and killed many of your
 neighbors, and work on some joint peaceful project?

I've seen at least two SF stories where the Mafia gets into the space
business (and in both, does better than NASA...).  (Stories by Sheffield
and Reynolds resp.)  To tell you the truth, I would rather ship with the
Mafia than the municipal govt of New York-- at least the Mafioso have a
sense of personal honor.

Is there enough money in crime to warrant Mafia Station, the Duty-Free
Port (Cash Only, No Questions Asked)?  Totally beyond the current reach
of U.S. authorities...

--JoSH

------------------------------

Date: 9 September 1987 10:00:50 CDT
From: <C90630JG%WUVMD.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject: Lower the flame, please (Was: Newspeak in Orbit)

Eugene Miya suggested that you publish this in the conventional media.
Unless you want to make the pro-space position look silly I urge you to
at least *CONSIDERABLY* tone it down.  In particular, you must not make
accusations before you have laid a basis for them; it alienates people,
me included.

For instace:

[Header deleted]
>      Recently an article appeared in Newsweek that appeared to take a
>      hard look at the space program and NASA's current difficult
>      situation.  In reality it is typical of the misinformed
>      anti-space views common in media circles, especially the New York

"Media circles" covers so much ground that is amounts to inuendo.  Even
the Times shows a fair diversity.  If you want to say such things, you
must cite some examples, and argue that they are typical.  Acutally, I
think it is better deleted.  Argue your own case; don't take on the
world.

>      Times. In a true Orwellian fashion, these writers are "for"

This is not only inflammatory but wrong.  The fact that someone
disagress with you about the emphasis of the space program, and where
men fit in, dosen't mean they rank with Big Brother.  An unmaned space
program is not a contradiction in terms.

>      space, of course, a smaller, cheaper, program with less focus on
>      manned fight, with no trips to Mars or the moon, with a few more
>      robots for the scientists, and a few more dollars for the
>      universities.  Another variation suggests a massive Apollo style
>      Mars shot, but drawn out over 20 or 30 years to "keep the cost
>      down."  These writers do not really believe humanity has a long
>      term future in space.

Maybe the just disagree about when, and perhaps who should pay.

>      The very first paragraph of the article states that after the
>      Challenger blew up, and "a few ritual resignations", that "the
>      agency has 35 percent more money in its pocket.  After 20 years
>      of lessons like that, failure is endemic in the U.S. Space
>      program." This suggests that there have been a long series of

This seems (I havn't read the Newsweek article, as I assumed that it
would be as uninformative about this as usual) well taken, and is the
sort of point you should try to make.

>      major NASA blunders, each followed by an extra boost in funds. It
>      is far more correct to say that NASA functioned extremely well as
>      long as it was funded well, and fairly well even as its funding
>      declined.  There is no pattern of blunders followed by rewards.
>      Instead, we see a pattern of enormous success, followed by
>      punishment in the form of budget cuts. As the agency struggled to

There is no merit to a government agency surviving in the absence of any
function.  In the 60s, it was axiomatic that NASAs mission was to go to
the moon.  The reason for doing this was to best the Russians and garner
prestige.  The fact that YOU want NASA to have another mission, to wit,
put lots of men in space just to have them there, won't convince anyone
else.  It cannot be assumed, it must be argued for.  Remember, the rest
of the world dosen't share this priority as a matter of course.
>      survive, it was punished still further by additional cuts.
>      Finally, in the wake of the Challenger disaster it is being
>      recognized that(as space advocates have been saying for about 20
[Stuff about NASAs engineering deleted]

>      First the article berates NASA for continuing to work with Morton
>      Thiokol, a decision made because it "had the tools and could do
>      it quickly," and then lists all the payloads waiting to go,
>      continuing to add to the pressure to rush the shuttles to the
>      pad. If NASA engineers rush to put the shuttle back into service,
>      they are callous and expedient.  If they are slow and careful,
>      they are incompetent, overpaid, and lazy. I suggest that Mr.

There is perhaps some justice to this but the personality is
unnecessary.

>      Martz be put in charge of the program, and report back to us in a
>      year on how easy it is to run.
>
>      Later we are told that in spite of all this, the US is still
>      ahead in space. This is a crucial myth being propagated by the

Once again, it depends on priorities.  If you try to impose yours by
unstated fiat, you will annoy the gentiles.

>      media. . . .

>      After more glowing description of the "backward" Soviets, we are
>      told "The shuttle had no real mission, just a succession of
>      errands; it was a way to keep men in space while we figured out
>      what to do there."  This myth has been pounded out so many times
>      I am weary from refuting it. The shuttle (or something like it)
But you must.
>      is absolutely essential to any large scale orbital activity. It
>      is absolutely unnecessary for a program of robotic probes to the
>      distant planets. It has been justified over and over again. You
>      must have a station if you want to construct, manufacture,
>      re-fuel, etc. in orbit.  NASA always knew what the shuttle was
Remember, you are talking to those who don't particularly want to.
The commercial advantages are at this point promissory notes.
>      supposed to be, and so did the Proxmires and the Mondales. The
>      difference is that the Proxmires and Mondales wanted it to fail,
>      and they may well have gotten their wish.
>
>      Generally, people who oppose a long term future in space oppose
When?  It will be cheaper and easier in 20 years.  Why not let someone
else pay the pioneer charges for once?
>      both the shuttle and the station.  Martz quotes station enemies
>      repeatedly, including Pike and Alex Roland, while echoing Carl
>      Sagan. To be "fair" he balances his article by saying "The case
>      isn't that clear: the space program is not simply a conspiracy to
>      complicate technology, build bureaucracies, and fatten budgets.
>      But there is no denying that this mind-set exists ..."  Never is
>      the pro-station case presented. Not a word.
Once again, here you have a point.

>      . . . 
>      reason we have such a pathetic space program. Their little minds

Calling your opponents idiots requires much more basis than you have
laid.  Also, it isn't nice.
>      are unable to contain a vision of tomorrow larger than today.

Remember, you are trying to justify a lot of money, which has alternate
uses, for you vision.  This seems what he objects to.  He has a right to
that without being vituperated.  What you should emphesize is the lack
of balance in the arguement.

>	. . .

I ran out of enery and time.  But I repeat: this stuff in the mass
media will make pro-spacers look like fools.  And I admit, it tires
me out, too.  I would prefer a higher ratio of light to heat.

Jonathan Goldberg

------------------------------

Date:  9 Sep 1987 23:50-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Cuisine out of this world

Personally Bruno, I'd rather we (US) dropped out of NATO, removed all of
our nuclear weapons from Europe, left Japan's defense up to Japan and
dropped the $100B thus saved from our federal budget. I really see no
reason why we should pay to defend any borders but our own. With the
drop in taxes after such a cut, I expect the domestic economy would
start growing so fast that we'd have CORPORATE space stations up before
anyone else got moving. Governments just muck everything up. I much
PREFER the private route. (EVERYONE ELSE: But I'll take what I can get!)
I'd be happy to drop by and visit you on your MBB station!

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 23:13:40 GMT
From: uwmcsd1!bbn!clsib21!blblbl!zonker@unix.macc.wisc.edu  (Little Zonker)
Subject: Re: Moon Colony

In article <343@devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV>, des@jplpro.JPL.NASA.GOV (David Smyth) writes:

> Would it be practical to build a space port on the Moon...
   (insert advantages)
> Drawbacks:
   (etc)
> *	Who would really want to live on the moon?

Me!!!!   (And my boss thinks when I talk about being "Electricians to the
Stars" I mean working in the homes of famous people....)

--zonker the feline covered electrician

------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 87 00:02:21 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Marc Weinstein)
Subject: Space Magazines

I'm a space enthusiast and I love to read about advancements in space
exploration, advancements in space technology, future plans, etc.

My question is this:  Is there a decent magazine out there that is
entirely devoted to the space program?? I'm already a member of the
planetary society, so I'm looking more for a broad coverage magazine.

Any feedback would be appreciated.  Response by mail is prefered.

-- 
Marc Weinstein
AT&T Bell Labs - Indian Hill
Naperville, IL
ihnp4!ihlpf!mhw

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 8 Sep 87 11:37:29 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Political can of worms space discussion issue

While editing the 13000 questions you guys have asked (I do 100 or so at
a time as a break from work), I was wondering what people would do if we
elected a President who abolished the US space program as certain
candidates would do?  I know you can't break down a bureacracy as Reagan
tried (Energy, Education, EPA all still exist although reduced form).  I
know most L5er's would certainly vote against such a person (man or
woman), and I know about the positive polls, but candidates are not
elected by single issues (or at least I don't vote for them on single
issues).  This assumes a lot of proposterous things, but humor me.  What
would you do?

Just a general topic for discussion.  I don't have time to follow up on
this one, so post your own opinions.  Analyze the problem problem for
multiple ways such a Jackson-type candidate doing for "the poor" versus
a more conservative `consolidate with military space' type candidate.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #348
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 13 Sep 87 23:18:23 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04272; Sun, 13 Sep 87 20:16:41 PDT
	id AA04272; Sun, 13 Sep 87 20:16:41 PDT
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 87 20:16:41 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709140316.AA04272@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #349

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 349

Today's Topics:
		  The Rocket Team #5 - Last V-2's ?
	      The Rocket Team #6 - Backfire at Cuxhaven
		       Re: Government in space
		     Re: Cooperation uber alles?
			    Bovanomics 101
			Woomera back in Action
		       Re: Government in space
		      Re: Woomera back in Action
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 87 14:27:50 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: The Rocket Team #5 - Last V-2's ?

    Dornberger and his supply staff had observed for some time that V-2
components suffered from a rather short storage life, and that
electrical equipment and pipes would often deteriorate well before the
V-2 could be moved to the front.  A plan known as the "Hot Cakes
System," devised late in October [1944], required that the missiles
henceforth travel by rail from the assembly plant at Nordhausen straight
to the firing area, with only a short en route stop at an outfitting
station where warheads, fuses, vanes, etc. were loaded aboard for later
installation at the front-line technical battery testing and assembly
point. From there, the V-2's were transported by truck to the firing
position.  On-site rejection rates were reduced from 12 to 2 percent as
a result of this new system.  Meanwhile, some five hundred partially
defective rockets located in dumps around Germany were cannibalized for
their parts, which were returned to Mittelwerk.
    The last V-2 of the war was fired on March 29, 1945.  The following
day, Himmler ordered all of Kammler's rocket troops to be released from
their respective units and to become part of the Provisional Army
Blumentritt.  Even as the war's end approached, as Dornberger related in
his book `V-2':

    	Kammler refused to believe in an immenent collapse.  He
    dashed to and fro between the Dutch and Rhineland fronts and
    Thuringia and Berlin.  He was on the move day and night.
    Conferences were called for 1:00 in the morning somehwere in the
    Harz Mountains, ow we would meet at midnight somwhere on the
    Autobahn and then, after a brief exchange of views, drive back to
    work again.  We were prey to terrific nervous tension.  Irritable
    and overworked as we were, we didn't mince words.  Kammler, if he
    got impatient and wanted to drive on, would wake the slumbering
    officers of his suite with a burst from his tommy gun.  "No need for
    THEM to sleep!  I can't either!"  Fixed working hours and leisure
    had long been things of the past... Kammler still believed that he
    alone, with his Army Corps and weapons over which he had absolute
    authority, would prevent the imminent collapse, postpone a decision,
    and even turn the scales.

[from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT
 Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ]

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 19:31:13 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: The Rocket Team #6 - Backfire at Cuxhaven

    Eisenhower issued SHAEF Backfire Instruction No. 1 on June 22
[1945], stating in broad terms the objectives of the operation:

    	The primary object of this operation is to ascertain the
    German technique of launching long-range rockets and to prove it by
    actual launch. ... In addition to the primary object, the operation
    will therefore provide opportunities to study certain subsidiary
    matters such as the preparation of the rocket and ancillary
    equipment, the handling of fuel, and controls in flight.

... The third and final launch, designated Operation Clitterhouse,
provided a grand finale for an elite group of observers from the
Britishm French, American and Soviet armed forces and the press. ...

    Most fretful among the visitors were the Russians.  Present
officially were Colonel Yuri Pobedonestsev and Colonel Valentin P.
Glushko.  The former was currently leader of the Special Technical
Commission (rocket) in Berlin.  The latter was directing the test firing
of V-2 engines at Lehesten. ... Additionally two more Russians showed up
unannounced.  One of them was Colonel Sergei P. Korolev, disguised as a
captain, who was deputy to General Gaidukov, chief of the Soviet Special
Commission at the recently reopened V-2 facility at Nordhausen.  Korolev
at the time was active in extending the capabilities of the V-2 (In the
mid-1950s, he became the mysterious "Chief Designer of Spacecraft," who
developed the Vostok, Voskhod and Soyuz manned spacecraft for the USSR).
    Korolev and his fellow officer were not permitted into the launching
despite a great deal of arm waving and shouting.  Cameron stood fast,
and the two were eventually escorted just outside the gates, from which
place they saw the launching. ...
    The Russians as well as the other observers had been restricted to a
fenced-off area during the launch.  They could have binoculars but not
cameras.  During the prelaunching activities, Lieutenant Hochmuth, one
of the observers, engaged Pobedonestsev in conversation.  Later he
recalled to the authors:

    	He knew my name and that I had been there [Mittelwerk].  He
    told me the stuff [the material removed by Hamill] was going to
    White Sands (this was supposed to be a secret).  We began to discuss
    engineering.  I asked him how things were at Nordhausen, and he said
    he was having a hell of a time because we had cleaned the place out.
    He was a very technical guy and said if they were able to see White
    Sands, we could see Peenemunde.

    Hochmuth dutifully reported this offer to his superiors, who
immediately turned it down.  What a chance the US Army missed!  The
Russians would have seen hundreds of square miles of barren desert and a
few dilapidated wooden buildings.  In turn, the Americans would have
seen the remains of their late enemy's most sophisticated rocket
research center.

[from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT
 Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ]

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 87 15:05:17 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Government in space

In article <117@minya.UUCP> jc@minya.UUCP (John Chambers) writes:
Quoting me.
>> Private industry will beat goverment subsidies any day, but only in a
>> free and open marketplace, and only when there is enough hope of a
>> return on money invested.

>You inadvertently gave away the major objection to your free-market
>ideology.  True, private industry will beat government-subsidized
>companies any DAY, but when the investment is much longer, private
>industry doesn't make the investment.

If you must Quote me, Please do so in properly.  The above lines were
only a small part of what I said and I went on to say that until
companies could see emough of an immediate return on investment,
Goverments would have to provide the money, and that this present
goverment wasn't interested in doing that.

Well I was wrong, sort of. The Goverment have just allocated four
million pounds to keep current projects going until the ESA meeting in
November.

I suppose everything will be shut down then, but with the TV and
newspapers starting to take an interest perhaps something might happen.

The Times had a feature which showed how accurate the press usually are
with this subject. The soviet plan for the domination of the world's
economy in the 21St Century calls for a massive space industrialisation
effort (By the soviets).

The figures given amount to a fully loaded Energia booster (250 tons ?)
being launched every eight hours 365 days a year.

Even the soviets don't have that ability. (I hope :-)).
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 28 Aug 87 15:10:26 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Cooperation uber alles?

In article <244694.870820.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>> From: "Michael J. Scudder" <seismo!RELAY.CS.NET!SCUDDER@cs.umass.edu>
>> I was at the Boskone Science Fiction convention in February and
>> listened to an L5 sponsered panel on a joint US-Soviet mission to
>> Mars.  The Audience was 80+% in favor when polled.
>
>Don't read too much into that statistic.  I too was at Boskone, and I
>was aware of that panel, but chose not to attend because cooperation
>with the USSR is repugnant to me.  I suspect many others at Boskone
>felt the same way.  Nothing good can come from cooperation with thieves
>and murderers.

I guess this must be the reason why so many ESA member countries are are
so reluctant to have the US military running the space station, even the
european parts.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 1 Sep 87 10:12 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Bovanomics 101

Keith Lofstrom said:
>> [...]  If the money NASA spends had not been extracted from the
>> economy, it may have done as much or more to help fund technological
>> growth in private industry (an unanswerable question; it depends on
>> which economists you believe).

Ken Jenks replied:

> "Extracted from the economy"?  If money was extracted, where did it
> go?  A new engine, perhaps?  "NASA announces new booster which burns
> dollar bills with liquid oxygen -- film at eleven."

Let's see... is Ken saying that unless an activity physically consumes
dollar bills, it's free? No, that can't be right. Maybe he's saying that
since the money spent on an activity gets spent again in the economy, it
doesn't matter what that activity is -- building rockets, or stockpiling
cheese, or painting the Grand Canyon purple.

I've seen this bit of economic idiocy several times, most recently being
espoused by Ben Bova. Let me explain some freshman economics: dollar
bills are not wealth, they are placeholders for wealth. What the space
program consumes is not physical dollar bills, but some a whole lot of
capital, labor, management expertise, and engineering talent.

> Excuse the sarcasm -- it's late.

Very late, apparently.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 87 12:50:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1!seefromline@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Woomera back in Action

	There have been several short (ap/reuters type) articles in the
guardian lately about resumed launches at Woomera, and plans for more
tracking stations in N. Queensland.

these have mentioned:

	+  successful launches for comet observation.

	+  localised opposition from Aborigine Community
	   to flights over their land

	+  suggestions of a generalised increase in funding
	   of Australian Space Research.

A few general comments/questions:

	(1) Why do these satellite launches rate such low publicity?
	    Ariane launches get mucho headlines, failed *test* work
	    Stateside gets megayawned to death in these groups.

	    Am I missing something here? Is there some sub-class of
	    lanches regarded as "boring" or "trivial" that dont count?

	(2) How seriously does the space community take local issues
	    into account? I think these people have a right to object to
	    flight plans over their turf, have similar issues cropped up
	    at Edwards or other launch/test sites?

	(3) Common opinion UK-wide is that blue streak was the last
	    major effort made at Woomera. Apparently not true. How much
	    is it being used as a launch site these days? Advantages
	    over Arianes location?

	    Is the Monitoring Station yet another arm of the DoD?

G Michaelson, University College London 

(apologies, I'm not space/astro science 'fluent')

JANET: george@uk.ac.ucl.cs
UUCP:  {...!mcvax}!ukc!ucl-cs!george
OTHERS: george@cs.ucl.ac.uk via your favourite local gobbledygook

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 87 14:22:00 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: Government in space

in article <608@its63b.ed.ac.uk>, bob@its63b.ed.ac.uk (ERCF08 Bob Gray) says:
> The figures given amount to a fully loaded Energia booster
> (250 tons ?) being launched every eight hours 365 days a year.
> 
> Even the soviets don't have that ability. (I hope :-)).
> 	Bob.

Given ten to twenty years to build launch pads and assembly lines, I see
no reason to believe that Soviets could not achieve this launch rate if
they decide to do so. But then, given twenty years they could be into
the second or third generation of Energia follow on launchers. So they
might be able to launch the same tonnage with one launch every other
day.

Remember, the Soviets current launch rate is close to 2 orbital missions
per week, right now.

Personally I hope they do it. Such a large Soviet space presence should
be enough to get the U.S. interested in space again.
-- 
Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland
UUCP Address:  {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet
Alternate:     {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet
        I am solely responsible for what I say.

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 87 12:14:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1!seefromline@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: Woomera back in Action

From: ray@oz.su.cs.basser
Subject: Re: Woomera

In the past, I've tried posting sci.space internationally to tell people
about this.  However, it seems my postings don't get out of Australia.
If you like this response, perhaps you could post it to sci.space for
me.

=============================

In sci.space Message-ID: <44600001@pyr1>, you raised a number of issues:
recent "comet" observation launces from Woomera, the status of woomera,
proposals for a new "tracking station" in Queensland, Aboriginal
objections to flights, increased Australian space funding, why recent Oz
launches don't rate talking about, the long arm of DOD.

The launches are to observe the recently discovered super-nova.  The
rockets used are very small - going 200 miles straight up rather than
into orbit.  Each flight gives about 4 minutes of the sort of thing that
brings a smile to the face of James van Allen.  I don't believe they
rate much mention outside of Australia.

The proposed installation is not a tracking station but a full blown
spaceport!  I expect that it will remain nothing but talk - the proposal
is to build it without any government money.  Given the size of the
investment and the long pay back time, I doubt that too many companies
will be interested.  The proposed site is on the Western side of Cape
York - the long pointy bit on the top right hand side of Australia.
This is very close to the equator, and it enjoys particularly reliable
weather all year round.

I have not read of any aboriginal objections.  The cynical foreigner
will probably conclude that rigid racial censorship is practised in
Australia.  I don't believe so, and I can't see how anyone can object to
a rocket passing "overhead" when it is practically in space.

Increased funding of Australian Space Research: If only it was true.
The Australian Government remains luke warm about space research.  Some
small projects building instruments to fly on foreign launch vehicles
are doing well.  Australia is nowhere near having its own launch
capability.  These super-nova flights are funded and are being conducted
by West Germany - we merely supply the Real Estate.  Blue Streak remains
the last genuine space project that Australia was involved in.

The DOD, or some American intelligence organization, run 2 other
satellite ground stations (in conjunction with Australian forces) in
addition to the one near Woomera.  I won't comment any further, as I
don't want to get flamed by sabre-rattling Americans.

Raymond Lister
Basser Department of Computer Science
University of Sydney
NSW  2006
AUSTRALIA

ARPANET: munnari!basser.cs.su.oz!ray@seismo.css.gov

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #349
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Sep 87 06:53:25 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05122; Mon, 14 Sep 87 03:17:57 PDT
	id AA05122; Mon, 14 Sep 87 03:17:57 PDT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 87 03:17:57 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709141017.AA05122@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #350

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 350

Today's Topics:
		      Re: Woomera back in Action
			 Operational Missles?
			 Operational Missles?
		      new Space Studies program
		      Re: Woomera back in Action
			 Operational Missles?
		   Inappropriate use of the network
			More on Shuttle Parts
		      High altitude lauch sites
       Can somebody confirm seemingly-brilliant Phoenix design?
		      Re: More on Shuttle Parts
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 87 12:13:00 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!nott-cs!pyr1!seefromline@seismo.css.gov
Subject: Re: Woomera back in Action


>Newsgroups: sci.space
>Organization: Dept of Comp Sci, Uni of Sydney, Australia

Just some quick comments from the colonies.

In article <44600001@pyr1> you write:

>There have been several short (ap/reuters type) articles in the
>guardian lately about resumed launches at Woomera, and plans for more
>tracking stations in N. Queensland.
>
>these have mentioned:
>
>       +  successful launches for comet observation.

Actually, it was to observe the supernova in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
It was a joint project with a German team of astronomers.  The first
couple of launch attempts were scrubbed, due to adverse winds. The real
launch was highly successful. It was only a sounding probe - we didn't
put anything into orbit, just high enough to perform the observations
above the atmosphere. The probe was recovered, as it parachuted down to
a point a few miles from the launch site. The Germans were very happy
with the results, as were the Australian team. The local space community
hopes it will be repeated soon.

>       +  localised opposition from Aborigine Community
>          to flights over their land

This didn't rate much mention in the local media. However, you may be
aware of an increase in demands for Aboriginal land rights, as Aus
approaches its bicentennial year (1988). Also, the local Aborigines are
understandably sceptical about scientific `experiments' in their back
yard, given the recent revelations about the UK-Aus Maralinga nuclear
tests of the 1950's.

I would certainly hope that the opposition of the local Aborigines are
not ignored, as has been the previous practice.  I'm sure, though, that
a comprimise can be reached.

>       +  suggestions of a generalised increase in funding
>          of Australian Space Research.

There has been an increase in interest. Ken McKracken (sp?) of the gov't
research organisation CSIRO has managed to convince the Gov't that Aus
should get more involved in space research, particularly given our
preeminence in the field in the 50's. Like many hi-tech areas, we let it
slide, favouring digging up rocks instead. The Gov't has established a
CSIRO Division of Space Research, and provided a few million dollars of
funding to get it started. Only time will tell if it will come to
anything.

>A few general comments/questions:
>
>       (3) Common opinion UK-wide is that blue streak was the last
>	    major effort made at Woomera. Apparently not true. How much
>	    is it being used as a launch site these days? Advantages
>	    over Arianes location?

To my knowledge, Woomera is not be used regularly as a launch site. Even
the recent activity was not an orbital launch. As Woomera is a Defence
establishment, most of its activities are not well reported, so I can
only guess what they have been up to the last twenty years.

>           Is the [Q'ld] Monitoring Station yet another arm of the DoD?
>

The Queensland state government wishes to establish a full scale launch
facility at the tip of Cape York, in far north Q'ld. The supporters of
this project point to the increased space activity in our local region
(particularly comsat and remote imaging requirements of Indonesia,
Phillipines, India, China, et.al.) which we should cash in on, its
proximity to the equator, its almost complete lack of population centres
in the immediate area, with launches either being over water or the
interior of the continent, the availablity of a large port (Weipa) and
international air terminals within reasonable distance, the fact that
the Gov't is friendly, stable and Western, etc.

At the moment, I believe that a full scale feasibility study is being
undertaken. Obviously it will be an expensive undertaking, but a
worthwhile one. Again, only time will tell if we decide to take up the
challenge.

Hope this gives you some idea what is happening in space down under.

------------------------------

Date: Sat 5 Sep 87 21:09:50-PDT
From: MOBERLY%THOR@hplabs.hp.com
Subject: Operational Missles?
Cc: MOBERLY@thor.hpl.hp.com

Greetings:

In the book "Star Warriors" by William Broad, a comment is made which I
would like to better understand, namely (page 137)

	"By contrast, the U.S. Air Force has never successfully launched
	a solid-fuel rocket out of an operational silo.  During the
	1960s, four attempts took place.  Three missiles failed to
	ignite, while the fourth blew up a few seconds after liftoff.
	From that point on rocket tests were conducted much more
	carefully.  Engineers would take the designated missile out of
	its operational silo, ship it to a special facility at the
	Vandenberg Air Force Base in California, give it a careful going
	over, and then fire it toward a test range in the South
	Pacific."

Is this accurate?

David Moberly
Hewlett-Packard

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 87 23:37:13 GMT
From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Operational Missles?

> 	"By contrast, the U.S. Air Force has never successfully launched
> 	a solid-fuel rocket out of an operational silo.

I also noticed the passage when reading Broad's book (which I highly
recommend, by the way). Actually, this seems rather plausible,
considering that American ICBMs are deployed mostly in the middle of the
continent to make them somewhat less vulnerable to a surprise
counterforce attack by Soviet submarine-launched missiles. Launching
from the center of the continent requires you to drop spent boosters on
land -- a trivial matter in a full scale thermonuclear war but a major
factor in routine orbital launches or peacetime ICBM testing, especially
when the possibility of a launch failure is considered.

The Soviets can test missiles out of operational silos for the same
reason they can launch satellites from the center of the continent --
their spent booster stages land in the uninhabited arctic terrain of
Siberia. And they can always ignore or shoot whoever complains about a
spent booster landing on his or her house. As for American tests, I
forget the name of the politician who said that he was now absolutely
convinced that the United States was perfectly capable, should it ever
become necessary, to attack Kwajalein Island with ICBMs from Vandenburg
Air Force Base.

There's another good reason not to test ICBMs from operational silos --
the possibility that the other side may misinterpret it as an actual
attack and react rashly.  I would like to see a treaty between all
spacefaring nations that also possess nuclear weapons that provides for
advance notice of all launches (suborbital ICBM tests, orbital space
shots, etc).

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 7 Sep 87 07:05:23 GMT
From: cunyvm!ndsuvm1.bitnet!ud140469%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: new Space Studies program

implemented a new Space Studies program.  The program consists of an
undergraduate minor and Masters in Space Studies.  The chairman of the
new department is Dr. David Webb, member of the National Commission on
Space.  If you'd like more information, send a note to:
     
          Dr. Dick Parker
          University of North Dakota
          Aerospace Sciences
          Box 8216
          University Station
          Grand Forks, ND 58202-8216
     
or call (701) 777-2791, or send me a note over the net with your address
(which I'll pass along to Dr. Parker).
     
                               Scott Udell
                               UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 87 23:24:15 GMT
From: uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry@seismo.css.gov  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Woomera back in Action

>	(1) Why do these satellite launches rate such low publicity?

Probably because they aren't satellite launches, just sounding-rocket
launches.  As far as I know, there have been no satellite launches from
Woomera since the British launcher program died.

> 	(2) How seriously does the space community take local issues
> 	    into account? I think these people have a right to object
> 	    to flight plans over their turf, have similar issues cropped
> 	    up at Edwards or other launch/test sites?

By and large, the other major sites all launch over water, which largely
avoids this problem.  (The Japanese do have to observe some restrictions
on launch dates to placate the offshore fishermen.)  As for whether they
have the right to object to launches, do they also have the right to
object to aircraft flying over?  If not, why not?

"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 17:34:11 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!weyj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Yoder)
Subject: Operational Missles?

In article <12332347818.19.MOBERLY@THOR.HPL.HP.COM>, MOBERLY%THOR@HPLABS.HP.COM writes:
> 	. . . "By contrast, the U.S. Air Force has never successfully
> 	launched a solid-fuel rocket out of an operational silo. . . .

I was stationed at VAFB, Ca in the mid 70's. I was in the
instrumentation section, installing and checking out instrumentation,
command destruct, and beacon systems on Titan II and Minuteman missiles.
These birds would be chosen ad random and brought to VAFB, along with
their launch crews. The above mentioned systems were installed and
placed in the silos, just like at their operational bases. The only
additional work done to these missiles were the case when they were to
be used for special projects, along with their test shots.  They were
launched on a trajectory that landed at Kwajaleen island in the Pacific.

Most of these launches were successful, but the failures were the most
memorable ones. Occasionally, they had to be destroyed after launch and
pieces of solid fuel landed on the beach. This made for some interesting
bonfires at parties!!

As far as I know, there were no launches from operational bases. There
was a project to launch about four Minuteman missles from operational
bases, but the political climate cancelled the project. Farmers in the
Northwest didn't want pieces of the missiles falling on their cows.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 10 Sep 87 10:22:07 PDT
From: ota@galileo.s1.gov
To: UD140469%NDSUVM1.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Cc: ota@galileo.s1.gov, space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Inappropriate use of the network

I'd like to strongly discourage people from sending messages that start
like this:

   right now I'm to lazy to look it up for myself, soooo.....

Although, an important aspect of the network's usefulness is to function
as an information source it does not make a very good library.  If you
have a question that can be answered by consulting your old physics text
and your friend's of the CRC, please do that rather than ask 1000 people
you don't know to do it for you.  Thanks,
	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 1 Sep 87 16:58:40 GMT
From: tikal!sigma!uw-nsr!brett@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Brett Van Steenwyk)
Subject: More on Shuttle Parts

    I was suggesting the use of the shuttle main engines in other rocket
designs when Henry Spencer made note that they were too expensive for
the performance.  My original impression will not go away easily, so I
now ask for more details--it seemed that these engines did indeed have a
very rocky development, but now, while they are reasonably mature, they
seemed to be doing well.  If I remember right, a destruct test of one of
these showed it could run to around 180% before it lost it.  (The test
was run sometime just before 51L.)
    I still argue that people are going off in a LOT of different
directions in terms of implementing their favorite design to get into
space.  This suggests that: 1.  We are still not taking a mature
approach to this matter.  2.  The whole field has not matured to the
point were some consensus is possible--which may reflect in the shambles
our space program is in.  3.  Your reason.  (#3 is the most important--I
WANT to get more discussion going).
    If Henry's argument wins out, then what about the old J2 engine?  It
has some desirable characteristics: it has served on main booster stages
(Saturn 1-B), burns LH2/LOX, and even has been restarted (third stage of
the Saturn V).  Is the tooling for this around?  Can one build a big
dumb booster with this engine?
    My personal preference for some sort of flyback booster with
AIR-breathing engines.  A rocket burns a lot of its fuel pushing against
dynamic pressure.  Why not haul the thing up into the upper atmosphere
where it works much better?  I have no numbers to make this specific,
but a stage to take one to 70,000 ft and Mach 3 will allow one to relax
the constraints on a rocket design (thinking mostly weight and form
factor) enough to make it safer and cheaper.  I believe that this sort
of booster can be done with existing technology, though the size of it
will in itself push things some.  We could even get a supersonic
passenger plane out of the deal.  This sort of approach would also grow
up with the jet engine technology if hybrid engines and SCRAMjets become
available (though still no loss if they don't).  The atmosphere is a
good thing to use, not fight.  Pushing a rocket through it is like an
acolyte with a welding torch.
    If some of you are interested in the politics of the situation may I
suggest the following political reform: allow the taxpayers, on their
1040 forms, to mark just where their tax money is to be spent.  Just as
one can allocate a dollar of their tax money to the Federal Election
Commission with a simple check mark, one should also be able to decide
where the rest of the money goes.  I would earmark most of it for space
work (assuming that most people won't do the same thing--we are a
science-fearing culture).  I don't claim to be the author of such an
idea, I just want to see it enacted, and will take every opportunity to
spread it around.  (So far, I have not gotten much response.)

		--Brett Van Steenwyk
		brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu
		uw-beaver!uw-nsr!brett

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 87 23:18:01 GMT
From: jade!thoth5!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: High altitude lauch sites


Q: How much of a fuel savings due to reduced atmospheric drag could be
	had by using a high altitude (mountain) launch site?

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 3 Sep 87 18:33:40
X-Date-Last-Edited: 1987 September 03 18:33:40 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
X-Date-Posted: 1987 September 03 19:36:01 PDT (=GMT-7hr)
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Can somebody confirm seemingly-brilliant Phoenix design?

<A> Date: 12 Aug 87 04:49:52 GMT
<A> From: jade!web4h!adamj@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
<A> Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

<A>   Yes, it really does burn an oxygen rich mix during the first
<A> part of the ascent.  According to GH, the idea is to max out
<A> "specific density flow as opposed to specific impulse."  I think the
<A> idea here is that though the exhaust velocity will be lower, the
<A> total change in momentum of the expelled fuel will be higher.

My physics isn't good enough to say for sure whether that is correct or
not, but it seems reasonable. Can somebody who is really expert on
thermodynamics and chemistry etc. work out the math and give a
definitive confirmation or refutation of that claim? If it is confirmed,
it sounds like the Phoenix designers are really onto something that NASA
may have missed, something that will reduce first-stage weight by
perhaps 10%, and since first-stage is most of the total weight of a
launch vehicle that one item all by itself should reduce launch cost by
a respectable amount. Five more innovations like that and we've halved
launch cost, even ignoring major items like gold-plated goverment
contractors vs. simple private work. I.e. even compared to other private
enterprise, the Phoenix may be only half the cost if it has lots of such
good ideas.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 87 17:16:00 GMT
From: ihnp4!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dennis Grittner)
Subject: Re: More on Shuttle Parts

In article <1114@uw-nsr.UUCP> brett@nsr.acs.washington.edu.UUCP (Brett van Steenwyk 3-5417) writes:
>    If some of you are interested in the politics of the situation may I
>suggest the following political reform:  allow the taxpayers, on their 1040
>forms, to mark just where their tax money is to be spent.  Just as one can
>allocate a dollar of their tax money to the Federal Election Commission with
>a simple check mark, one should also be able to decide where the rest of the
>money goes.  I would earmark most of it for space work (assuming that most
>people won't do the same thing--we are a science-fearing culture).  I don't
>claim to be the author of such an idea, I just want to see it enacted, and
>will take every opportunity to spread it around.  (So far, I have not gotten
>much response.)

I was chastised recently ( and correctly so ) for bringing in clearly
political discussion into this newsgroup. I doubt that we should treat
the collection and distribution of taxes as a 'United Way' selection or
anything else as frivolous. I don't really know what newsgroup this
belongs in - but probably not this one.

Dennis Grittner		City of Saint Paul, Minnesota
(612) 298-4402		Room 700, 25 W. 4th St. 55102
"Let's just put Ollie, Ronnie, and the rest in jail!"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #350
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 14 Sep 87 23:21:56 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA06488; Mon, 14 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT
	id AA06488; Mon, 14 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 87 20:17:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709150317.AA06488@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #351

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 351

Today's Topics:
	      notice of job posting in another newsgroup
	  The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Etc.
			       Re: FTL
			       Re: FTL
			       Re: FTL
			       Re: FTL
			Re: FTL and causality.
			       Re: FTL
		   Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
		   Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
			   Re: Shuttle TPS
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 87 01:52:21 GMT
From: pixar!good@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Good sky you've got here, McIntyre. Well done.)
Subject: notice of job posting in another newsgroup

	A job offer relating to the Mars Observer Camera has been posted
to misc.jobs.offered.  If, and only if, your site does not recieve that
newsgroup you may contact me for a copy.  I posted it for Mike Malin
because his site does not have a news connection.

		--Craig
		...{ucbvax,sun}!pixar!good

------------------------------

Posted-Date: Sun, 13 Sep 87 15:19:59 PDT
From: Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@venera.isi.edu>
Subject: The Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence, Etc.
Date: Sun, 13 Sep 87 15:19:59 PDT
Sender: rogers@venera.isi.edu

     Dr. Thomas McDonough will present a lecture on the Search for
Extraterrestrial Intelligence (SETI) at 7:00 PM on Saturday, September
26th, in the Von Karmen Auditorium at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
4800 Oak Grove Drive in Pasadena.  SETI is a world-wide astronomical
research program which checks signals from distant stars for signs of
purposeful communication.

     Dr. McDonough is a Lecturer in Engineering at Caltech, and is
Coordinator of the SETI program of the Planetary Society.  He is active
as a lecturer, science consultant, and author, with two popular science
books on space and a science fiction novel published this year ("The
Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence", "Space: The Next 25 Years",
and "The Architects of Hyperspace", respectively).

     This lecture is one of many activities sponsored by the
Organization for the Advancement of Space Industrialization and
Settlement (OASIS).  The organization is a non-profit educational group
which promotes space development.  It is the Greater Los Angeles chapter
of the National Space Society (NSS).

     The public is invited; there is no admission charge.  For more
information about this lecture or other OASIS activities call the OASIS
Message Machine at (213) 374-1381 or contact Craig Milo Rogers
<Rogers@ISI.Edu> (ARPANet).

		   --------------

     In October OASIS will participate in the California Space
Activists' Workshop, an annual meeting of individuals from the NSS
chapters in California.  It will be held in Lake Tajoe, October 9-11.
Further details will be posted soon.

		   --------------

     The November OASIS lecture will be Friday the 13th at 8:00 PM in
Chatsworth.  The speaker will be Jim Bennett of AMROC.  We expect to
learn more about his company's launch vehicle, and the politics /
economics of entering the private launch service market.  For advance
details contact Craig Milo Rogers <Rogers@ISI.Edu> (ARPANet).

------------------------------

Date: 2 Sep 87 12:31:22 GMT
From: mtune!codas!novavax!augusta!bs@rutgers.edu  (Burch Seymour)
Subject: Re: FTL

in article <8708300353.AA07222@angband.s1.gov>, bilbo.rick@CS.UCLA.EDU.UUCP says:
> One of the speakers was Dr. Kip Thorne, who was introduced as the
> world's leading living expert on General Relativity.  One of the
> things that he pointed out in his lecture was that worm holes are a
> valid solution to Einstein's equations.  A worm hole is a warp or
> tunnel in space that would allow two arbitrary points in space to be
> connected.

For an interesting analysis of this, hunt down _The_Iron_Sun_ (at least
I think that's the name of it) by Adrian Desmond. It's a speculative
science book wherein he describes how we could go about building black
holes and using them to generate the worm holes needed to tunnel across
the universes. For the most part it seems pretty far fetched, but all in
all it makes a good read and is worth thinking about.

------------------------------

Date: 3 Sep 87 21:02:54 GMT
From: umnd-cs!umn-cs!mmm!cipher@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Andre Guirard)
Subject: Re: FTL

>In article <8708300353.AA07222@angband.s1.gov>, bilbo.rick@CS.UCLA.EDU.UUCP says:
> ... Dr. Kip Thorne [says] that worm holes are a valid solution to
> Einstein's equations...

Um... Does that mean that FTL information transfer _is_ probably
possible, after all, or does it take just as long to "go" through a
wormhole as it does to go around?

Any physicists care to comment?

Andre Guirard

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 87 16:41:17 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: FTL

In article <1423@mmm.UUCP> cipher@mmm.UUCP (Andre Guirard) writes:
>>In article <8708300353.AA07222@angband.s1.gov>, bilbo.rick@CS.UCLA.EDU.UUCP says:
>> ... Dr. Kip Thorne [says] that worm holes are a valid
>> solution to Einstein's equations...
>
>Um... Does that mean that FTL information transfer _is_ probably
>possible, after all, or does it take just as long to "go" through a
>wormhole as it does to go around?
>
>Any physicists care to comment?

Another valid solution to Einstein's equations is the following: Take a
large (infinitely long, radius large enough (hundred of miles or more)
to prevent tidal effects from ripping your ship apart) dense
(neutron-star material might do, if you can find some way to hold it
into shape) cylinder, and spin it about its axis so that the surface is
travelling at a good fraction of the speed of light.  According to
Einstein's equations, the metric for the space around this beast
includes "closed timelike contours", i.e. you follow such a path and you
come back to when-where you started.  Slightly different paths allow you
to come back before you started.

I don't know if anybody knows whether this metric is stable to small
perturbations (wormholes are not, for instance) and I haven't tried this
myself, but the equations work out.

I think that the only thing standing in the way of time-travel is
causality, or the grandfather paradox.  (In the same way that the only
thing standing in the way of perpetual motion machines is the law of
conservaiton of energy.)  Nevertheless, I don't expect to see it in my
lifetime. Maybe before then :-)

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
	The opinions expressed are those of an 8000 year old Atlantuan
	priestess named Mrla, and not necessarily those of her channel.

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 87 22:49:02 GMT
From: iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi@rutgers.edu  (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Re: FTL

In article <3888@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu.UUCP (David 
Palmer) writes:
>I think that the only thing standing in the way of time-travel is
>causality, or the grandfather paradox.  (In the same way that the only
>thing standing in the way of perpetual motion machines is the law of
>conservaiton of energy.)

At the risk of having some of you anti-FTLers descend on me again, I
will differ.  We cannot be certain that causality is what's preventing
time-travel.  The common kill-your-grandfather paradox arises only
because we believe that there is one unique dimension of time.  This may
be seem to be locally true, but I see no reason why higher time-like
dimensions can't exist.  My favorite analogy of this a typical audio
amplifier that uses negative feedback to keep distortion down.  A naive
viewpoint might be that negative feedback is impossible, because if you
are feeding back an output of +n volts into an input that is at -m
volts, then how could that output of +n volts exist at all?  (It can
exist if there is a propagation delay of some kind in the application of
the negative feedback and/or if there is a potential drop along the
feedback loop.)

Time travel back in time is analogous to the negative or positive
feedback in an amplifier.  If the feedback is of wrong polarity, or if
the phase is wrong (Nyquist theorem etc.), you can get oscillations.
You still think of the signal as travelling from the input to the
output, but there's also a signal going back causing the oscillation.
What you need to do is realize that the path of an electron from the
input of the amp to the ouput is analogous to the way we travel through
time, and the dimension of time in which the oscillations take place is
analogous to a *higher* dimension of time for us.

So if you went back in time and killed your grandfather, you would
eliminate yourself, which would mean that you didn't kill your
grandfather after all, etc.  A localized region of space-time would
simply be in oscillation, though an individual at a specific point in
that space-time may not realize it.  Who knows, there may be even some
sort of spacial damping, forcing the oscillations to die out very
quickly, so even if your grandfather recognized you as his grandson, he
would soon forget as space-time stabilized and the incident got wiped
out from his mind.

The theme of how the past can change was used in "The Lathe of Heaven"
(also made into a film shown on PBS).  (Not sure of author; possibly
Ursula Le Guinn.)  The possibility of a higher dimension of time was not
explicitly discussed, but the story involved a man who could change not
just the present and future, but also the past, by dreaming it.

Rahul Dhesi         UUCP:  {ihnp4,seismo}!{iuvax,pur-ee}!bsu-cs!dhesi

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 87 09:25:11 GMT
From: lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: FTL and causality.

Larry Niven has a bee in his bonnet about causality. Seems to think it's
some fundamental law of physics. Hates to violate it by travelling in
time, though for some reason FTL never bothered him.

A universe that will react in a purposeful manner to prevent time
travel?  Give me a break. I can deal with Niven's law (in any universe
in which time travel is possible it will "eventually" settle down into a
state in which time travel was never invented), though I think it's
horsehockey... there are plenty of examples of systems that never damp
down (oscillating systems being the simplest case, though it's more
likely that a TT universe would end up following a strange attractor).
But a universe with volition? That's a bigger violation of causality
than anything Tipler could come up with.

The basic problem is that causality is just a rule of the game. It's
easier to study systems if you can assume that every effect happens
after its cause.  But if it looks like it's possible to violate a rule
of the game, go ahead.  After all, the rules have been changed before.
It's just a matter of redefining time.

Peter da Silva

------------------------------

Date: 8 Sep 87 00:46:18 GMT
From: lll-tis!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!splut!jay@ames.arpa  (Jay Maynard)
Subject: Re: FTL

In article <3888@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu (David Palmer) writes:
) Another valid solution to Einstein's equations is the following: Take
) a large (infinitely long, radius large enough (hundred of miles or
) more) . . .

This made a good story, too. Larry Niven took the title of Frank J.
Tipler's paper on the subject - _Rotating Cylinders and the Possibility
of Global Causality Violation_ and wrote a short story about an
interstellar war which was ended by such a device. It's in his
_Convergent Series_ collection.

(Crossposted to rec.arts.sf-lovers...if I don't get flamed to death over
there!)

Jay Maynard, K5ZC

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 03:08:45 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!steve@LLL-LCC.ARPA  (Steve Nuchia)
Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel

In article <493@uop.UUCP>, exodus@uop.UUCP (Freddy Kreuger) writes:
> I just read a recent SciFi novel and it raised a few good questions
> (?).  First off, if you are travelling at the speed of light or even
> .5c, what happens if you hit a fist-sized meteorite? A speck of dust?
> A cloud of dust?

Coliding with a fist sized marshmallow at .9c, .5c, or even .001c (.093
million miles/sec) would ruin your whole day.  I suppose that there is
some chance that relativistic collisions with microscopic particles
would actually be less dangerous than slower colisions with the same
object, much as high velocity bullets punch cleaner holes than slow
ones.  Nevertheless, there is no sense in limiting one's velocity for
colision safety - collisions in space are unsafe at any speed.

> Are speeds apporaching c even remotely feasible in travelling to the
> stars assuming we _could_ accelerate to those velocities?

It can be fun to work through the calculations for, say, a 1.5G constant
acceleration/deceleration trip.  If you could get the reaction mass from
somewhere you could see some pretty sights in your lifetime (if you
don't hit any marshmallows!).  But the sun isn't likely to be here when
you get back.  It's hard to see financing such a trip, unless the people
who would be going were the ones with the bucks.

Steve Nuchia

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 87 02:09:27 GMT
From: spar!freeman@decwrl.dec.com  (Jay Freeman)
Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel

An interesting point on the "fist-sized rock" bit:

If you would like to release as much energy as released in the
detonation of a modest tactical nuclear weapon (say, 20 Kilotons), you
can

(1) Detonate a modest tactical nuclear weapon;

(2) Detonate a freight train several miles long, full of TNT (400 50-ton
    capacity box cars);

(3) Throw a DIME at the target area at eighty-seven percent of the speed
    of light.

(Eighty-seven percent of c -- actually, the fraction is half the square
root of three -- is the speed at which rest mass energy and kinetic
energy are equal.)

See, maybe they really will fight world war four with rocks ... :-) (At
least, I hope that was a :-) .)

Another interesting point: Given a nominal interstellar medium (and
there are several to choose from), the heat-dissipation problem of a
starship traveling at a speed such that gamma = 10 (that is, such that
1.0/sqrt(1 - v**2 / c**2) = 10 -- so that time dilation and all the
other stuff is a factor of ten), is comparable to that of an Apollo
spacecraft DURING REENTRY.  That's just for interstellar gas, no rocks
at all.

Who said space is a vacuum, anyway ... :-)

						-- Jay Freeman

------------------------------

Date: 4 Sep 87 01:04:36 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!crash!telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: Shuttle TPS

> >Achieving economical space transportation in no way required a vehicle
> >with the specifications of the Shuttle.  What it mainly required is 
> >what we are still sorely lacking, 15 years later--a reusable booster.  
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Excuse me for interupting, but it seem to me that to be able to reuse 
> booster rockets, one must get them back from orbit in a condition that
                            ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
  (If they reach orbit, they're by definition orbiters--not a boosters)
> would allow them to be reused.  What better way than to put Wings on
> them and Fly them back down.  Gee, I just described the Shuttle.  Also
> one of the reasons the shuttle was designed (as far as my memory
> serves me) was to bring back satelites for refurbishing/refitting.
> That is one thing that plain booster rockets cannot do.
> 
> Andy Monka

The advantage of a reusable booster over a reusable orbiter is that it's
so much easier (perhaps I should say "possible") to build one that
really delivers on "reusability".  I.e., one that can be turned around
between missions without making a six month, cast-of-thousands
production out of it.  Which is what we have with our "reusable" shuttle
orbiters.

The booster is easier, in part, because it doesn't reach the kind of
speeds where thermal protection is a big problem.  It doesn't have to
squeeze every last bit of performance out of its engines, nor every last
bit of excess weight out of its structure.  You can make it sturdy
enough to last for a few hundred missions, because it's not going far
enough for the extra mass to matter all that much.  By contrast, to keep
weight down, the structure of the orbiters had to be shaved to the point
that _Columbia_, if I recall reports correctly, is already showing early
signs of metal fatigue.  I don't recall how many more missions it is
projected to be good for, but I believe it's less than a dozen.  Then it
will have to be retired--which is the real reason NASA was able to win
approval for a replacement for _Challenger_.

The capability of the Shuttle to bring back satellites for repair is a
good example of a "requirement" that never made much hard sense, but
warped the direction of the whole program.  Sure, it would have been a
nice capability, had the Shuttle lived up to its NASA hype as a "space
truck".  That was predicated on a marginal cost of maybe $10 million per
launch--but what's an order of magnitude or so, between friends?

- Roger Arnold				..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #351
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Sep 87 06:19:32 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07307; Tue, 15 Sep 87 03:16:46 PDT
	id AA07307; Tue, 15 Sep 87 03:16:46 PDT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 87 03:16:46 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709151016.AA07307@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #352

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 352

Today's Topics:
		    Re: High altitude launch sites
		      Re: More on Shuttle Parts
		      Re: Phoenix launch vehicle
		  Space Station orbital` inclination
		Re: Space Station orbital` inclination
		Re: Space Station orbital` inclination
		   McD Space Station Commercial....
		Re: Space Station orbital inclination
		Re: Space Station orbital inclination
	       Lunar Nucleon Decay & Neutrino Detector
		More on Lunar Nucleon Decay Experiment
		      New evidence for 5th force
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 5 Sep 87 01:26:32 GMT
From: gatech!hubcap!ncrcae!ncr-sd!crash!telesoft!roger@mcnc.org  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: High altitude launch sites

> Q: How much of a fuel savings due to reduced atmospheric drag could be
> 	had by using a high altitude (mountain) launch site?

There's no simple answer to this.  If you just take an existing launch
vehicle and figure out how much payload it could orbit if launched from
a high altitude site, you'll find that it's more than it would be for a
sea level launch, but not enough to get excited about.  I don't have the
data (or software) handy to give out real numbers, but I'm pretty sure
that the payload gain would invariably come to less than 10%.

This doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of potential in high altitude
launch sites.  (Oops, pun not intended, but perhaps appropriate to the
gravity of this reply?  I think it must be Friday.  Anyway..)  If you
start from scratch and design a system optimized for a high altitude
launch site, you'll find that it can beat the pants off the sea level
competition.  Small, cheap, pressure fed expendables (shades of
Percheron!) become a lot more practical, mostly because they don't need
as much internal tank pressure to achieve a good expansion ratio in the
exhaust gas (and, hence, good engine performance).  Less tank pressure
means lighter, cheaper tanks, and higher payload.

I have this fantasy of a Columbian Joe Kennedy, who, having made his
fortune in the manner that great fortunes often seem to get started,
wants to become respectable and leave a legacy.  So he builds a rocket
factory and launch site in the high Andes near the equator, founding
what will grow to become the world's premier space port in the 21st
century.  Sounds like grist for a good SF story, anyway.

- Roger Arnold				..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

P.S. - But if my Columbian Kennedy wants to hire me to help design his
rockets, he'll have to be REAL SINCERE about putting his past behind
him.  I wouldn't want to find myself looking down the barrel of a tommy
gun because I had to slip a schedule.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 18:41:53 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!henry@rutgers.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: More on Shuttle Parts

> ...  My original impression will not go away easily, so I now ask for
> more details--it seemed that these engines did indeed have a very
> rocky development, but now, while they are reasonably mature, they
> seemed to be doing well.  If I remember right, a destruct test of one
> of these showed it could run to around 180% before it lost it...

Unfortunately, they are still complex and expensive, and they still need
major overhauls far more frequently than the original specs called for.
There is now some hope that improved components will mean that the pumps
won't need to be rebuilt after every single flight; this is seen as a
major accomplishment!

> ... what about the old J2 engine?  It has some desirable
> characteristics: it has served on main booster stages (Saturn 1-B)...

Not so, the Saturn 1B first-stage engines burned LOX and kerosene.  The
J-2 was strictly an upper-stage engine.  I don't remember the numbers,
but I suspect its thrust was a bit low to make an attractive main
engine.

> Is the tooling for this around?  Can one build a big dumb booster with
> this engine?

The tooling will certainly be gone, like the rest of the Saturn tooling.
And this was not a particularly simple or cheap engine; it would be
suitable for a big dumb booster only with some, uh, reinterpretation of
the word "dumb".

> My personal preference for some sort of flyback booster with
> AIR-breathing engines...

The idea has merit, although one must bear in mind that jet engines are
much, much heavier for their thrust output than rockets, and the need
for intakes that are efficient at supersonic speeds is a non-trivial
constraint.  It would certainly seem that fighter engines would make an
attractive alternative to the current strap-ons for launchers like
Delta, at the very least.

> ... a stage to take one to 70,000 ft and Mach 3 will allow one to
> relax the constraints on a rocket design...  ... can be done with
> existing technology, though the size of it will in itself push things
> some.

If you're willing to use rockets for the upward leg of the flight and
use the jets only for return, note that this type of booster almost made
it into the Shuttle design: Boeing proposed to add wings and jets to the
Saturn V first stage as a flyback booster for the shuttle.
Unfortunately, it cost a little too much.

> We could even get a supersonic passenger plane out of the deal...

Not likely, I'm afraid, given the very different mission requirements,
especially in regard to range.  (This is non-trivial because nearly the
only thing wrong with Concorde is that it lacks the range for
transPacific operations.)
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 16:15:53 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Phoenix launch vehicle

In article <794@s.cc.purdue.edu> ain@s.cc.purdue.edu.UUCP (Patrick White) writes:
>Wouldn't enriching the mixture with something relatively inert be a
>better idea than with highly corrosive oxygen? [suggestions elided..]
>-- Pat White

   In terms of avoiding the problems with dealing with a hot, O2-rich
exhaust, yes.  (It ain't *corrosion* you worry about, its *fire*).
However, that would greatly complicate and add weight to the vehicle.
The advantage (and reason behind) using O2 richening is that that can be
achieved simply by playing with the flow rates of the existing
propellants (H2 and O2).  To inject xenon (which ain't cheap, and will
cause anaethesthesia if inhaled at significant partial pressures) or
even CO2 or H2O requires extra tankage, extra plumbing and injector
mechanisms, etc.
   There are ways of handling the hot O2-rich exhaust, there are also
ways of providing the extra 'kick' needed without it.  (Dani Eder's
suggestion of drop-off turbojet boosters, for example).
-- 
 Alastair JW Mayer     BIX: al
                      UUCP: ...!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair

Let's build a base on the Moon on our way to the asteroids - forget Mars.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 87 19:48:48 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Space Station orbital` inclination

Current plans are to have the US space station put into an orbit with an
inclination to the equator of 32 degrees.  The space station will be the
largest object in orbit and will be very bright to a ground observer.
But at this inclination it will not be seen well north (or south) of
latitude 38 degrees.  Does anyone know why this inclination was chosen?
Does it have to do with resupply?  MIR and the Salyuts have a 51.5
inclination and this is the latitude of Baikonur.  The Spacelab missions
had an inclination of 50 degrees.  Can someone be pursuaded to change
the inclination to a higher one if it is not critical to the mission?

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 08:22:06 GMT
From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Space Station orbital` inclination

High inclination orbits are much more costly to reach, especially from
near-equatorial launch sites.  The optimum inclination (in terms of
maximum payload for a given launcher) is equal to the latitude of the
launch site, and this occurs for a due east launch.  Higher inclinations
are of course used if the extra earth coverage is worth the lost payload
capacity.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 13:27:41 GMT
From: fritz@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Fritz Benedict)
Subject: Re: Space Station orbital` inclination

As an observational astronomer, I vote for zero degrees inclination.
There are very few (no?) major observatories along the equator.

Fritz Benedict  (512)471-3448
arpa: fritz@ut-ngp.arpa
snail: Astronomy, U of Texas, Austin, TX  78712

------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 4 Aug 87 08:28:26 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu>
To: wmartin@ALMSA-1.ARPA
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu, poli-sci@red.rutgers.edu
Subject:        McD Space Station Commercial....

> From: Will Martin -- AMXAL-RI <wmartin@almsa-1.arpa>

> ABC and CBS refused to air a McDonnell Douglas-sponsored ad, prepared
> by J. Walter Thompson, in favor of the development of the US Space
> Station ...
>         ABC and CBS turned it down, said it was 'too controversial'."
                                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
SoapBox=0;

I hate to get political on space, but when talking about government
spending tax money for things, it just sort-of fits in...

SoapBox++;

The problem with Television/Radio lobbying of people via "commercials"
is a problem of the (, I believe unconstitutional,) "Fairness Doctrine".
If a TV/Radio station runs some form of government lobbying program or
commercial, then by the fairness doctrine, the opponents of that
position get "equal time" - even if they can't pay!!

Soooo.... McD pays for an add, to help convince people that the govt
should spend tax money on a space station program that they build.

Then.... some anti-space group comes in an says "I want equal time, or
I'll sue".  After all the media is "so powerfull" they'll say.  Without
this "right" to free time, the government will come under the control of
"rich and powerfull" because they'll "brainwash" the poor people that
really are no more than "sheep" and are always "victims" of commercials
like this.....

Then some pro-space, anti-manned-space, robot-explorer group want's
their share of "equal time"....

And then some.....

Of course ABC and CBS didn't want to take a chance, NBC read RCA/GE may
have another view about this subject.  It's very easy to flip a TV knob
if you see something you don't like (I do it constantly :-) and as long
as the other guy is getting any "pro-space" benifits in attracting
advertising, then why risk any "anti-space" backlash/suit/equal-time
during your prime-time bread and butter programming???

There is no meaningful political debate for the masses in this country,
because of things like the fairness doctrine "protect" their right to
hear all sides regardless of how many people would put up money/time for
them to be aired.... (or no sides at all, as the case may be).

This is another reason a private launch economy will be much better in
the long run....

--SoapBox;


(bill)                                 lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 87 04:46:48 GMT
From: pioneer!eugene@AMES.ARPA  (Eugene Miya N.)
Subject: Re: Space Station orbital inclination

> One poster (an astronomer obviously) 0 deg. inclination.

I'll speak for some earth sensing types and say, how about 95 degs? ;-)

I can see the infighting now.  That ain't the half of it.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 87 15:35:25 GMT
From: unc!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Space Station orbital inclination

In article <2744@ames.arpa> eugene@pioneer.UUCP (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>> One poster (an astronomer obviously) 0 deg. inclination.
>
>I'll speak for some earth sensing types and say, how about 95 degs? ;-)
>
>I can see the infighting now.	That ain't the half of it.

    I thought the Station was supposed to include a polar orbiting
platform for just that purpose. Has that been chopped out too?
-- 
    Jon Leech (leech@dopey.cs.unc.edu)
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 87 08:56 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Lunar Nucleon Decay & Neutrino Detector
To: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu, space@angband.s1.gov


Bill Wyatt, asking about lunar neutrino detectors, asked:

> I don't understand - are you saying pions are produced only by an
> atmospheric interaction? This I doubt. Or that, once produced in the
> rock, they will produce fewer neutrinos because of the higher local
> density and chance of collision? This I also doubt.

The second.  The half life of a charged pion is 2.6E-8 seconds.  At
moderately relativistic energies the pion will travel about ten meters,
on average, before decaying.  The nuclear collision length in concrete
is less than thirty centimeters.  In the rarefied upper atmosphere, the
collision length is four or five orders of magnitude longer, so most
charged pions will decay before they collide.

I should point out that I didn't originate this idea.  A paper was
published last year (the reference escapes me; I think Salam was one of
the authors; look in Ref. Mod. Phys. for a review article that
references it) that proposed a nucleon decay experiment on the moon.  My
estimate of thousands of feet of rock is perhaps too large, since that
paper proposed putting the experiment in a tunnel in the wall of a large
crater.

> Given the large detection masses and depth of the cavern required,
> it'll be impractical, and probably unnecessary for a very long time to
> come. Even the Earth's natural radioactivity is pretty easy to exclude
> from the counted events.

For neutrino telescopes, perhaps, but not for nucleon decay experiments.
Cosmic ray generated neutrinos produce background events that can't be
distinguished from nucleon decay. The lunar experiment reduces the neutrino
background by a factor of 200.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 11 Sep 87 09:40 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: More on Lunar Nucleon Decay Experiment
To: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu, space@angband.s1.gov

Some more details on the lunar nucleon decay experiment:

The paper appeared in Int. J. of Mod. Phys., A1, p. 147. The authors
propose digging a 300x15x7 meter tunnel into the wall of a crater. The
tunnel is 100 m beneath the surface. In the tunnel are placed 25 to 50
modules. Each module consists of a 10x5x5 meter sandwich of eighty
layers of lunar soil (total of 400 tonnes) separated by gaseous
discharge tubes (2 tonnes). This low tech approach is similar to a
nucleon decay experiment currently being conducted in a gold mine in
India, where the discharge tubes were manufactured at the site out of
ordinary pipe.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 1987 14:25-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: New evidence for 5th force

Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force.  Two seperate
borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a team
in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from theory.
This is in the range of Fishbach's findings of discrepencies with the
Eotvos data.

Work by the Michigan group is discussed in: Science, 21-Aug-87,
"Borehole Measurements of the Newtonian Gravitational Constant", A T
Hsui pp881-883.

The issue is by no means proven, but what we all thought was another fun
but short lived hypothesis is now very much alive.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #352
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 15 Sep 87 23:21:34 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA08590; Tue, 15 Sep 87 20:18:10 PDT
	id AA08590; Tue, 15 Sep 87 20:18:10 PDT
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 87 20:18:10 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709160318.AA08590@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #353

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 353

Today's Topics:
	    Proxmire for Mars mission? Challange him why!
			Re: Things aint so bad
			Re: Things aint so bad
			Re: Things aint so bad
			   Re: Rocket parts
			Re: Things aint so bad
		     Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle
		    Private Spaces... (130+ lines)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 00:37:04
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: Proxmire for Mars mission? Challange him why!

<DLS> Date: 23 Aug 87 04:35:41 GMT
<DLS> From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!mtgzy!mtgzz!dls@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (d.l.skran)
<DLS> Subject: Re: Cooperation uber alles?

<DLS> ... Proxmire endorses a Mars mission. Personally, I think he's
<DLS> just giving us the rope to hang outselves with.

I think we should send letters to Proxmire asking why he favors such a
mission, pointing out how it would be a great waste of money compared to
other things we might do in space in the near future, listing at least
ten such alternatives that we favor. Tell him we could do all ten of the
alternatives for less than the cost of the manned-Mars mission. (The ten
include mining the Moon and asteroids by robotics, and building
space-based manufacturing somewhere in cislunar space, leading to major
habitat in space.) Explain how after those other missions are done, a
mission to Mars will be a lot cheaper due to the space-based industry
and materials that can build it, as well as the experience with
long-term cislunar habitat in space. Challenge him to come true to his
money-saving penchant and endorse the alternatives instead of the
manned-Mars mission.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 13:25:48 GMT
From: uunet!eplrx7!lad@seismo.css.gov  (Lawrence Dziegielewski)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

In article <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else
> > presently has anything nearly as zippy...
> 
> Anything nearly as zippy, no.  This has nothing much to do with
> usefulness, though.  The Soviet hardware consistently does almost
> everything better than the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously.

I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets have
NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle.  There is nothing on the pad
anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the shuttle.
And there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware
performs better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness' has nothing
to do with it.

The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into
space and returing with other payloads.  They do not have the capability
of sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once
like we can with the shuttle.

> However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too
> much and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way.  This is a

Cost too much?  Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the
cost comes way down.  The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high
until we get them going regularly again (soon, I hope).  Besides, high
technology is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced
space vehicle in the world today.  IT'S WORTH IT.

Get on the stick and get with the program, man.  Or at least get the
right information.

	Lawrence A. Dziegielewski	|	E.I. Dupont Co.
	{uunet!dgis!psuvax1}!eplrx7!lad	|	Engineering Physics Lab
	Cash-We-Serve 76127,104		|	Wilmington, Delaware 19891
	MABELL:  (302) 695-1311		|	Mail Stop: E357-318

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 16:17:53 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

>The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into
>space and returing with other payloads.  They do not have the
>capability of sending teams of scientists and technicians into space
>all at once like we can with the shuttle.

I hate to state the obvious but:
We, on the other hand, do not have the capability of transporting
payloads into space.  We do not have the capability of sending
scientists and technicians into space. And we don't have anyplace to
keep them for a few months so that they can get some work done.
		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu
		...rutgers!cit-vax!tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer
	The opinions expressed are those of an 8000 year old Atlantuan
	priestess named Mrla, and not necessarily those of her channel.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 19:01:34 GMT
From: panda!teddy!rdp@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard D. Pierce)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
>> > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else
>> > presently has anything nearly as zippy...
>> 
>> Anything nearly as zippy, no.  This has nothing much to do with
>> usefulness, though.  The Soviet hardware consistently does almost
>> everything better than the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously.
>> Almost the only thing the
>> 
>I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets
>have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle.  There is nothing on the
>pad anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the
>shuttle.  And there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian
>hardware performs better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness'
>has nothing to do with it.

Your absolutely right. The Soviets DO NOT have anything anywhere near as
advanced as a high-tech shuttle that won't fly. All they have is old,
low-tech stuff that does fly. A lot.

>The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into
>space and returing with other payloads.  They do not have the
>capability of sending teams of scientists and technicians into space
>all at once like we can with the shuttle.

You're almost right. The Soviets do not have the cabability of flying
lots of people into space all at once. This is compared to the US, which
has the highest-tech method in the world which can't fly anyone into
space.  The Soviets, while they do have the ability to transport
payloads into space on a weekly basis, do not have the ability to return
large payloads from space. We, on the other hand, having a paltry
ability at best to send payloads into space, probably don't need to have
an ability to return what we can't get up there to begin with, so the
shuttle, being the high-tech grounded solution that it is, is admirably
suited to NOT carrying payloads into space, and NOT returning them when
they're not their to begin with.

>Cost too much?  Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the
>cost comes way down.  The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high
>until we get them going regularly again (soon, I hope).  Besides, high
>technology is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced
>space vehicle in the world today.  IT'S WORTH IT.

Especially if they are flown the way they were in '86. After a while,
we'll loose the three remaining shuttles (they way we did in '86) and
the cost will eventually reach zero, it might be argued. (Let's see, we
flew 2 shuttle missions in '86, right?, one blew up at a replacement
cost of 1 billion plus, let's ignore the operating costs, it will simply
perturb the last few digits anyway, that means than that each flight
cost about 500 million plus. Such a deal, I should live so long.)

>Get on the stick and get with the program, man.  Or at least get the
>right information.

Et tu...

Dick Pierce

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 87 20:10:25 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Rocket parts


See "Shuttle Derived Cargo Launch Vehicle Concept Evaluation
Study, Final Report and Extension,Final Report."  Contract
NAS-8-34599, by Boeing Aerospace Company for NASA Marshall
Space Flight Center.  Sept. 1982 and July 1983.

Write To:
Charles R. Darwin, Director
Program Development
Mail Code PA01
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Alabama, 35812

for copies.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing
Member:Olympus Mons Alpine Society
Member:Sea of Tranquility Yacht Club

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 20:05:48 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

> (By the way, the Soviet shuttle is apparently on the pad at Baikonur.)
> -- 
> "There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology


Please keep us informed on what you know.  Unlike our shuttle the soviet one
will go overhead at my location at every launch.  I'd like to see this one.

Thanks,  Bruce Watson (scicom, Denver, Co)

------------------------------

Date:           Tue, 4 Aug 87 11:56:08 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu>
To: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu
Cc: jon@oddhack.caltech.edu, space@angband.s1.gov, kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject:        Re: Cost of 747 vs. Shuttle

> From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)

>>  jon@oddhack.caltech.edu (Jon Leech) writes:
>> How expensive would 747s be if Boeing had only built 4 of them

> In today's dollars at least $1 billion apiece if we had only built 4.
> It is not correct that a 747 is comparable to a Space Shuttle in cost.
> According to the "Boeing News" of July 24, 1987:(page 1)

> "China Airlines will acquire six 747-400 superjets valued at about $1
> billion...".  These are the new version coming out next year.

> According to NASA's 1988 budget estimate, the replacement orbiter will
> cost $2.1 billion in 1987 dollars.

The cost of new 747's is not the point.  From my reading of
semiconductor production rags, and from a friend at a startup
manufacturing firm a typical manufacturing "learning curve" is: a 15%
reduction in the unit production costs for each doubling of the total
amount produced to date.

The First 4 747's would have cost a hugh amount if Boeing hadn't
expected to sell a bunch and invested in the capital to move them down
the learning curve faster.

soapBox++;

NASA should go back to the old NACA model that helped the development of
comercial aircraft in this country (and the world).  NACA explored the
technology, did some basic research, sometimes built "technology" demos.

Meanwhile - the aircraft companies built airplanes, based on incremental
"safe" changes to existing designs or new designs based on known and
predictable manufacturing techniques.  As Boeing, McD, Hughes et al.
learned, success was not in the fantastic unknown of airframes, it was
incremental evolution of airplanes.  Airplanes that were way off the
evolution trends (C5A, SpruceGoose, B70) never became commercially
viable (without tax money).

Today NASA competes using tax subsities with the development of a
comercial space program.  Get NASA out of the way. Let them run the
shuttle, for Shuttle specific payloads ONLY.  All others can go
"hunting" for the best launch deal available.  The Govt should purchase,
and not make launch services.

The Shuttle is not an evolution, it is a revolution and with only 4 of
them it is never going to be economical.  The new Deltas, Titans and
Arian are evolving and will be the future of satellite launches.  We had
a heavy lift launch vehicle, the Saturn, and if NASA hadn't thrown it
and our space-station away (Skylab) for "the latest technology" we'd
know a lot more about manufacturing/living in space today.

--soapBox;

(bill)                                        lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU

------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 20 Aug 87 18:42:14 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu>
Cc: kfl@ai.ai.mit.edu
Subject:        Private Spaces... (130+ lines)

> mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray) writes:
>
> Mr Roy Gibson handed in his notice two weeks after the government
> turned down a request to fund a 300 million pound space technology
> project.
> 
> The BNSC said the funding would enable Britan to participate in
> international space ventures as well as home projects.
> ...
> This should be a warning to those in the USA who want the US
> Government out of space exploration, leaving everything to be done by
> industry.

Wrong-o.  Your quoted article is exactly the reason to get government
out of running the space launch and development industry!  It was
GOVERNMENT that turned down the #300 million.

As long as government is running the show - politics, will be the name
of the game.

You see, it is not a matter of getting the "right people" to pull the
strings of the system.  The strings in a system of government directed
programs ARE the problem.  No election of the "correct" person(s) will
ever fix this.

Power, like profit, has its own logic and it's own rewards.  To be
profitable one must cuts costs and sell more (at as high a price as the
competition will permit).  To be powerful one must gain control of more
people, control bigger empires, build bigger budgets, spend more
money....

It is not a PEOPLE problem it's is a PROCESS problem.

Basic political-economy relation:
Politicians hand out favors and "solve" problems to the extent that the
"Marginal benefit" of supporting a positions (in votes, publicity, etc.)
equals or just outweighs the "Marginal cost" of doing so.

THIS IS A FACT THAT WILL NEVER CHANGE!

The question is not if or if not the government should be involved in
providing the "infra-structure" for space, but how should it involve
itself.  If the space "program" is to be run like a public works
project, then we'll get a system that looks like the public works
projects on earth - decaying, inefficient, maladapted to user's needs,
costing 10x too much, managed by political pork-barrel and
politics-of-empire-building, not value to users.

I'm not advocating getting government out of space and space
exploration.  I'm saying that the government needs to do things that are
in harmony with the way the (political and economics) world works, and
the goals of large scale man-in-space.  One of the most effective ways
of doing this is to purchase launch services in the marketplace.

Currently, the government is THE biggest customer for space.  There are
many things that the government wants in space:

weather, spy, communication, and exploration satellites,
weapons (flames > /dev/null), manned medical, construction, expermental
orbit missions (even moon bases!). 

> It looks like HOTOL is going to be yet another missed opportunity. We
> will be watching the Japanese launching their HOTOL look-alike in 2007
> and thinking if only...

Yea, if only I could buy a good American or British ride into orbit!  I
would hate to ride in some small japanese launcher (you know, they never
put enough leg room for the Americans :-)

Enough angry negatives, now some suggestions for government policies:

 1) Get out of the way - stop restricting private space activities in
    the name of "national security", this includes not allowing domestic
    users to purchase space launches from other countries, (If I want my
    payload in space, I really don't care if the launch vehicle is
    Japanese).  More competition is preferable to drive down costs, and
    improve service.  Stop trying to kill things like private remote
    sensing satellites.

 2) Stop competing with private launchers via a subsidized shuttle when
    the payloads can be launched on another vehicle.  This will provide
    profits for companies that develop alternative launch capability.

 3) Turn NASA back into an NACA type operation (like it's aeronautics
    branch still is, I think).  It could mount some basic space research
    efforts with things like planetary exploration, manned flight
    research, space structures, new launch vehicle technologies etc.
    These are areas of science, that might not pose an immediate
    "economic" return, but the wide availability of the knowledge will
    greatly speed the use of space.

 3) The shuttle is a money looser.  NASA should provide NO SUBSIDIZED
    LAUNCHES.  Each user (govt included) should be charged what it
    "really costs" including pro-rated construction costs and ABSOLUTELY
    NO FINANCIAL FUNNY BUSINESS by shifting expenses to other
    departments so as to make the shuttle appear less expensive.  This
    will provide incentive for users to look elsewhere for launches,
    thereby providing market demand.  If a payload can "only" go on the
    shuttle, then fine.  What should we do with current STS bookings?
    This needs to be negotiated with users.

 4) ALL (this means THE MILITARY too) govt payloads should go with "off
    the shelf" launchers.  The NBS should establish a set of STANDARD
    payload specifications for GOVERNMENT payloads ONLY.  This way
    industry would know how to anticipate govt requirements for launch
    vehicles.  No designing payloads for roll-your-own launchers!

 5) If govt payloads meet NBS specs (which they should), then they MUST
    BE launched on the most inexpensive vehicle/system (figuring in cost
    of insurance too).  The insurance costs aspect would encourage /
    reward builders of reliable launchers.  Multiple launch contracts
    (for volume discount) should be o.k., BUT contracts lengths should
    be limited, to avoid "the old-boy network" and "revolving door" from
    getting a hold of the govt space purchasing arm and to give a
    cheaper launch systems and companies an incentive to exist.

 6) Work towards agreement (via GATT?) on eliminating other countries
    subsidities of their launch systems.  If the U.S. govt really
    presses and gives up it's own subsitities on shuttle, real "market"
    conditions may prevail.  This is going to be tough, but we have some
    clout if we use it.


Look, the future could look much more like today's airline & freight
business: NASA does some basic research, "pushes the envelope" as it
were.  Private companies can build crafts and beat the living daylights
out of each other to get the next big order for hardware.  Companies can
purchase these aircraft for use in providing whatever their users are
willing to pay for.

(bill)
#include <std/disclaimer.h>                       lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU

"Federal Express -
   When It absolutely, positively has to be in orbit tomorrow"

P.S. Everyone should read the August 17, 1987 _Newsweek_ (cover story)
articles on the state of the U.S. space program.

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #353
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 16 Sep 87 06:34:52 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA09475; Wed, 16 Sep 87 03:17:17 PDT
	id AA09475; Wed, 16 Sep 87 03:17:17 PDT
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 87 03:17:17 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709161017.AA09475@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #354

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 354

Today's Topics:
			Private Space Program
				 HST
				 ASLT
		    Re: High altitude lauch sites
			   Re: Moon Colony
	     Re: Special Newsweek Report: "Lost in Space"
		    Re: High altitude lauch sites
	 Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites)
       Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites)
	    cheap transport to space, space station waste?
			 Re: Newsweek article
       Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites)
	 Brazil in space (was: Re: High altitude lauch sites)
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 87 07:53:11 GMT
From: ihnp4!upba!eecae!conklin@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Terry Conklin)
Subject: Private Space Program
 
If anyone has any information on any commercial space directives, I
would appreciate a tabulation either here or reply via email. Forgive me
if I've lost faith in NASA, but their lack of funding, bizarre hiring
procedures, and lack of respect (from others) kinda kills what was once
a dream.

After much work looking into just how "real" the Enterprise (as a
working model) could be, I have to assume that there are private
operations working on their own programs. I suppose the money giveaway
is over, so please point me towards the nearest up and coming spaceport.

Terry Conklin
ihnp4!msudoc!conklin
conklin@cps.msu.edu

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 07:30:14 GMT
From: cartan!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William Baxter)
Subject: HST

I heard tonight (at least third hand) that the Hubble Space Telescope
was just dropped from the shuttle manifest.  Can anyone confirm or (I
hope) deny this?

The "reasons" given were a decision to delay the start of the tug needed
to boost it in 1992, and the failure to dedicate shuttle space to a
booster specifically for the HST.

William Baxter

ARPA: web@bosco.Berkeley.EDU
UUCP: {cbosgd,sun,dual,decwrl,decvax,ihnp4,hplabs,...}!ucbvax!bosco!web

------------------------------

Date:         Fri, 11 Sep 87 18:11:52 EDT
From: Ben Yalow <YBMCU%CUNYVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      ASLT

The ASLT technology was used by IBM for the 360/91, the first 360 type
of "supercomputer", first shipped in the late 60's.  The 91 was a major
speed improvement over earlier machines, with a high level of parallel
processing, etc.  ASLT was considered to be a major advance that helped
make the machine possible.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 87 17:58:31 GMT
From: uunet!steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@seismo.css.gov  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: High altitude lauch sites

In article <499@telesoft.UUCP>, roger@telesoft.UUCP (Roger Arnold @prodigal) writes:

> I have this fantasy of a Columbian Joe Kennedy, who, having made his
> . . .  Sounds like grist for a good SF story, anyway.

I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that postulates
that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL.  Although this
seems ludicrous at first, supposedly it's a very good, well-theorized
novel.  I wish I'd written down the title and author.  Does anybody know
of this?  If so, please e-mail details.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 87 17:32:22 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: Moon Colony

(David Smyth) writes:
> Would it be practical to build a space port on the Moon ...
> .....
> *	Where would the fuel come from (Oxygen plentiful, but what about
>	hydrogen?  Or perhaps something new-cue-lar?

Rocks.  Crystaline rock contains considerable "water of crystalization"
which can be liberated by, among other techniques, solar-heating.

> *	Who would really want to live on the moon?

ME! (at least for a "tour of duty"), just tell me where to sign up!

John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp          jnp@calmasd.GE.COM

------------------------------

Date:           Thu, 13 Aug 87 09:18:48 PDT
From: Todd Johnson <lcc.todd@cs.ucla.edu>
To: DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:        Re: Special Newsweek Report: "Lost in Space"

I think you want to be careful about the message you're giving Ronnie
and congresscritters.

If you think back, the shuttle was touted AND sold to Congress and
Richard Nixon as a cheap method of doing things. NASA was struggling to
maintain some sort of space presence in the Nixon era of big Vietnam
spending and budget cuts on everything else. I think the shuttle's
failings are a direct result of the "make it cheap" mentality at the
time.

It had, as I recall, been originally billed as part of a triad of lift
vehicles: heavy lift (based on Saturn V) expendable, medium lift
expendable (I believe they were talking Saturn 1C) and crewed special
(the shuttle). Congress and Nixon moaned that that was too much, NASA
could only have one toy so NASA plonked for the newer technology with
hopes of getting funding for the rest of the triad. The situation
deteriorated significantly beyond that and we got the current shuttle.

If you try to sell Congress on the idea that we can make Big Dumb
Rockets they'll decide that we're talking cheap and think they can make
it cheaper.  What will probably result is an overweight machine that
costs more because of the fixes required to fix the design that Congress
was willing to fund.

I am not saying that you shouldn't tell Congress that you think this is
the way to go (I see a lot potential there and I think the basic idea
displays good engineering principals) but you DO want to be careful
about the message you give them or they'll give you "Big Dumb Government
Spec'd Overweight Underpowered Failure-prone Rockets" which defeats the
whole purpose.

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 19:18:01 GMT
From: hao!boulder!sunybcs!bingvaxu!leah!uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cmaag@husc6.harvard.edu  (Christopher N Maag)
Subject: Re: High altitude lauch sites

In article <1787@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
>I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that postulates
>that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL.  Although this
>seems ludicrous at first, supposedly it's a very good, well-theorized
>novel.  I wish I'd written down the title and author.  Does anybody
>know of this?  If so, please e-mail details.
>
>Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

Could this be "The Man Who Sold the Moon", by R.A.Heinlein?  No flames
if I'm wrong; I musta read this one about 8 years ago...

Chris.

Path: uwmcsd1!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!cmaag
From: cmaag@csd4.milw.wisc.edu (Christopher Maag)

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 87 04:50:38 GMT
From: cfa!wyatt@husc6.harvard.edu  (Bill Wyatt)
Subject: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites)

[...]
> +I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that postulates
> +that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL....
[...]
> I just finished Pohl's Heechee tetralogy.  In it the Earth is Brazil
> is certainly a center of activity and power.

Somebody jog my memory. I think it was Poul Anderson who (also) wrote
such a future history, several stories collectively known as `Tales of
the Viagens' (Port. for voyagers). BUT I'm sitting here with my books
all around AND I CAN'T FIND THEM!

Bill    UUCP:  {seismo|ihnp4}!harvard!cfa!wyatt
Wyatt   ARPA:  wyatt@cfa.harvard.edu
         (or)  wyatt%cfa@harvard.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 87 05:26:34 GMT
From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites)

In article <669@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> wyatt@cfa.harvard.EDU (Bill Wyatt) writes:

>> +I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that
>> +postulates that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL....
 
>> I just finished Pohl's Heechee tetralogy.  In it the Earth is Brazil
>> is certainly a center of activity and power.

>Somebody jog my memory. I think it was Poul Anderson who (also) wrote
>such a future history, several stories collectively known as `Tales of
>the Viagens' (Port. for voyagers). BUT I'm sitting here with my books
>all around AND I CAN'T FIND THEM!

I don't which, of several possible novels, the original poster was
thinking of, but the Viagens Interplanetarias novels are by L. Sprague
de Camp.  There are a number of them, mostly written during the
1945-1955 time period, although he has used the setting since then.  The
novels are light adventure.  In the series it was assumed that Brazil
was the major political and economic power on Earth.  [A reasonable
assumption, given Brazil's natural resources, territory, and population.
The standard line about Brazil is that it has had a great future, has a
great future, and always will have a great future.]

De Camp did not believe it was legitimate to use FTL as an SF device, so
all interstellar travel is STL, even though the stories use an
interstellar setting.

	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 00:35:33
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: cheap transport to space, space station waste?

<JK> Date: 26 Aug 87 15:55:08 GMT
<JK> From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
<JK> Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article

<JK> ... it is unreasonable to expect the development of cheap transport
<JK> to orbit when aerospace companies are getting paid to do paper
<JK> studies and develop technology, rather than to put up as much
<JK> freight as possible.

Good point, except wasn't STS supposed to be that way anyway? I.e.
government says it wants cheap access to space, hires aerospace firms
and NASA internal committees to work out the cheapest best way within
current and easily-developed technology, and the result is STS, with
various contractors submitting lowest bids for actually doing the work.
Then, assuming the bids and estimates of performance are correct, we
proceed to have STS built.

The problem may have been that all up-front money came from government,
so the aerospace companies accepted none of the capital risk, therefore
had no incentive to absorb cost overruns (both in contracted building of
orbiters and SRBs, and in operating cost and replacement of "lost"
equipment) since they can simply refuse to complete the contract after
being already paid up-front, and the government can have a dandy time
trying to take them to court when cost overruns are forgiven elsewhere.
The incentive is for government to grant the overruns to avoid having
all the already-spent money go to waste and an additional ten years
getting STS flying. Hence, STS costing more than estimated, paid by
government.

Would it be feasible to do the contracting completely different, with
the contractor taking all the risk for cost overruns, borrowing or
issuing new stock to finance the construction, while the goverment
merely signs a contract guaranteeing a certain amount of launch business
at a certain price? Problem is that's an awful big gamble for a company
to take. What if, after 6 years developing the STS, it was ready, but
the government was in a penney pinching mode so abrogated its agreement
due to lack of funds available in the current budget? How could the
company possibly sue the federal government for breach of contract??
(This also applies to the proposed commercial space incentive act. It's
one thing to pass a law guaranteeing launch business. It's another thing
to actually include the money in each year's budget years after the law
has been passed and some other President is in the White House and
several Congressional elections have occurred.)

So, what do the rest of you think? Should we, for the next launch
vehicle, simply guarantee launch business (except the guarantee is
subject to funding in yearly budgets), and expect private companies to
take all the capital risk? Or should we stick with the current system,
but be more tight about cost overruns and performance failures?

<JK> The $5000/lb. lauch cost for the Shuttle v.s. the $750/lb. cost for
<JK> the Soviet Proton was a result of this emphasis on technology
<JK> development at the expense of manufacturing and delivery (a trend
<JK> which, incidently, pervades other areas of the US economy).

Technology development increases the cost of the current project, but if
it is truly useful general technology it is an investment in the future
which will pay back many times its cost in the future. The problem isn't
development of technology, it is development of technology that has no
use except for this one project. Such one-project technology must pay
itself back during the lifetime of that one project, or be a bad
investment.

(why space station will take so long and cost so much)
<JK> ... the intent of the project is not to get up a functioning space
<JK> station, but to develop technology for putting up a functioning
<JK> space station. ... The fact that a functioning space station might
<JK> result from the exercise is irrelevent.

Interesting insight. Is JK right?? Shall we confront our
Congresscritters with this way of looking at it, and ask them to please
get some damn station up there in two years even if it isn't our pride
and joy of technological innovation?

------------------------------

Date: 12 Sep 1987 19:27-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Newsweek article

I figure I'll confuse everyone by adding myself (the OTHER Dale, not to
be confused with the other Dale debating this issue) to the discussion.

I consider myself reasonably knowledgeable on many of the issues of
space development and I found this article to be the best researched and
most accurate picture that I've seen in mass media since I was a
teenager. I am discounting such things as National Geographic articles
since they are not quite the same as a feature in Time, Newsweek, US
News & World Report, Life, etc.

No, their information was not perfect. I do not necessarily agree with
all of their conclusions. But compared to the other garbage I've read in
such magazines, this was refreshing. I am usually left wondering about
the one sidedness, failure to even FIND the real issues, failure to
identify important opinion leaders, failure to recognize the existance
of a huge soviet program or a significant American PRIVATE program;
those have the hallmarks of mass media.

I agree with them that we need big dumb boosters to haul cargo cheaply
into orbit. I have high hopes that AMROC will show the superiority of
this 'simple is beautiful' approach over that of using remodeled
versions of obsolete ICBM's. I likewise agree that a name like 'Advanced
Launch System' makes me want to throw out caution flags and put my hand
on my wallet. (Why not a system called 'Dirt Cheap Simple Minded
Commercial Launch System"?)

We do need a passenger ferry like the shuttle, but we would have been
much better off with something considerably smaller but with more seats.
However, we have the shuttle and are unlikely to get anything else for
at least a decade, so that part of the debate belongs to the historian,
not the activist.

This was the first time I've seen any of the REAL issues debated in mass
media in many, many years. I hope I see a great deal more.

						Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 87 10:38:33 GMT
From: tektronix!reed!omen!percival!bucket!leonard@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Leonard Erickson)
Subject: Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites)

Thank you! The keyword was "Viagens". The Stories are by L.Sprague
deCamp.  Just about any deCamp book with a Z in the title is part of
this series as are "Rogue Queen" and the clloection someone thought was
by Anderson "The Continent Makers and other tales of the Viagens".

This series is notable for assuming that you _can't_ get around
relativity and going on from there. In fact at least one story depends
on the "twin paradox" for its final plot twist.

I recommend Rogue Queen for its rather interesting viewpoint. It is told
from the point of view of a "worker" of a humanoid race that has strong
resemblance to the social insects (workers, drones, queens).  The
effects of the visit of the Terrans are rather interesting...

Leonard Erickson

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 87 16:43:42 GMT
From: cca!svh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Susan Hammond)
Subject: Brazil in space (was: Re: High altitude lauch sites)

In article <1787@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
>I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that postulates
>that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL.  Although this
>seems ludicrous at first, supposedly it's a very good, well-theorized
>novel.  I wish I'd written down the title and author.  Does anybody
>know of this?  If so, please e-mail details.


One novel that has BRAZIL as _A_ (not _the_) major space power is "THE
DESCENT OF ANANZI" (I know that's probably spelled wrong, no flames
please, I don't have the book handy). I believe it was a Niven/Barnes
collaboration of about 5 years back. Major focus is on "Falling Angel",
a moon-based group, that tries to break of from the U.S. and become
independent. A Brazillian company sabotages one of their shuttles and
cargo and then tries to take it as salvage with some of their own
shuttle fleet, capatained by an ex-US astronaut who went to Brazil to
get more flying time than he could in the US fleet.

I think this book (or part of it) was in ANALOG. I remember liking
it--not GREAT fiction but certainly good.

Susan Hammond
svh@CCA.CCA.COM
{decvax,linus,mirror}!cca!svh

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #354
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 17 Sep 87 06:19:32 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA11382; Thu, 17 Sep 87 03:17:48 PDT
	id AA11382; Thu, 17 Sep 87 03:17:48 PDT
Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 03:17:48 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709171017.AA11382@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #355

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 355

Today's Topics:
		    US interests and Govt Spending
			    Govt Spending
			    Gov't spending
       Re: Brazil in space (was: Re: High altitude lauch sites)
		      Congresscritter Committees
			Space Exploration Day
			   Re: Shuttle TPS
		      Re: More on Shuttle Parts
	       Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies
	     Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1987 18:02-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: US interests and Govt Spending

I'm replying once publicly. Any others who wish to discuss this, please
mail it to me privately (amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu on arpa net) because this
gets into very non space areas.

I would make the point that such defense for Europe and Japan may have
made sense in 1947 when both areas were in cinders.

However, the GNP, population and standard of living of both areas are
now comparable to that of the US. Japan, for example, will probably
surpass the US economically by the middle of the next decade. Europe,
taken as a continent, is practically an equal.

Europe is probably capable of handling the USSR all by itself. They are
approximately equal in population and wealth, and are probably
technologically superior to the soviets.

Given the above, if they don't want to pick up the tab for their own
freedom, why should I? In 1947 the case was made that we should help
them until they could get on their feet and help themselves. I'm only
saying that they are on their feet. Europe ain't'a'gonna fall if we pull
out. They'll just have to take up the slack themselves. An extra $50B
out of their economy will do less harm to them than it does to us.

The same goes for the Japanese. Not to mention the fact that if they
have to pull $50B from their economy instead of getting subsidized by
us, we may find ourselves more competitive in consumer electronics.

The US is not going to be able to even pay to defend it's OWN shores if
we keep going at the rate we are. Many would make the case that the very
high expenditures in defense are wrecking the US economy. Deficits are
handled by governments by printing more money or (even MORE sneakily) by
increasing the ratio of loans to deposits, ie, telling banks that they
can now loan 5.5x their actual worth instead of 5x. (This IS the way the
Fedreal Reserve works, I'm not kidding, and the multiplier is around 4
or 5).

This inflates the money supply, undermines savings, undermines capital
expansion, decreases exports... and if it is kept up long enough, it
leads to economic collapse and hyperinflation. AND NO SPACE PROGRAM,
PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.

WE cannot afford to defend the world. However, the world is no longer
incapable of defending itself. It just hasn't had to because as long as
the American taxpayer is willing to foot the bill, why should the
Japanese taxpayer? or the German? or the <fill in the blank>? If they
want to, they will; if they feel they are already secure, they will
leave status quo. In either case, we should mind our own business and
borders.

The extension of our power around the world unnecessarily extends the
definition of what our 'interests' are, and makes it more likely we will
get sucked into every idiotic little war, revolt and crisis on Earth.

Like, WHY are WE in the Gulf? We aren't dependent on Gulf oil, at least
not critically so. The Japanese ARE critically dependent on it.  The
European's ARE critically dependent on it. So let THEM make the choice
whether to protect it or put their cars in gasoline queues.  I'm sure
they will make an intelligent decision about their own interests.

As to how the gulf (and the whole middle east) affects me, as Rhet
Butler said, "Frankly madam, I don't give a damn."

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 1987 18:45-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Govt Spending

Just in case this wasn't posted also. The points and question he brings
up are reasonable and I felt they needed responding to:

From: ucbcad!cad.Berkeley.EDU!boulder.UUCP!qetzal!rcw@ucbvax.Berkeley.EDU
To: upba!CS.CMU.EDU!Dale.Amon
Subject: Re: Cuisine out of this world
Date: 14 Sep 87 00:53:17 MDT (Mon)

> Personally Bruno, I'd rather we (US) dropped out of NATO, removed all
> of our nuclear weapons from Europe, left Japan's defense up to Japan
> and dropped the $100B thus saved from our federal budget. I really see
> no reason why we should pay to defend any borders but our own. With

That would be nice. Unfortunately, I think there are countries in the
world that would seize this opportunity to export their form of
government which 1> might not be so bad 2> might be terrible. Guess it
depends on what viewpoint you take and what your values are. Personally,
I think we have a good thing going here in the USA, (I can be part owner
of a software company). I feel I have a vested interest in protecting
America's interests around the globe, but do take issue with the large
amount of mula spent on an excess of out-of-date or nuclear weapons.

> drop in taxes after such a cut, I expect the domestic economy would
> start growing so fast that we'd have CORPORATE space stations up

I tend to believe that the excess money would get sucked up by congress
for other silly projects. Call me a cynic. Last thing you want to do is
give the government even *more* money. Let them feel guilty about the
deficit, and hope they will restrain themselves somewhat. Imagine what
would happend if they felt they were in the black!

> anyone else got moving. Governments just muck everything up. I much
> PREFER the private route. (EVERYONE ELSE: But I'll take what I can
> get!)  I'd be happy to drop by and visit you on your MBB station!

Sorry to butt in on your conversation. The spirit moved me.

Robert C. White, Jr   *---- ----*   MENTOR SOFTWARE, INC. 1-303-252-9090

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 87 02:30:01 GMT
From: hplabsz!kempf@hplabs.hp.com  (Jim Kempf)
Subject: Gov't spending

In article <558655360.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> I'm replying once publicly. Any others who wish to discuss this,
> please mail it to me privately (amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu on arpa net)
> because this gets into very non space areas.

Sorry, Dale. I couldn't resist. But I'll limit myself to just this reply.

> I would make the point that such defense for Europe and Japan may have
> made sense in 1947 when both areas were in cinders.
> 
> However, the GNP, population and standard of living of both areas are
> now comparable to that of the US. Japan, for example, will probably
> surpass the US economically by the middle of the next decade. Europe,
> taken as a continent, is practically an equal.

You may want to check out Pat Shroeder as a presidential candidate. She
has an undeserved reputation as being an ultraliberal, even thought she
has a deeper knowledge of the Pentagon than any of the candidates,
Democrat or Republican, and recently endorsed hazardous duty pay for the
servicemen in the Gulf. One of her proposals is that the U.S. tell
Europe and Japan that they should start spending more on their own
defense, and, if they don't, impose a "service charge" on imports to
finance that defense. This sounds like about the most sensible approach
I've heard, even though it would result in an increase in cost to the
American consumer. But it makes more sense than trying to manipulate the
exchange rates, which is also going to increase costs, which is
currently what's going on.

I don't know how she stands on space, but I wouldn't be suprised if she
knew considerably more about it than any of the other candidates.

Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. I've seen Schroeder flamed here
before for being too liberal, and so I wanted to pass this along.

			Jim Kempf kempf@hplabs.hp.com

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 87 14:57:54 GMT
From: rupp@cod.nosc.mil  (William L. Rupp)
Subject: Re: Brazil in space (was: Re: High altitude lauch sites)

In article <19781@cca.CCA.COM> svh@CCA.CCA.COM.UUCP (Susan Hammond) writes:
   >In article <1787@brspyr1.BRS.Com> miket@brspyr1.BRS.Com (Mike Trout) writes:
  >>I have heard, a couple of times, about a sci-fi novel that
  >>postulates that the big space power of the future will be BRAZIL.
  >>Although this seems ludicrous at......

L. Sprague DeCamp (LEST DARKNESS FALL, AN ELEPHANT FOR ARISTOTLE, etc.,
etc.) wrote such a book back in the late 1950's.  Can't remember the
title at the moment.  I think it was an Ace paperback, but probably
first published in one the SF magazines of the day, perhaps one of the
minor ones.

As for the idea being ridiculous, you never know.  What if we had
another ice age that essentially destroyed northern Europe and North
America?  Or a war that did more or less the same?  Somebody would be
left to take over world leadership, and Brazil is a large country with
lots of resources.  I somewhat doubt *anybody* would be venturing into
space under those conditions, however.  Not for a long time, but then,
SF novels usually take place "after a long time," and in that type of
scenario, lots of things are conceivable.

Bill

------------------------------

Date: 27 Aug 87 06:39:09 GMT
From: cartan!web@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (William Baxter)
Subject: Congresscritter Committees


In <8708261856.AA19669@banach.mit.edu>, purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU 
(Mark Purtill) said:
>    [To write a senator, address your letter to:
>
>      The Honorable (name)
>      Senate Office Bldg.
>      Washington, DC  20510
>
>    and start the letter "Dear Senator (name)".]
>(And the same for Representatives.)

In writing to Senators and Representatives other than your own, the
letter should be addressed to them as a member of the committee.
Otherwise it will be sent on to your Congressman.

William Baxter
ARPA: web@bosco.Berkeley.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 1987 17:16-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Space Exploration Day

Senate S1288 introduced by Jake Garn would officially declare July 20
of every year a national Space Exploration Day. There are currently 39
cosponsors. Ask your senator to consponsor this legislation.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 87 20:59:53 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Shuttle TPS

> >what we are still sorely lacking, 15 years later--a reusable booster.  
>                                                    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Excuse me for interupting, but it seem to me that to be able to reuse
> booster rockets, one must get them back from orbit in a condition that
> would allow them to be reused.  What better way than to put Wings . . .
> Andy Monka

There seems to be some confusion over the meaning of 'booster'.  That is
understandable, as the term is used in different senses by the two
posters.  A booster sometimes refers to the entire rocket used to get to
Earth orbit, and sometimes to just the first stage of such.  The more
precise terms are:

First Stage
Launch Vehicle

A reuseable first stage would not have to return from orbit.  It
typically reaches 0.12 to 0.3 times orbit velocity.  Since the engines
and tanks are not taken all the way to orbit, the penalty for making
them reuseable (heavier hardware, plus heat shield, wings, landing gear)
is much lower than for an orbital stage.

Dani Eder/Advanced Space Transportation/Boeing

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 12:16:08 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: More on Shuttle Parts

In article <8559@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> We could even get a supersonic passenger plane out of the deal...
>
>Not likely, I'm afraid, given the very different mission requirements,
>especially in regard to range.  (This is non-trivial because nearly the
>only thing wrong with Concorde is that it lacks the range for
>transPacific operations.)

A longer range Concorde was originally planned, but with the lack of
sales of the aircraft all further development was abandoned.

The same company responsible for the Concorde engines has designed the
HOTOL engines. In the pasanger carrying version of this machine, if it
ever gets built, up to sixty passangers could be carried in a
sub-orbital ballistic flight from Britain to Australia in 45 mins.
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 10 Sep 1987 14:45-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies

I wish to publicly state my utter condemnation of the United States
Departments of Commerce, Defense and State on their assumption of veto
power over private remote sensing systems.

I urge civil disobedience by anyone in a position to do so. This needs
to be tested in the Supreme Court while the court is still a
pseudo-legitimate body.

If we cannot defend the constitution without ignoring it, we deserve to
be discarded into the history books. There are no National Security
Interests higher than individual liberty as partially outlined in the
Bill of Rights. I suggest to any member of the military reading this
who does not agree that they may find the policies of the other super
power more to their liking.

I heartily endorse the efforts of other groups, such as Spot Image to
bypass this monopolistic effort of American Defense interests.

I encourage the Chinese Peoples Republic and the Union of Soviet
Socialist Republics to commercialize remote sensing and to sell on
demand photos of any portion of the United States that any media outlet
wishes to purchase. It is rumored the Soviets may make 5 meter
resolution available in this way. I applaud this suggestion.

I encourage American media to purchase and publish the most damning of
these photos and to turn over every rock under which the lying
scoundrels who are undermining the constitution of the United States
are hiding. Let these fearful slugs shrivel in the light of truth. I'm
sure the Soviets would be more than happen to point out areas of
inconsistancy.

It is sad indeed that we have to rely on the Communist powers to
enforce the freedom of the skies which American policy has falsely
claimed as a goal for 25 years.

It is time we decided whether we are going accept fascist control
rather than the free market society our founders intended. Were they
alive today, I'm sure Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson and the other
founding patriots would concur.

					Freedom WORKS,
					Freedom is RIGHT
					Dale Amon

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 03:00:22 GMT
From: sunybcs!kitty!larry@ames.arpa  (Larry Lippman)
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies

In article <558297940.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> I wish to publicly state my utter condemnation of the United States
> Departments of Commerce, Defense and State on their assumption of veto
> power over private remote sensing systems.
> 
> I urge civil disobedience by anyone in a position to do so. This needs
> to be tested in the Supreme Court while the court is still a
> pseudo-legitimate body.

	You are advocating CRIMINAL disobedience, as in violation of
U.S. Code Title 18 Sections 793 to 799, which are federal crimes
petaining to espionage.

> If we cannot defend the constitution without ignoring it, we deserve to
> be discarded into the history books. There are no National Security
> Interests higher than individual liberty as partially outlined in the
> Bill of Rights. I suggest to any member of the military reading this
> who does not agree that they may find the policies of the other super
> power more to their liking.
> 
> [ more drivel deleted]
> 
> I encourage American media to purchase and publish the most damning of
> these photos and to turn over every rock under which the lying
> scoundrels who are undermining the constitution of the United States
> are hiding. Let these fearful slugs shrivel in the light of truth. I'm
> sure the Soviets would be more than happen to point out areas of
> inconsistancy.

	Congratulations!  You have specifically advocated committing a
federal crime in violation of U.S. Code Title 18 Section 797, which
pertains to "Publication and sale of photographs of defense
installations".

	In the pursuit of your goal of "freedom", be sure to advocate:

1.	Repeal all laws pertaining to espionage.

2.	Open all U.S. military installations to the public for
	unrestricted passage.

<>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York
<>  UUCP:  {allegra|ames|boulder|decvax|rutgers|watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry
<>  VOICE: 716/688-1231       {hplabs|ihnp4|mtune|seismo|utzoo}!/
<>  FAX:   716/741-9635 {G1,G2,G3 modes}   "Have you hugged your cat today?"

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #355
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 18 Sep 87 06:19:28 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA13061; Fri, 18 Sep 87 03:17:39 PDT
	id AA13061; Fri, 18 Sep 87 03:17:39 PDT
Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 03:17:39 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709181017.AA13061@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #356

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 356

Today's Topics:
		    Ariane up, up, and away again
		    Spy sat resoultion computation
	     Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies
	     Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies
	     Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies
		  Re: Condemnation of remote sensing
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #331
	 TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons
		      Political Can of - Octopi?
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #348
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 87 19:18:00 GMT
From: necntc!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Ariane up, up, and away again

(From September 16, 1987 Boston Globe)

Ariane rocket launched from Guiana spaceport

(From Wire Services)

   Kourou, French Guiana - The 15-story Ariane rocket blasted off almost
two hours late yesterday from a French spaceport carved out of the South
American jungle on the first flight of a Western European rocket since
an abortive liftoff 15 months ago.
   The Ariane 3, carrying two satellites, soared into partly cloudy
skies at 8:45pm from the Guiana Space Center, the giant white flames of
its rocket visible in the tropical night from an observation site 8
miles away.
   The liftoff came during the second of two launch windows.
Technicians of the European Space Agency and its commercial arm,
Arianespace, temporarily delayed the launch due to problems with a
pressure sensor that measures leakage in the third stage.
   The third stage ignited correctly 4 minutes and 36 seconds after
liftoff.  Four of the previous 18 Arianne attempts have failed, three of
them because of problems in the third stage.
   The Ariane rocket placed the Australian Aussat K3 satellite into
geostationary orbit 22,500 miles over the Earth on schedule 18 minutes
and 27 seconds after liftoff.  The European EUTELSAT ECS4 satellite
followed at 22 minutes and 2 seconds.
   The mission, from liftoff to depositing the satellites in orbit, took
less than 25 minutes.
   A malfunction of the ignition system forced ground technicians to
destroy the last Ariane rocket shortly after liftoff May 31, 1986.
About $83 million was spent to solve the problem and triple the power of
the ignition system.
   "We are like students who have prepared well for an exam," said
Frederic d'Allest, president of Arianespace, at a news conference
earlier yesterday.
   Riding of the success of the launch are $2.45 billion worth of
contracts for Arianespace.  There are 46 satellites waiting to be
launched.  Arianespace has two more launches scheduled for this year,
eight next year and nine in 1989.
   If successful, the Europeans will control the launch services market
in the West, at least until next summer when the US space shuttle may
resume operation.  But even then, the shuttle will give priority to
military and scientific payloads.
   Space shuttle missions were cancelled following the January 1986
Challenger disaster in which seven astronauts died.
   Beside the Arianespace, Western space companies can place orders with
three US companies commercializing the United States' Titan, Delta and
Atlas-Centaur rockets: Martin Marietta, McDonnell Douglas and General
Dynamics.  It also is possible to launch satellites using Soviet or
Chinese rockets [for SOME countries... -jfw].
   None of the American rockets will be able to meet demand before 1989
at the earliest.  The Ariane 3 rocket is 160 feet high and weighs 240
tons.  The Aussat K3 weighs 1,430 pounds and the ECS4 weighs 1,540
pounds.
   The European Space Agency is made up of France, West Germany,
Belgium, Denmark, Spain, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Britain,
Sweden, Switzerland, Austria and Norway.

John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

Maybe it's the sound of a WET RAG hitting a smooth WEASEL!

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 3 Aug 87 10:37:14 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu>
To: clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu
Cc: space@angband.s1.gov
Subject:        Spy sat resoultion computation

> From: newton.physics.purdue.edu!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu  (Carrick Talmadge)
> Subject: Re: SPOT & maximum resolution

> Lessee...  The diffraction limitation for a circular lens using...

> ===>    diameter = 3.8 meters = 150 inches   <====

> Conclusion: You need a pretty dern hefty lens to get anything near this
> resolution.

Not a LENS - a MIRROR.... A few meter mirror abord a DOD bird??? I have
no trouble believing it... (KH-11's are pretty BIG)

(bill)         lcc.bill@CS.UCLA.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 11 Sep 87 11:53:50 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies

In article <558297940.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
>I encourage the Chinese Peoples Republic and the Union of Soviet
>Socialist Republics to commercialize remote sensing and to sell on
>demand photos of any portion of the United States that any media outlet
>wishes to purchase. It is rumored the Soviets may make 5 meter
>resolution available in this way.

The Russians have already set up a commercial agency to sell high
resolition photographs of any part of the earth's surface outside the
eastern block. Resolution is said to be slightly better than SPOT.

The french will sell you the images to fill in the missing areas.

With all these images available, restricting their use seems very odd,
but some goverments are paranoid about "National Security" to the extent
of trying to build brick walls in the stable door long after the horse
has strolled out.

(I am not only talking about the US goverment, the goverment here is
just as bad. The "Spycatcher" saga is still going on)
	Bob

------------------------------

Date: 15 Sep 87 02:25:56 GMT
From: telesoft!roger@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Roger Arnold @prodigal)
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies

> In article <558297940.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> > I wish to publicly state my utter condemnation of the United States
> > . . .
> 
> 	You are advocating CRIMINAL disobedience, as in violation of
> . . .
> <>  Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York

Larry Lippman accounts for a remarkable fraction of the "signal" part in
the signal to noise ratio in the newsgroups to which he contributes.  I
have tremendous respect for him in that regard.  (Beside's, how can you
say anything bad about a guy whose .signature asks if you've hugged your
cat today? ;-) But I think he blew it in the way he choose to respond to
Dale's article.

I think it is safe to assume that Dale realized that what he was
advocating was in violation of the law.  Is it really meaningful to draw
a distinction between civil disobedience and criminal diobedience?
Oops, nobody answer that, please; it's a side issue we don't need.  The
point is that just identifying which laws would be broken hardly
establishes that Dale's posting is merely a "crock of shit", as Larry
summarized it.  Breaking the law, for appropriate cause, is honored in
western political philosophy.  And at Nuremburg, we executed Nazi war
criminals on the grounds that obedience to orders, in accordance with
the laws of their country, was no defense for crimes against humanity.
At a time when political revolution has come to be associated mostly
with those we take to be enemies, it's easy to forget that OUR
government is a revolutionary government, and that revolutionary defense
of liberty is as American as you can get.

None of which establishes that Dale's posting ISN'T a crock of shit,
either.  I don't want to debate that here.  I just want to request that
Larry and Dale, and any others who choose to enter the fray, try to
confine themselves to substantitive issues.  There's too much heat in
this issue already.  It deserves more light.

- Roger Arnold				..sdcsvax!telesoft!roger

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 87 16:16:53 GMT
From: mcvax!ukc!its63b!bob@seismo.css.gov  (ERCF08 Bob Gray)
Subject: Re: Condemnation of Private Sensing Policies

In article <1995@kitty.UUCP> larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) writes:
> In article <558297940.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes:
> > I wish to publicly state my utter condemnation of the United States
> > . . .
> 
> 	You are advocating CRIMINAL disobedience, as in violation of
> . . .

If I buy these high resolution images from the French or Russian
agencies selling them, then publish a book with these images in it, how
can this possibly be a Federal crime? I don't even live in the country.

If I use material freely available in this country (breaking none of
this country's laws) to produce the book, then someone wants to take a
copy of the book back to the USA, what law has been broken? who has
broken it?

Me, for breaking the laws of annother country?  or some unsuspecting
tourist for importing material dangerous to "National security".

Or is this yet annother case of "the rest of the world must obey
American laws".

Even more peculiar is that the people I could buy the images from are
the same people that the laws are are mainly designed to keep these
photographs from. i.e. the Russians

The only people in the west not allowed to handle these images seems to
be the American people.

At the very least the USA should have the same policy towards these
images as the USSR... Sell images of anywhere outside national
boundaries.

It is these cases of banning something which is freely available to the
rest of the world on the grounds of "national secutity" which makes
laughing stocks of Goverments and security agencies.

Did someone say "Spycatcher" :-)
	Bob.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 1987 16:38-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: Condemnation of remote sensing

I recieved several replies, most to the effect of how could secret
military actions be carried out.

My answer is that they will no longer be possible for any nation on
earth to carry out without the entirety of the world watching on their
TV screens. The old cry, "The whole world's watching" will soon become
literally true. I welcome it and see it as a goal worth working for.

It would mean that no Khadify, Khomeini, Hussein, Ortega, Castro,
Gorbachev or Reagan could get away with intervention any where in the
world without being held under the light of full world wide public
inquiry.

I think the soviets may have just realized (from the effect on
themselves of published pictures of the illegal Krasnoyarsk radar and
other defense locations) what a wonderful tool this could be against the
West (the claimed home of the 'free' press). If the West likewise uses
it against the East, there will be a competition in which WE, the cannon
fodder of the world, can only win.

After all, we are not talking about information that is not available to
the military leaders on both sides of any conflict. They have far better
systems than the media is likely to get it's hands on any time soon,
except when such damning information is passed out from the military of
one side or the other to score a propaganda coup. We can be sure that if
we can see it on the evening news, the relevant parties knew it many
hours before and have much better detail and interpretation.

The soviets assure that their client states are informed, as do we with
our client states. My wish is to insure that the people who are going to
be called upon to support the 'noble' actions are fully aware of what is
really happening. If they support the action, fine. If not, tough.

No government, whether obviously totalitarian or not, wants its citizens
to be aware of the facts requisite to an enlightened decisions on
support or rejection of the use of military force. It is the very nature
of the modern nation state to believe its people incapable of defining
the value of their own lives.

------------------------------

Date: 9 Sep 87 22:15:05 GMT
From: tolerant!sci!daver@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #331

In article <12332347818.19.MOBERLY@THOR.HPL.HP.COM>, MOBERLY%THOR@HPLABS.HP.COM writes:
> Greetings:
> 
> In the book "Star Warriors" by William Broad, a comment is made which I
> would like to better understand, namely (page 137)
> 
> 	"By contrast, the U.S. Air Force has never successfully launched
> 	a solid-fuel rocket out of an operational silo...

I'd heard something like this in college.  I don't remember at all well
the numbers, but it was something along the lines of a test of the
Minuteman missiles.  Ten missiles were scheduled to be tested, but they
had a 100% failure rate in the first four missiles fired, and scrubbed
the rest of the test.


david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 12 Sep 87 00:38:34
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
To: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons

<HS> Date: 23 Aug 87 01:34:56 GMT
<HS> From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
<HS> Subject: Re: Information on NASA/TRW space-tug contract?

<HS> If it's the TRW OMV you're thinking of, it's chemical and its
<HS> capabilities are pretty limited.  Basically meant as a LEO-only
<HS> vehicle.  I don't know of any other such project that actually has
<HS> real funding.

Sigh. When oh when will work really start on ion rocket and other
deep-space propulsion? Sigh, I thought the OMV was supposed to be
operational shortly after the STS, after all the STS was designed to
depend on the OMV for delivering anything higher than very-low-earth
orbit, wasn't it? I guess my mind is blown away thinking the OMV is just
starting and won't be ready until ten years after the STS first flew.
(But then we were supposed to have a fully operational space station in
1975 with hundreds of resident astronauts scientists and technicians, or
at least so I thought in 1965, sigh sigh.)

(re using thermonuclear detonations to move asteroid...)
<HS> (Also, don't forget that nuclear explosions in space violate one of
<HS> the test-ban treaties, ...)

I thought the treaty referred to "weapons of mass destruction"? If
Reagan can test long-range directed-energy weapons in LEO, why can't we
explode some tiny bombs in the asteroid belt? What mass of humans is
going to be destroyed way out there??

------------------------------

Date:     Sunday 13 Sep 87 1:44 PM CT
From: Jacob Hugart <GWCHUGPG%UIAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE%ANGBAND.S1.GOV@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  Political Can of - Octopi?

    It would seem to me that such a President would be quite
controversial.  I am not aware of any candidate for the office who
holds such views, however.
    The programs of space travel and exploration, social support and
welfare, military spending and foreign policy, etc., are all
inter-related.  You can't address military spending without touching
upon space exploration (especially with SDI rearing its [ugly?]
head), and you can't talk about space exploration and the costs
involved without someone mentioning how many social programs would
benefit from reducing our space efforts, or vice-versa.
    Since almost all of our nation's programs are interrelated in
this way - or at least people will make such relationships - it
seems that we have a balance of bureaucracies, and any attempt to
dismantale any one bureaucracy would upset the balance enough to
upset a lot of people.  As Eugene Miya said, Energy, Education, and
the EPA all still exist although in reduced form.

Realizing the tentacles of the octopus,
Jacob Hugart <GWCHUGPG@UIAMVS.BITNET>
University of Iowa, Database Consulting Group, Weeg Computing Center

------------------------------

Date:         Sun, 13 Sep 87 21:26:20 EDT
From: Steve Abrams <EXT768%UKCC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      Re: SPACE Digest V7 #348
To: Dale Amon <Space@angband.s1.gov>

Dale Amon, someone whose opinion I usually respect, states in SPACE
Digest V7 #348: "I really see no reason why we should pay to defend any
borders but our own."

Well, Dale, the point to be made here is that those countries we support
*are* our borders.  Perhaps not geographically (with ICBMs/SLBMs/etc.,
geographical borders matter little), but economically, socially, and
culturally.  I guess we support them because, if we don't someone else
(the USSR is usually the anticipated villain here) will.  What really
gripes me is that we provide the support and assistance to some
countries who have never read Heinlein -- they need to learn about
TANSTAAFL (for non-sci-fi readers, "There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free
Lunch").  Example: All those countries for whom we forgave their war
debts, provided assistance after natural disasters and now snub the US.
Example: Japanese graduate students who study in the U.S., supported
wholly or in part by the American taxpayer, who, upon completion of
studies, return to Japan and improve upon the design of something.  The
kicker is that neither the universities that educated these students,
nor the companies that provided some of them with jobs, nor the
government that paid some of their bills are given access to the
improved design.  We, as a people, are altogether too charitable and
forgiving.  Practically speaking, the situation should be that we should
be scratching each other's backs.  Instead, the US seems to be doing the
vast majority of scratching.  This may not sound like it belongs in this
netgroup, but the same feelings apply to many proposed ventures in
space.  TANSTAAFL should rule instead of "from each according to his
ability to each according to his need" (tenet of communism). Ironically,
the latter view seems to prevail in America's dealings with other
countries.

                           Steve Abrams

P.S. MultiPerson Pantheistic Solipsism is beginning to look real good ...

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #356
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 19 Sep 87 06:20:29 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA14467; Sat, 19 Sep 87 03:17:41 PDT
	id AA14467; Sat, 19 Sep 87 03:17:41 PDT
Date: Sat, 19 Sep 87 03:17:41 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709191017.AA14467@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #357

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 357

Today's Topics:
			 Launch Site Problems
		   Space Digest more international
       Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons
		  Re: SDI funding of space research
			Re: Things aint so bad
			  Re: Japanese space
		      Launch Notification Treaty
		  Re: Ariane up, up, and away again
			  Things aint so bad
			Re: Things aint so bad
			Re: Things aint so bad
			Re: Things aint so bad
		 Re: Space Digest more international
			Re: Things aint so bad
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 1987 23:27-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU
Subject: Launch Site Problems

The Japanese have been limited to launching only at certain times of
the year because of the fishing fleets (I'm not certain if this is
still true today), so does that count as problems with the locals?

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 1987 23:29-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Space Digest more international

I've been noticing lately that Space Digest is getting much more
international and I applaud it. I hope this keeps up, because if we all
argue and bitch at each other over the net for a few years, we may end
up friends and have respect for each others views and opinions.  Wish we
had a few russkies on line too. I'd LOVE to argue with them!!!!

Maybe the way to world peace is to get everyone arguing on the net.
We'll all spend so much time typing responses that we'll never have any
time to do anything REALLY dangerous...

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 87 19:19:35 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons

> Sigh. When oh when will work really start on ion rocket and other
> deep-space propulsion?

As soon as there's a mission for it.  And of course, nobody will plan
missions around unproven technologies, since NASA cannot afford
failures.  Can you say "vicious circle"?  Sure you can.

> Sign, I thought the OMV was supposed to be operational shortly after
> the STS, after all the STS was designed to depend on the OMV for
> delivering anything higher than very-low-earth orbit, wasn't it?

That's the way it was supposed to work in the beginning, but the Space
Tug was the first thing to die.  Can you say "budget cuts"?

> <HS> (Also, don't forget that nuclear explosions in space violate one
> <HS> of the test-ban treaties, ...)
> 
> I thought the treaty referred to "weapons of mass destruction"? ...

Different treaty; you're thinking of the one that bans mass-destruction
weapons from places like space and the seabed.  The Test Ban Treaty bars
nuclear explosions in space, period -- it was what finally killed
Project Orion.  There is a clause in it, as I recall, that provides for
negotiation about peaceful uses, but rotsa ruck trying to get results
that way.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 15 Sep 87 23:21:26 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research
To: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)

> Remember that an absolute ban on weapons in space would ground all
> ICBMs.  (A good idea, too.)

I see.  What do you propose be done when thousands of ICBMs are sent
flying, in contradiction to the treaty?  Call the police?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 87 09:00:05 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
To: ames!husc6!linus!utzoo!henry
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

Interesting points.  Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better (for
the sake of a better space program) to have a totalitarian society, at
least it would make the launches run on time.

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  NASA Ames Research Center
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA
  "You trust the `reply' command with all those different mailers out there?"
  {hplabs,hao,ihnp4,decwrl,allegra,tektronix,menlo70}!ames!aurora!eugene
	;-)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 87 09:49:09 pdt
From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>
Subject: Re: Japanese space
Newsgroups: sci.space

> Proposals for Japanese defense and space. Trout notes J. constitution.

The proposal to annex part of Australia to Japan sounds really neat, not
that I think that it would ever happen, but if all the Pacific rim
nations got together like the Common market (eventually), they will
clearly be the dominant economic force.

My contact with the JSA has pretty much been limited to job offers, but
it is not something to shake a stick at.  You can call the offices of
AW&ST to find out their special issues of Japanese and Chinese space
they had a year ago or so.  You also have to take into account what US
posture is toward the Pacific Rim.  There are people in the US (Remember
Bataan and Pearl Harbor) who don't want a large Japanese military.  I
would hope the JSA would expand its program, maybe even person'ed space.
;-) ;-) [the first for language, second for the manned/unmanned (oops!)
debate].

>From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers:

--eugene miya
  eugene@ames-aurora.ARPA

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 87 23:09:53 GMT
From: phri!bc-cis!pluto!dasys1!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!splut!stu@nyu.arpa  (Stewart Cobb)
Subject: Launch Notification Treaty

In article <1367@faline.bellcore.com>, karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> There's another good reason not to test ICBMs from operational silos
> -- the possibility that the other side may misinterpret it as an
> actual attack and react rashly.  I would like to see a treaty between
> all spacefaring nations that also possess nuclear weapons that
> provides for advance notice of all launches (suborbital ICBM tests,
> orbital space shots, etc).

When/if we (or anyone else) get the capability to shoot down ICBM's,
that will provide the technical capability to shoot down any space
launch as well.  Due to the reaction times involved, and the
consequences of _not_ killing an ICBM, any unnanounced launch probably
_will_ get shot down.  Such a treaty will become a necessity in the very
near future.

Stewart Cobb

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 19:57:22 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Ariane up, up, and away again

In article <1625@frog.UUCP> john@frog.UUCP (John Woods, Software) writes:
>From September 16, 1987 Boston Globe
>
>Ariane rocket launched from Guiana spaceport
>
>From Wire Services
>
>The Ariane rocket placed the Australian Aussat K3 satellite into
>geostationary orbit 22,500 miles over the Earth on schedule 18 minutes
>and 27 seconds after liftoff.  The European EUTELSAT ECS4 satellite
>followed at 22 minutes and 2 seconds.

Those times must be wrong, that corresponds to an average speed of over
20 miles per second from Earth to GEO, and even faster between the two
orbital stations.  Getting to/from GEO should take hours, not minutes.

What are the real numbers?
		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 16 Sep 87 07:22:36 edt
From: Mike Stalnaker <mike@nrl-ssd.arpa>
To: uunet!eplrx7!lad@seismo.css.gov
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: Things aint so bad

Yes, the Soviets *DO* have the capability to send whole teams into space
at once. They have enough launch/mission control capacity to fly at
least 3 missions at once.  All they need to do is send everybody up to
Mir.

While the don't have the capability to return large payloads to earth,
they bloody well do have the capability to put almost 200,000 pounds
into orbit at once (Energia) and to put 40 or 50,000 lbs up practically
weekly! (Proton/Progress)

--Mike Stalnaker
mike@nrl-ssd.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 87 17:42:20 GMT
From: ukma!uunet!eplrx7!lad@rutgers.edu  (Lawrence Dziegielewski)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
> > I don't know where you're getting your information...
> 
> Aviation Week, Flight International, Spaceflight, JBIS, Space World,

You mean Avaition Leak.  

> Quite true:  they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2
> years after a single failure.  After the last Proton failure, the delay

The shuttle was grounded for a good reason, and when it flies again I'd
send my own grandmother up on one, with me sitting right next to her.

> before the next Proton launch was (as I recall) a whole 11 days.  The
> Soviet hardware indeed cannot compare to the shuttle; when it comes to

What does that prove?  That the Soviets are more advanced than we are?
Hardly.
 
> on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on
> the pad at Baikonur as we speak.  (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon,

So?  When will it fly.  Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup,  a
non-working hoax.  I think you're years away from a launch.  Years.

> Net shuttle performance for the last year and a half:  zero.  Or negative
> if you count all the money going into it.  There have been 15 or so Proton

No kidding.  And I beleive there's good reasons for it.  But when it
flies again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable
system.

> > The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into
> > space and returing with other payloads.
> They don't have the capability -- until the Energia-shuttle goes up --
> of *returning* major payloads to Earth.  But even the US shuttle
> didn't do a whole lot of that.

You might as well hope for the Second Coming,  becuase it'll happen before
the Soviet Shuttle flies.

> > > However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost
> > > too much and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way...
> > 
> > Cost too much?  Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86
> > the cost comes way down.  The cost of flying the shuttle will remian
> > high until we get them going regularly again (soon, I hope)...

	Lawrence A. Dziegielewski	|	E.I. Dupont Co.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 05:04:54 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
>In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Quite true:  they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2
>> years after a single failure.  After the last Proton failure, the delay
>
>The shuttle was grounded for a good reason,  and when it flies again I'd
>send my own grandmother up on one,  with me sitting right next to her.

Sorry, there is no room for your grandmother or you.  There is no room
for new comercial satellites, not enough room to put up the space
station, no room for Galileo, no room for Mars Observer.  We've got only
a few shuttles and it takes a long time to get them ready.  I doubt that
your Grandmother could afford to go up on the shuttle, Proton is much
cheaper.

>> on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on
>> the pad at Baikonur as we speak.  (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon,

>So?  When will it fly.  Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup,  a
>non-working hoax.  I think you're years away from a launch.  Years.

Why do you think that?  Are the Russians too primitive to create a zippy
machine?  Remember that shuttle technology is designed for high
efficiency, light weight, and high financial return to the main
contractors.  When you have a booster that can put up a hundred tonnes
or so (I don't know the exact number) and when the company financing the
launch is the same as the company building the machine (and has almost
unlimited free labor) these considerations fall by the wayside.

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 87 17:47:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

> Please keep us informed on what you know.  Unlike our shuttle the
> soviet one will go overhead at my location at every launch.  I'd like
> to see this one.
> 
> Thanks,  Bruce Watson (scicom, Denver, Co)

Unless their new policy of openness continues, the Soviets are rather
tight-lipped about announcing their launce dates/times beforehand.  It's
unlikely that anybody will be able to tell you exactly when to set up
your telescope.

        -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks

"For I dipt into the Future, far as human eye could see
Saw the Vision of the world, and all the wonder that would be;
Saw the heavens fill with commerce, argosies of magic sails,
Pilots of the purple twilight, dropping down with costly bales."
	-- Alfred, Lord Tennyson

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 87 18:39:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Space Digest more international

[...deleted...]
> Wish we had a few russkies on line too. I'd LOVE to argue with them!!!!

Unfortunately, possession of a personal computer is illegal in the USSR.
As is possession of a photocopier or mimeograph.  You see, Russians are
afraid that free speech would lead to critiism of the government and the
spread of radical ideas.  From the evidence of this file, they're
obviously wrong.  Nobody HERE would ever do anything like that.

        -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 21:18:57 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!awr@csvax.caltech.edu  (Bruce Rossiter)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
>In article <8583@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> Quite true:  they have *no* launch systems that are grounded for 2+1/2
>> years after a single failure.  After the last Proton failure, the delay
>
>The shuttle was grounded for a good reason,  and when it flies again I'd
>send my own grandmother up on one,  with me sitting right next to her.

	The chance that you will ever get a chance to fly in the
shuttle, even if you *could* afford the cost, is very, very slight.  The
costs now are prohibitive, and show *no* sign at all of going down.  And
the flights are backed up with missions to keep the Shuttle full for
years, even with a launch every month!!  The Space telescope, the Mars
Observer, the Galileo mission.....all waiting on the ground (at immense
cost, I might add) beause the US space program is locked up.

>> before the next Proton launch was (as I recall) a whole 11 days.  The
>> Soviet hardware indeed cannot compare to the shuttle; when it comes to

>What does that prove?  That the Soviets are more advanced than we are?
>Hardly.

	Right.  Everybody know that communists can't have any
technology.  Please ignore the propaganda from both Soviet and US
sources that the Soviets are launching satellites that work into orbits
that are stable while the US is sitting on the ground doing none of
that.  It's all lies.

>> on the Soviet program, there is an Energia with a shuttle on its back on
>> the pad at Baikonur as we speak.  (Doesn't mean a launch will happen soon,

>So?  When will it fly.  Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup,
>a non-working hoax.  I think you're years away from a launch.  Years.

	Years, huh?  I think I've heard that word before...let me look.
Oh yes, here it is: US Space Shuttle has been grounded for over 2
*years*.  I don't see what good our Shuttle does, if it doesn't fly.....
But this must all be propaganda, too.  Damn Communists.

>> Net shuttle performance for the last year and a half:  zero.  Or negative
>> if you count all the money going into it.  There have been 15 or so Proton

>No kidding.  And I beleive there's good reasons for it.  But when it
>flies again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable
>system.

	Oh goody.  Does "regular shuttle launches" mean that we will:
		1) Get all the backedup payloads launched
		2) Have enough space to provide launch capability to
		   European countries and our own country as well?
and how long until this schedule starts?  And will the European
community ever trust our space program again?

>> > The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads
>> > into space and returing with other payloads.
>> They don't have the capability -- until the Energia-shuttle goes up
>> -- of *returning* major payloads to Earth.  But even the US shuttle
>> didn't do a whole lot of that.
>You might as well hope for the Second Coming, becuase it'll happen
>before the Soviet Shuttle flies.

	Thank you, Jerry Falwell.  I think I saw the article you got
this fact from -- oh yes, page 3 of last weeks National Inquirer.

		"Christ to return before Soviet Shuttle Launch"

>	Lawrence A. Dziegielewski	|	E.I. Dupont Co.

					-Bruce 
ARPAnet		awr@tybalt.caltech.edu

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #357
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 20 Sep 87 06:21:04 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA15685; Sun, 20 Sep 87 03:18:31 PDT
	id AA15685; Sun, 20 Sep 87 03:18:31 PDT
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 87 03:18:31 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709201018.AA15685@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #358

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 358

Today's Topics:
		   Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
		   Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
		   Fate of Earth-Crossing Asteroids
		Re: Space Station orbital inclination
		    Re: New evidence for 5th force
		    Re: New evidence for 5th force
		    Re: New evidence for 5th force
		   The Universe Is Astronomical...
       Newspaper article:  NASA commissions new booster studies
       Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites)
     Re: Can somebody confirm seemingly-brilliant Phoenix design?
		    Re: New evidence for 5th force
		       Re: SPACE Digest V7 #331
		    Re: New evidence for 5th force
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 14:25:36 GMT
From: ethan@astro.as.utexas.edu  (Ethan Vishniac)
Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel

Just a brief comment, running into a "fist-sized" (about 100 gram)
marshmellow at 0.001c is equivalent to having a car hit you at
about 10 km/sec (roughly 22,000 mph).  This figure can be obtained
assuming that the relevant number is the collision energy in the
center of momentum frame.  In the former case this is your frame, and
in the latter case it is that of the car.

Try it some time.  :-)

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 87 11:51:08 GMT
From: pyramid!fmsrl7!eecae!crlt!russ@decwrl.dec.com  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel

In article <845@spar.SPAR.SLB.COM>, freeman@spar (Jay Freeman) writes:
[Fist-sized rock data omitted - thanks, Jay!]
>Another interesting point: Given a nominal interstellar medium (and
>there are several to choose from), the heat-dissipation problem of a
>starship traveling at a speed such that gamma = 10 (that is, such that
>1.0/sqrt(1 - v**2 / c**2) = 10 -- so that time dilation and all the
>other stuff is a factor of ten), is comparable to that of an Apollo
>spacecraft DURING REENTRY.  That's just for interstellar gas, no rocks
>at all.

Okay, Jay, this assumes that you're absorbing the incoming gas, rather
than deflecting it.  An ionized medium can be deflected by a magnetic
field (and we're getting *very* good at making powerful magnetic
fields); further, atoms and molecules (and likely larger objects, like
dust grains) can be made into ions by subjecting them to a sufficiently
powerful electric field (as they would experience by crossing a magnetic
field at a goodly fraction of c).  This means that, *in principle*, one
could use magnetic fields to:

1.)	Deflect (or concentrate, to use as reaction mass) the ionized
	portion of the interstellar medium (ramscoop!).

2.)	Ionize, using the v x B electric field created by the relative
	motion, the incoming un-ionized gas, and deflect or concentrate
	it as well.

3.)	Cause incoming dust grains (or rocks) to flash into plasma by
	causing dielectric breakdown of their mass, using the same v x B
	electric field.

Deflecting the incoming gas would eliminate the heat-load problem, and
being able to flash incoming solid particles into plasma would deal with
the dust-motes-as-bombs problem.  (The momentum of a milligram dust
grain travelling at .5 c is only about 17 kg-m/sec; this could be
absorbed much more easily than the energy, which is 1.4e10 joules.
[Correct me if I goofed my figures here.])

Now, for the questions I can't answer (can anyone on the net?):

a.)	What E-field strength is required to ionize neutral hydrogen?
	How about helium?  (In other words, are we talking about
	unrealisticly high field strengths to do the job at speeds of,
	say, .2 c and up?  A 1 Tesla field gives 6e7 volts/meter at .2c;
	is this enough?)

b.)	What E-field strength is required to break down, say, a grain of
	SiO2?  (Same question as above; my CRC Handbook of Tables for
	Applied Engineering Science [2nd Ed.]  lists 400 volts/mil as a
	peak value for the dielectric strength of porcelain.  This is
	about 1.6e7 volts/meter.  I would imagine that small grains
	might be tougher nuts to crack, but I have no idea how *much*
	tougher.)

If the interstellar medium and its solid contaminants can be handled
using magnetic fields, then relativistic interstellar travel may be much
less hazardous than some people think.

>						-- Jay Freeman

Russ Cage

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 87 20:35:38 GMT
From: cfa!willner@husc6.harvard.edu  (Steve Willner)
Subject: Fate of Earth-Crossing Asteroids

In an earlier posting, in reference to the asteroid 3200 Phaethon, I wrote:
> However, the object does cross the Earth's orbit, so it has to hit
> the Earth some day (presumably millions of years from now...

At least two people (One was Paul Dietz; sorry, but I've lost the
name of the other one.) questioned this statement.  My original
source was Brian Marsden, director of the IAU Minor Planet Center,
but apparently my statement was an over-interpretation of Brian's
casual remark.  Dan Green, also of the MPC, explains:

     The problem is not very straightforward; some of these objects
     are in temporary resonances (quasi-stable), and perhaps most
     objects will have their orbits drastically changed due to close
     planetary approaches over the life of the solar system.  Some
     will be ejected, some will hit major planets.  It's impossible
     to give really decent figures on this, though.  Upon discussing
     this with Brian, his statement is that several people (starting
     with Oort or Opik) have done calculations showing that most will
     probably hit the major planets (especially Earth) on a timescale
     of perhaps 1 per million years.  But anything of this type
     should not be called "fact" but "educated scientific theory and
     guessing".

Dan also suggested some reading; one particularly good source is an
article by Shoemaker et al. in _Asteroids_ (1979, ed. T. Gehrels,
Univ. Arizona Press).  Shoemaker et al. estimate the time scale for a
typical Earth-crossing asteroid either to hit a planet or to be
ejected as tens of millions of years but with considerable uncertainty.

With regard to the asteroid that started the discussion, Dan also writes:
     I did some calculations for Irwin Shapiro a year or two
     ago concerning (3200) Phaethon and its close approaches to the
     earth.  I integrated the orbit of (3200) forward to the year
     2135, finding the closest approaches to Earth being in 2017
     (0.07 AU) and 2093 (0.02 AU) --- nothing closer showed up.

These are indeed close approaches as astronomical distances go, but
they are certainly not collisions.

My thanks to several people who sent more information on press
reports of the purported collision, to those whose doubts prodded me
to look into the ejection question more carefully, and to Dan Green
for providing the answers.

Steve Willner            Phone 617-495-7123          Bitnet: willner@cfa2
60 Garden St.            FTS:      830-7123           UUCP:   willner@cfa
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA                     ARPA: willner@cfa.harvard.edu

------------------------------

Date: 14 Sep 87 19:21:20 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Space Station orbital inclination

>     I thought the Station was supposed to include a polar orbiting
> platform for just that purpose. Has that been chopped out too?

I'm not sure; it's not very prominent, at least, in recent discussion of
the Station.  Actually, attaching that project to the space station was
always kind of dumb, since it had nothing to do with the station per se.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 87 18:14:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force

> Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force.  Two seperate
> borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a
> team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from
> theory. This is in the range of Fishbach's findings of discrepencies
> with the Eotvos data.

How significant is 1-2%?  I thought that G was one of the
least-accuratly know physical constants.  I have different Orbital
Mechanics texts that give values which differ by 0.1% -- these were
undoubtedly published on the same planet.

        -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 17:26:10 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force

In article <14801@topaz.rutgers.edu> josh@topaz.rutgers.edu (J Storrs Hall) writes:
>>Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force.  Two seperate
>>borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a
>>team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from
>>theory. ...  ^
>                                                |
>                   !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>If this true it is fundamentally amazing.
>--- Does anyone know if the math of the "fifth force" is at all
>consistent with the "Davis mechanics" Harry Stine writes about?

  An even more amusing thing to note: this fifth force is awfully
similiar to the one Pournelle needs for his Alderson drive.  (Dan, are
you out there?)  The Alderson drive postulated a fifth force, far weaker
than the other four, which was repulsive and was created as some kind of
function of binding energy changes in thermonuclear reactions in stars.
Coupled with another universe in point-to-point congruence with our own,
in which quantum and relativistic effects did not exist, it provided an
FTL drive.  If anybody knows any details about the postulated fifth
force, I'd like to hear them.
  Now look at this "discovered" 5th force.  It's supposed to be a weak
repulsive force whose strength is determind by the binding energy of the
nucleus of the atom on which the force acts.  Cute, eh?
  Now all we need is the non-relativistic universe next door..... :-)

  Keith Mancus  <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 20:59:48 GMT
From: clash.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu  (Stephen P. Masticola)
Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force

In article <558383109.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu> Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU writes:

> Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force.  Two seperate
> borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a
> team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from
> theory.

Any chance that the anomaly could be due to the net-zero gravitational
attraction of the atmosphere at the Earth's surface? (Or is the 
deviation in the direction of <more> force toward the earth's center
than expected?)

- Steve

------------------------------

Date:         Thu, 17 Sep 87 19:01:15 CDT
From: "Skott L. Underwood" <UCPL040%UNLVM.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:      The Universe Is Astronomical...


                         Instant Astronomy;  circa 1969
                                      ---
                         Twinkle, twinkle little star,
                         We know exactly what you are:
                          Nuclear furnace in the sky,
                        You'll burn to ashes by and by.
                                      ---
                      But tick, tick, tick pulsating star,
                          Now we wonder what you are:
                          Magneto-nucleo-gravity ball,
                           Making monkeys of us all!
                                      ---
                        And twinkle, twinkle quasi-star,
                         You're the limit, yes you are:
                           With such indecent energy,
                          Did God say you couldn't be?
                                      ---
                                   -anonymous
                                       *
                                VIOLENT UNIVERSE
                             The Viking Press,Inc.
                                      1969

---the universe is astronomical...
Acknowledge-To: <UCPL040@UNLVM>

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 87 20:00:00 GMT
From: necntc!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Newspaper article:  NASA commissions new booster studies

(From the Boston Globe, 16 September 1987)

NASA commissions new booster studies

   CAPE CANAVERAL, Fla. - The National Aeronautics and Space
Administration awarded two companies contracts to study designs for a
liquid fuel rocket that could replace the solid fuel booster that caused
the space shuttle Challenger explosion.  The contracts, worth $2.5
million each, went to General Dynamics of San Diego and Martin Marietta
of New Orleans.  The studies will examine pressure-fed and pump-fed
liquid fuel rockets.

John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

Maybe it's the sound of a WET RAG hitting a smooth WEASEL!

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 16:04:37 GMT
From: rti!xyzzy!goudreau@mcnc.org  (Bob Goudreau)
Subject: Re: Brazilian sites (was Re: High altitude lauch sites)

In article <1008@homxb.UUCP> roger@homxb.UUCP (R.TAIT) writes:
>Joe and Jack C. Haldeman, in _There_Is_No_Darkness_ talk about the
>Confederacion which is an interplanetary outgrowth of a Terran
>civilization that only took to space after the economic collapse of the
>Northern Hemisphere. The aristocrats of the Confederacion are natives
>of planets that were colonized by Brazilians or East Africans.

Actually, the two dominant languages of the Confederacion were
Pan-Swahili and Spanish; Brazil speaks Portuguese.  Also, the collapse
of the First and Second worlds was apparently more than just economic,
since _T_I_N_D_ has one of its episodes set in (I believe) Oklahoma
City, a port on the shore of the large nuclear crater known as the
Houston Sea.

Bob Goudreau

------------------------------

Date: 13 Sep 87 22:49:09 GMT
From: phri!bc-cis!pluto!dasys1!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!splut!stu@nyu.arpa  (Stewart Cobb)
Subject: Re: Can somebody confirm seemingly-brilliant Phoenix design?

My understanding is that current-technology rocket engines all run over
on the fuel-rich side of stoichometric because of materials limitations:

1) a stoichometric flame is hotter (which is good from a theoretical
   point of view, but tends to melt your engine), and

2) an oxygen-rich flame will literally burn the walls off your
   combustion chamber.

Backyard welders routinely cut thick steel with a oxy-acetelene torch
running oxygen-rich.  I have trouble believing Phoenix has invented a
material which can stand up to this environment.

Stewart Cobb

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 23:13:10 GMT
From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force

> How significant is 1-2%?  I thought that G was one of the least-accuratly
> know physical constants.  I have different Orbital Mechanics texts that
> give values which differ by 0.1% -- these were undoubtedly published on
> the same planet.

You're right, G isn't known very accurately. My Casio calculator has it
in rom as 6.672e-11 Nm^2/kg^2. On the other hand, Gm, the product of G
and the mass of the earth, is known much more accurately (10 digits or
so) from precise observations of earth satellites.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 23:17:07 GMT
From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: SPACE Digest V7 #331

> When/if we (or anyone else) get the capability to shoot down ICBM's,
> that will provide the technical capability to shoot down any space launch
> as well.  Due to the reaction times involved, and the consequences of
> _not_ killing an ICBM, any unnanounced launch probably _will_ get shot
> down.  Such a treaty will become a necessity in the very near future.

How do you know it hasn't already happened? Remember the Atlas Centaur
that supposedly got hit by lightning earlier this year? Well, nobody
actually *saw* the thing get hit, and charged particle beam weapons are
basically artificial lightning machines... :-)

Yours in paranoia,

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 23:23:23 GMT
From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force

>Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force...

I thought there were only three known fundamental forces:

1. Strong nuclear force
2. Electroweak force
3. Gravity

I thought the former electromagnetic and weak nuclear forces have been
shown to be manifestations of the same fundamental force.

Phil

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #358
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 21 Sep 87 06:22:54 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA17076; Mon, 21 Sep 87 03:20:41 PDT
	id AA17076; Mon, 21 Sep 87 03:20:41 PDT
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 87 03:20:41 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709211020.AA17076@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #359

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 359

Today's Topics:
 Lectures-NJ Area-Lunar Geoscience Observer and Living Off Lunar Land
		   Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
		   Re: Life in Space, continued...
			       Plagues
		   Re: Life in Space, continued...
			Re: Things aint so bad
	       Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act
		     World satellite launch sites
		   Re: World satellite launch sites
			 ICs before Sputnik?
		      Re: Apollo Command Module
			Re: Things aint so bad
	     The Rocket Team #7 - America attacks Mexico
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 87 14:49:44 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: Lectures-NJ Area-Lunar Geoscience Observer and Living Off Lunar Land

The AIAA will present two lectures on Lunar exploration:

          The Lunar Geoscience Observer Spacecraft
                  by Ronald Maehl
       (Program Manager for Mars Observer Spacecraft)
 
                        and

                  Living Off the Lunar Land
                     by Gregg Maryniak
            (Executive VP at Space Studies Institute)

             Monday, September 21 , 5pm to 7:30 pm
              Auditorium, RCA Astro-Space Division

Open to all AIAA members and Astro-Space Employees.
Call Sue Hubert (609) 426-2710 or Rick Kocinski (609) 426-3345
for further information.
RCA Astro-Space Division is on Route 571, the more or less east-west
road which goes through Princeton, less than a mile east of US 1.

Non-AIAA members can probably go as guests, or give Rich or Sue a call.

-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 22:24:33 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
To: ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!bsu-cs!dhesi@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov, Physics@unix.sri.com

How would one go about researching FTL?  I'm not saying FTL is
impossible, but I AM saying it has nothing to do with anything we know
about any science today.  All that researchers could do is sit on their
hands while rockets rust, waiting for someone to invent FTL.

For now, it makes more sense to research things we KNOW can be done,
and that we have some idea HOW they can be done.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 22:31:43 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Re: Life in Space, continued...
To: amdahl!drivax!macleod@ames.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, SPace@angband.s1.gov, SF-Lovers@red.rutgers.edu

> From: amdahl!drivax!macleod@AMES.ARPA  (MacLeod)

> I am currently writing a novel in which there is a mature, spacefaring
> mercantile civilization ... an individual from this race can purchase
> a state-of-the-art metallorganic FTL spacecraft implementing "magical"
> technologies for the equivalent of a few >hours< of labor.

Sounds good!  I will keep my eyes peeled for it.  Will it be published
under your own name?

Have you read _Marooned in Realtime_ by Vernor Vinge?  It is something
like what you describe.

> ... our technology cannot cope with FTL spacecraft any more than the
> bushmen's with cars.

I am not so sure that FTL is even possible, for any technology.  If I
were writing a book like this, I would try to avoid FTL.

And if FTL *WERE* possible, how do you know it wouldn't be easy?

There was a story in Analog, sorry but I forget when or where, about a
society with a 1600s techology that attempts to invade Earth, using FTL
spacecraft - the idea is that FTL is SIMPLE, but we just haven't
happened to stumble on the secret.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 22:37:48 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Plagues

> From: chiaraviglio@husc4.harvard.edu  (lucius)

> To those who have been advocating that a few planets remain
> isolationist in order to escape interstellar meme plagues, it won't
> help.  What if one of the meme plagues generates berserkers
> (Saberhagan style), in which case everyone is doomed if they don't
> know what is going on?

Those aren't a MEME plague (I don't really believe in any such thing)
but a REAL plague.

Space is big.  Perhaps a planet couldn't hide, at least not one in a
solar system, but an asteroid could easily hide indefinitely, especially
one outside any solar system.  And asteroids can support far more people
than planets in the long run anyway.  On a planet, most of the mass is
used for nothing but gravity.  In an asteroid, ALL the mass can be used.
A single 10 km asteroid can comfortably support Earth's whole
population.  And it can be moved out of the solar system (slowly)
without fantastic amounts of energy.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 87 10:32:15 GMT
From: cca!g-rh@husc6.harvard.edu  (Richard Harter)
Subject: Re: Life in Space, continued...

In article <256496.870917.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>There was a story in Analog, sorry but I forget when or where, about a
>society with a 1600s techology that attempts to invade Earth, using FTL
>spacecraft - the idea is that FTL is SIMPLE, but we just haven't
>happened to stumble on the secret.

"The road less traveled" by Henry Turtledove.  The idea is cute but not
credible.  FTL may or may not be simple (the null set is very simple)
but life support systems are not.  This would actually make a very good
exercise for one of those "stretch your minds in technology" courses:

"Ladies and Gentlemen.  You are given a magic black box space drive.  It
is the size of a bread basket.  It applies a unidirectional force to
everything in a sphere 100 meters in radius about it.  The strength of
the force is controlled by a simple knob.  At full strength the gismo
will accelerate 1000000 tonnes with a force of 1G.

Part I:
Assume that this gismo was available on Earth in the year 1800.  Design
a space ship using this gismo and the technology available at that time.
The ship must be capable of sustained interplanetary flight.  Include
specifications for navigation, take off and landing procedure, and a
life support system capable of supporting life for one year in space.

Part II:
Given the ship, design a space station, using only pre 1800's technology.

Part III:
Assume that the gismo also has a 'jump' button.  When the button is
pressed everything in the sphere will 'jump' in the direction of the
force.  The length of the jump is is proportional to the force.  The
maximum jump is one parsec.  Describe a viable scheme for interstellar
navigation using pre 1800's technology.

Extra Credit:  Replace 1800 by 1650."

I don't think I could pass the course, but I sure would like one of the
gismos!


In the fields of Hell where the grass grows high
Are the graves of dreams allowed to die.
	Richard Harter, SMDS  Inc.

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 00:34:07 GMT
From: cunyvm!ndsuvm1.bitnet!nu021172%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

now of the University of North Dakota) that Skylab was larger than the CURRENT
Mir configuration.  However, I believe that Mir is scheduled to grow much
larger.
     
             Scott Udell
             UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET
.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 19:41:02 PDT
From: purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU
Subject: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act

Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this?  This was something I
heard about a year or two ago, possibly here.  The idea was that the
government would guarentee to buy some (relatively large) amount of
launch capacity at $500/kg (or some such rather cheap amount).  I don't
know any more since I haven't been able to find a copy; I don't even
know who proposed it.  (Please reply to me (if possible) I will
summarize to the net).

Mark Purtill
Arpa: purtill@math.mit.edu | purtill@multics.mit.edu
    | purtill@mit-multics.arpa

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 21:04:36 GMT
From: nbires!isis!scicom!wats@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Bruce Watson)
Subject: World satellite launch sites

I was trying to locate thhe San Marco launch site in the Indian ocean
but couldn't.

How many launch sites are there in the world from which satellites have
been sent up?  And what are their longitudes and latitudes?

Many thanks for any responses, I don't have a source for this.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 00:27:01 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: World satellite launch sites

> I was trying to locate thhe San Marco launch site in the Indian
> ocean but couldn't.  

San Marco is an oil-rig-type platform, not an island.  It's off the coast
of Kenya, if memory serves.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 17 Sep 87 22:40:43 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: ICs before Sputnik?
To: PT!k.gp.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay@cs.rochester.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: PT!k.gp.cs.cmu.edu!lindsay@cs.rochester.edu  (Donald Lindsay)

>> Well, IC's were invented before Sputnik, weren't they?

> No. Computers used tubes when Sputnik went up. People, if you don't
> know anything, stop proving it to the world.

Tubes:       1906
Transistors: 1947
Sputnik:     1957
IC's:        1959

Ok, so Sputnik came before IC's, but he wasn't THAT far wrong.  And
computers did NOT use tubes then.  (Sputnik itself did, but that was
because the Soviets liked to rely on old technology, even as today.)

								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 87 02:09:23 GMT
From: mike@ames.arpa  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: Re: Apollo Command Module

In article <4258@hplabsb.UUCP> dsmith@hplabsb.UUCP (David Smith) writes:
>>                           But the REAL color of the Apollo lunar
>> CSMs is in fact silver.
>
>Really?  Then why is the REAL CSM on indoor display at KSC colored 
>gold (CM) and white (SM)?

Dunno, haven't been to KSC since the Apollo 17 launch. Again, it could
either be aging or perhaps some protective coating, or perhaps Rockwell
issued special Limited Edition Comemorative GOLD Command Moduals :-).
(Signed and numbered, collect them all!!).

I've seen Apollo 9, 10, 11, 14 and 17 and Skylab 3 Command Moduals and
sat inside the Apollo 14 and Skylab units (CLAUSTRAPHOBIC CITY!!!) and
have never seen gold mylar on them (some of it does survive re-entry).

Another thought just crossed my mind, this problem might have to do with
the fact that just possibly there were real Gold CMs. But changed for
flight units. Just like the mylar and color schemes for the Lunar Modual
changed during it's evolution, or the striping on the Saturn V.

		   *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick ***

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 10:18:55 GMT
From: hao!scdpyr!djr@oddjob.uchicago.edu  (Dave Rowland)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

With the recent discussion about the Shuttle I thought I would throw in
my two cents worth.

I think everyone will agree that the shuttle has its problems.  The ways
in which these problems should be solved seem to vary greatly with each
individual.  Several netters are expounding the virtues of the Soviet
system and its plentiful, cheap rockets.  While ths Soviet system is
effective, scraping the shuttle in prusuit of cheap, expendable rockets
would be an error as grave as the ones that lead to the death of seven
astronauts.  The lesson we need to learn from the Soviets is not use
cheap, expendable rockets but, perfect the technology we have.  Many of
our hard fought after gains were tossed out with the Apollo program.
Unfortunatley, Congress is not willing to fund the Space program at the
level necessary for this to be accomplished.

NASA made a big mistake when it sold the shuttle to Congress as a cheap
means of placing payloads in orbit.  With a lot of hard work, time, and
money a shuttle could become a relativly inexpensive method of launching
payloads.  However, this would be a second generation of shuttles, not
the current system that at best could be called experimental.  In order
for a shuttle system to be cost effective it would need more vehicles,
more spare parts, more people, and better management.

One of the biggest problems facing the U.S. space program is lack of
direction.  Here I have to agree with Sally Ride.  A base on the moon
would be a better way to go than jumping for Mars.  Anybody can figure
out that it is easier to get somthing off of the moon than it is to get
somthing off of Earth.  The moon would be an ideal place to launch a
mission to Mars.  The U.S. program needs to proceed at a steady pace not
in the leap frog fashion of the past.  In order to reach Mars or even to
establish a permanent presence in orbit the space program needs to have
a steady income.

President Reagan has issued a directive for the development of a Space
plane.  This is too big a leap.  If the U.S. goes for another giant leap
in technology the shuttle disaster will repeat itself.  The U.S. should
proceed more conservativly in its development of vehicles.

Probably the best way for the U.S. to proceed is for it to:

	1) Perfect its existing technology.

	2) Assure the Space program with a steady income.

	3) Be more conservative in its development of hardware.

Well, I guess I will get down off of my soap box now.  I hope to see
some more views on these issues posted.

	"Hey laser lips, your momma was a snow blower!"
					  -- Number 5
	Dave Rowland  at NCAR Boulder, Colorado  djr@scdpyr.UUCP

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 87 15:21:30 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: The Rocket Team #7 - America attacks Mexico

    The first White Sands V-2 was launched on April 16, 1946, and it
failed.  The rocket reached an altitude of some 3.5 miles when a fin
came off, and it had to be destroyed by shutting off the propellants.
Happily for Turner, the next firing on May 10 was a success. ... With an
ear-splitting roar, it lumbered off the launcher and rose to an altitude
of 71 miles. ...

    Despite the relative crudity of range safety equipment in those
early days, wayward missiles and consequent damage were rare.  When one
did go astray, it did so with a certain technical elan.  On May 29,
1947, at 7:35 PM, a V-2, prophetically numbered Missile O, took off
normally enough, but a gyroscope in the guidance unit malfunctioned.
The missile arched backward and headed south for El Paso.  It continued
over the city, crossed the Mexican border, and impacted a mile and a
half south of the city of Juarez, which was thronged for a fiesta.  As
it plowed into a rocky hillside, just outside Tepeyac Cemetery, the
missile barely missed a building were the construction companies of
Juarez stored their dynamite and blasting powder.  Incredibly, no one
was killed or injured, and no damage was done to buildings or homes.
The missile, of course, had no warhead; but it blasted a crater 30 feet
deep and 50 feet in diameter through its kinetic energy alone.

    "In a few minutes, everything broke loose," Colonel Turner later
recalled.  "I checked with my friend the commanding general of the State
of Chihuahua.  He assured me that there was no damage and that he would
clear the unfortunate event with the authorities in Mexico City."

   Scarcely had he put down the phone when he found himself on another,
explaining what had happened to General Dwight D. Eisenhower, chief of
staff of the US Army in Washington.  Having satisfied Ike, the harassed
commander of White Sands a few minutes later found himself talking to
Secretary of State George C. Marshall.

   The gravity of the situation had completely escaped one enthusiastic
young lieutenant in Turner's command.  He proudly boasted that he
belonged to the first American rocket unit to fire a guided missile
against a foreign country!

   Turner later explained what had happened: "The accident was a result
of mistakes both mechanical and human.  A faulty gyroscope caused the
rocket to head south instead of north. A civilian worker neglected to
push the button that would have cut off the rocket's fuel supply and
have made it fall within the limits of the target range.  He misjudged
the direction of the missile.  It looked to him that it went straight
up."

   However, Ernst Steinhoff, who was the `civilian worker', had a
different story: "I was the range safety officer, and I had to tell a
sailor, who came from the Naval Research Laboratories, to push the
button, which would cut off the fuel to the engine.  However, I knew
from experience what happens when a V-2 with residual propellants
impacts.  It starts a nasty fire.  So I told the sailor not to push the
button.  I wanted the let the propellants all burn out and have the
missile travel as far as possible, hoping it would clear both El Paso
and Juarez. ...

    Steinhoff later recalled that within ten minutes of the impact, food
stalls in the vicinity of the cemetery were selling still warm souvenirs
of the V-2.  He added, with only slight hyperbole, that altogether the
Mexicans sold at least 10 to 15 tones of material (much resembling tin
cans) from a rocket that weighed only 4 tons.

[from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT Press,
 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ]
-- 
				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #359
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 22 Sep 87 06:23:12 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA19273; Tue, 22 Sep 87 03:18:58 PDT
	id AA19273; Tue, 22 Sep 87 03:18:58 PDT
Date: Tue, 22 Sep 87 03:18:58 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709221018.AA19273@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #360

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 360

Today's Topics:
		 Volunteering to help space research
		     New commercial space market?
		  Re: Ariane up, up, and away again
		     BMD and Announcing Launches
			    Jobs in Space
			  Re: Jobs in Space
			  Vostok scale model
			   Energia payload
		 Re: Space Digest more international
	      Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?
	    Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?
	    PC's East, was Space Digest more international
		   Re: FTL and intergalactic travel
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 1987 18:06-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Volunteering to help space research

Another opportunity for those so inclined:

Mark Prado
PERMANENT, LTD
114 Westwick Ct #5
Sterling, VA 22170

703-444-1560 (voice)
(703 or 202)-450-2732 (computer)

Mark's company is, among other things, brokering research efforts of
individuals with DOD and NASA space efforts. I don't know very much
about the set up. I recommend that anyone who might be interested can
contact him for more details, since I have only a newsletter (and I
have met the guy) to go on.

These are not necessarily volunteer projects. The information I have
indicates he will be handling compensated work in many areas.

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 87 16:57:55 PDT
From: ota@galileo.s1.gov
Subject: New commercial space market?

I noticed a very interesting article in the 21 Sept. 87 SF Chronicle pg
A12.  I was going to wait for this week's AW&ST but it doesn't look like
I'll get it for at least another day.  So here are some excerpts, quoted
without permission:

	Pentagon May Build a Fleet Of Cheap One-Shot Satellites
		       United Press International
Washington
  The Defense Department is considering creating a fleet of expendable
satellites that could be easily launched, possibly from truck beds, to
keep information flowing and to foil Soviet space weapons by sheer
volume.
    . . .
  The new devices, designed to handle crisis communications,
high-resolution imaging and interception of military signals and codes,
could be launched in the "low dozens to mid-hundreds" at relatively
little costs, scientists say.
  [other quotes from John Mansfield, dir. strategic technology, DARPA]
  [talk about using surplus Poseidon's and short and mid-range rockets
   punted by latest Euro-missile treaty]
  "The obvious question is whether we could use the boosters scrapped
under (the treaty)," [Mansfield] said, "We're not trying to duplicate or
compete with other national systems, but use technology at hand and see
if it makes sense to have mobile, survivable launch capability."
  The rockets would not have to offer hight reliability.  "Instead of
99%, we could ask for 95% or 90%," Mansfield said.
  The first "orbital demonstration" should take place within 18 months.
  "We're definitely in a fast track," said Mansfield.  "Defense (Dept)
is urgent on this program."
  At least a dozen organizations, including Lockheed, the University of
Utah, Pacific American and LTV, have submitted proposals, initially for
delivery systems and perhaps later for complete systems, he said.
  [Navy and Army "reportedly favor" the plan, the Air Force is
   "reluctant to commit".]
  "The theory is that if they throw a lot of them up there, it will be
harder for the Soviets to shoot them all down.  If it costs us $10M to
produce and it costs the Soviets $50M to shoot it down, then they're
playing a fool's game." [a scientist who asked to remain unidentified]
    . . .

[All I can add to this is that at the recent small satellite conference
in Monterey, CA the DARPA people were talking about letting out
contracts to a few rocket companies to put small satellites up.]

	Ted Anderson

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 87 00:40:28 GMT
From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Ariane up, up, and away again

> >   The Ariane rocket placed the Australian Aussat K3 satellite into
> >geostationary orbit 22,500 miles over the Earth on schedule 18 minutes and
> >27 seconds after liftoff....

> Those times must be wrong..

The problem is that the media doesn't understand the difference between
geostationary orbit (where the satellites are eventually headed) and
geostationary TRANSFER orbit (GTO), what the satellites are in at third
stage shutdown.  Some simple sanity calculations on the back of an
envelope would make it obvious that there's a difference, but the press
that usually covers these things doesn't seem able to do that.

A typical Ariane GTO has a perigee of 200-250 km, an apogee of 35800 km
(i.e., geostationary altitude), an inclination of 6 to 8 degrees, and an
argument of perigee just below 180 degrees. Perturbations caused by the
oblateness of the earth raise the argument of perigee to 180 after a few
orbits so that at apogee kick motor firing, the satellite is both at
apogee and over the equator.

The low GTO perigee causes the spent third stage to re-enter the
atmosphere after a few years; it also saves fuel by not putting any more
energy into the booster casing than you have to.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 20 Sep 87 13:36 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: BMD and Announcing Launches

> When/if we (or anyone else) get the capability to shoot down ICBM's,
> that will provide the technical capability to shoot down any space
> launch as well.  Due to the reaction times involved, and the
> consequences of _not_ killing an ICBM, any unnanounced launch probably
> _will_ get shot down.  Such a treaty will become a necessity in the
> very near future.

Do you think the Soviets will oblige us and announce when their launches
occur?  If they don't, and the US blows up some cosmonauts, the damage
to US world political standing would be enormous.  Can you say "act of
war"?

Paul F. Dietz
dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 1987 23:27:21-EDT
From: David.Waitzman@galley.ece.cmu.edu
Subject: Jobs in Space
Apparently-To: Space-Enthusiasts@mc.lcs.mit.edu

I am looking for a job, but I think that answers to the following
request might have a wide audience:

I would like pointers to companies doing work for Space missions
(preferably the Space Station) that need someone interested in network
programming, systems programming, and computer architecture.  NASA
doesn't seem the right route currently.  My local L5 people suggested
asking the Net.

thank you, david waitzman (BS Computer Engineering/Applied Math in Dec. '87)
please reply to djw@faraday.ece.cmu.edu (arpanet) or the bb

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 16:03:11 GMT
From: phoenix!kpmancus@princeton.edu  (Keith P. Mancus)
Subject: Re: Jobs in Space

  This is relevant to a matter of great interest to most of us; making a
living.  A recent posting by Eugene Miya implied that he had gotten job
offers from JSA.  Has anyone on the net received job offers from either
JSA or ESA?  How do these organizations feel about hiring Americans?
What about Arianespace?
  I've always thought that if the U.S. trashes its space program
sufficiently badly, I'd just go elsewhere.  How realistic is this?
  Also, how saturated is the market for newly graduated AE's with no
experience?

  Keith Mancus  <kpmancus@phoenix.princeton.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 87 18:13:03 GMT
From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@uunet.uu.net  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Vostok scale model

For those interested in building plastic scale models of REAL spacecraft
(not those wimpy American types :-)), a model of the Vostok is again
available.

It's a 1/25th scale kit by VEB Plasticart of East Germany.  From the
illustration, the kit appears to include both the spherical "capsule"
and the large rear "service module" (?), plus lots of neat antennas and
bells and whistles sticking out all over the place.  Definitely
different from your run-of-the-mill US/UK/Japanese model kit.  I've
never put together a VEB kit, but I've heard the quality is fairly
decent.  Caution might be advised, however; I've seen some commie bloc
helicopter kits that weren't fit to be melted down for toothbrush
handles.  However, VEB is being handled by Squadron Shop of Texas, a
true class outfit that usually doesn't deal with inferior kits.  It's
the only thing about Texas I like :-).

The VEB Vostok kit is back in stock at Squadron Shop.  It may be
purchased by mail at a cost of $17.95 (Texas residents add 6% sales tax)
plus $2.50 postage and handling.  If interested, mail your dough (or
plastic money number) to Squadron Mail Order, 1115 Crowley Drive,
Carrollton, Texas 75011-5010, or call (214) 242-8663.  The VEB Vostok
kit is Squadron Shop part #9-VB5180.

Note: I have nothing whatsoever to do with Squadron Shop; I'm just a
VERY satisfied customer.  I think they use real Vostoks for delivery; of
the dozens of orders I've placed, the LONGEST time period for delivery
(from day-of-mail to day-of-receipt) was 13 days.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 00:33:31 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Energia payload

An interesting recent speculation, from Spaceflight I think...  What was
the payload on the first Energia flight?  We know it had its own
propulsion system, which failed.  It was also rather thin.  Given that
Energia is the launcher for the Soviet shuttle, which does not have its
own large engines, it must be capable of taking a hefty payload into
orbit without an upper stage.  What would be the role of an upper stage?
It might be for putting heavy payloads into Clarke orbit, but that is
stretching things a bit -- the Soviets don't seem to have any pressing
need for such large payloads in that orbit, except possibly for
power-satellite experiments.  What it *might* be is a heavy upper stage
for planetary missions.

"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 03:38:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: Space Digest more international


> [...deleted...]
> > Wish we had a few russkies on line too. I'd LOVE to argue with them!!!!
> 
> Unfortunately, possession of a personal computer is illegal in the
> USSR.  As is possession of a photocopier or mimeograph.  You see,
> Russians are afraid that free speech would lead to critiism of the
> government and the spread of radical ideas.  From the evidence of this
> file, they're obviously wrong.  Nobody HERE would ever do anything
> like that.

>         -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

I've been corrected by E-mail by someone who claims second-hand
knowledge instead of third-hand knowledge (like myself).  He said that
possession of a PC, Xerox, or mimeograph is not ILLEGAL in USSR, just
expensive and difficult.  Who am I to argue?  I only know what I read in
the papers (and newsgroups) :).

        -- Ken Jenks <jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu>

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 11:46:32 GMT
From: ptsfa!amdahl!drivax!macleod@LLL-TIS.ARPA  (MacLeod)
Subject: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?

:Remember the Atlas Centaur that supposedly got hit by lightning earlier
:this year? Well, nobody actually *saw* the thing get hit, and charged
:particle beam weapons are basically artificial lightning machines...
: :-)

Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret.), late of the Army Weapons center at the
Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the Atlas-Centaur
failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were all caused by
tests of third-generation Soviet Tesla-effect Scalar-wave transmitters.

Such devices, according to Bearden, broadcast two out-of-phase scalar
Tesla waves, which are calculated to phase-couple at the target site.
(He cites Bohm-Ahranov effect as proof that this is practical.)  When
the waves couple, they kindle electrons out of the virtual state,
triggering anything from EMP effects to high-energy plasmas.

Bearden claims that the Soviets are restrained from using Tesla-effect
weapons to subdue the world because another country - he does not name
it, but strongly hints that it is Israel, a very good choice - has Tesla
technology and will use it.

If Tesla-effect weapons exist nuclear weapons are obsolete.  I don't
have the physics-math background to evaluate Bearden's claims,
unfortunately.  He does paint a scary picture.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 18:31:53 GMT
From: devo.rutgers.edu!masticol@rutgers.edu  (Stephen P. Masticola)
Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?

In article <2411@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (MacLeod) writes:

> Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret.), late of the Army Weapons center at
> the Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the
> Atlas-Centaur failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were
> all caused by tests of third-generation Soviet Tesla-effect
> Scalar-wave transmitters.

[Technical discussion deleted]

I guess Col. Bearden hasn't kept up with the engineering analysis of the
Challenger explosion, which convincingly points to other causes.  (Not
knowing details on Atlas/Centaur or Thor, I won't speculate.)

Besides which, if the Russians do have this "Tesla-effect" weapon, why
are they willing to risk its disclosure (to say nothing of a
particularly nasty war) by shooting at our space launches? It's a _lot_
of risk for little potential gain. Also, if the Israelis have the thing,
why are they still developing IRBM's? (And why don't _we_ have it, since
we subsidize a lot of the Israeli defense budget?)

Furthermore, such a weapon would not make atom bombs obsolete, anymore
than Star Wars would. It would just produce problems in delivery, which
could be solved with the same measures that can beat SDI (get in close,
go low, and/or use lots of decoys.) Atom bombs are still (ugh!) useful;
they're the cheapest way ever to destroy human life.

Occam's razor supports the argument that Tesla effect weapons were not
used to destroy our space launches, and that neither the Russians nor
the Israelis have them. It sounds like just more red-scare stuff, for
which we have paid too much already this decade.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 12:25:18 GMT
From: unc!symon@mcnc.org  (James Symon)
Subject: PC's East, was Space Digest more international

In article <74700023@uiucdcsp>, jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:

> I've been corrected by E-mail by someone who claims second-hand
> knowledge instead of third-hand knowledge (like myself).  He said that
> possession of a PC, Xerox, or mimeograph is not ILLEGAL in USSR, just
> expensive and difficult

This doesn't quite belong in sci.space but we often discuss east-west
technology issues so:

A Polish national who recently visited here had gone back to Poland a
year ago after getting his Phd in comp. sci. He took a Macintosh with
him. His was the 13th in all of Poland. He said there are about 50 - 60
now. The university there is going to build their VLSI design lab around
Macintoshes (no not Mac II's).

I don't know what the corresponding situation is in Russia, but if
access to computing power is that precious in the east, the achievments
of their space program are all the more impressive to me.

				Jim Symon
Internet:symon@cs.unc.edu

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 87 13:42:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: FTL and intergalactic travel

Re: Deflecting interstellar medium

     Arthur C. Clarke proposed an interesting idea I hadn't seen before
in his recent (rather boring) book, "Songs of a Distant Earth".  His STL
ship used a large ice cube in front of the space ship as an ablative
shield to chew a *long* tunnel throught the "vacuum".  He has
undoubtedly done some calculations as to how much ice was ablated by
collisions -- he's the kind of author who actually opens reference books
and uses a calculator *before* writing things down.
     I understand he does most of his work by telecommuting.  Does
anyone know his net address in Sri Lanka?

        -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks

"For I dipt into the Future, far as human eye could see Saw the Vision
of the world, and all the wonder that would be; Saw the heavens fill
with commerce, argosies of magic sails, Pilots of the purple twilight,
dropping down with costly bales."
	-- Alfred, Lord Tennyson

(BTW -- this quote comes from one of his books.)

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #360
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 23 Sep 87 06:19:44 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA21490; Wed, 23 Sep 87 03:17:21 PDT
	id AA21490; Wed, 23 Sep 87 03:17:21 PDT
Date: Wed, 23 Sep 87 03:17:21 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709231017.AA21490@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #361

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 361

Today's Topics:
		   MIR elements, 15 September 1987
		     space news from Aug 3 AW&ST
			Dumb idea of the month
			 Deflecting asteroids
		       Re: Deflecting asteroids
			   Re: Moon Colony
			Re: Things aint so bad
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 04:37:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: MIR elements, 15 September 1987

Sorry about the delay between the last element set and this one; I've
been out of town since the middle of last week and haven't had the
chance to post.

Satellite: MIR
Catalog ID: 16609
Epoch day: 87256.83201087
Inclination: 51.6313 degrees
Right ascension of node: 60.4396 degrees
Eccentricity: 0.0036069
Argument of periapsis: 133.7471 degrees
Mean anomaly: 226.6830 degrees at epoch
Mean motion: 15.80101025 orbits / day
Mean motion acceleration: 0.00028542 orbits / day**2

Source: NASA Goddard via Henry Vanderbilt of NSS.

Kevin Kenny			UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
Department of Computer Science	ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA)
University of Illinois		CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET
1304 W. Springfield Ave.
Urbana, Illinois, 61801		Voice: (217) 333-8740

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 23:57:15 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Aug 3 AW&ST

[Aviation Week & Space Technology subscription address is PO Box 1505,
Neptune NJ 07754 USA.  Rates depend on whether you are an "unqualified"
or "qualified" subscriber, which basically means whether you look at the
ads for cruise missiles out of curiosity, or out of genuine commercial
or military interest.  Best write for a "qualification card" and try to
get the cheap rate.  US rates are $55 qualified, $70 unqualified at
present.  It's weekly, it's thicker than Time or Newsweek, and most of
it has nothing to do with space, so consider whether the price is worth
it to you.]

[More to the point, here's the first in a series of recommendations
about sources of information.  The single best space periodical is not
AW&ST or Space World or anything else you might guess easily.  The best
is Spaceflight, published by the British Interplanetary Society.  It
covers all the space programs, not just the US one; its coverage of the
European and Soviet space programs in particular is much better than any
US source.  The bulk of it is understandable even to a beginner.  It
publishes overviews and historical material as well as current events.
Its "Satellite Log" is the only easily-available source I know of with a
paragraph or two of information on each and every satellite launch
anywhere (as you would expect, these days it's almost solid Soviet
launches).  Its "Space At JPL" section includes a lot of fascinating
material about the US program that is seldom seen in US sources.  (A
particularly-interesting sample appears below.)  Easily the most
comprehensive space magazine anywhere.  The cover price is
L1.25/US$3.25, but it's not common on the newsstands.  Although I think
it can be had by ordinary subscription, the normal way to get it is to
join the BIS.  This costs about US$35, with lower rates for new members
under 21 or over 65.  Several other publications are available, and one
or two optional membership grades.  Write for full information first.
The British Interplanetary Society, 27/29 South Lambeth Road, London SW8
1SZ, England.]

[First item today is from Spaceflight, not AW&ST.]
JPL is studying a Lunar Polar Orbiter that could be launched from a
Getaway Special can.  It would be carried into low orbit by the shuttle
or almost any expendable; it only weighs 150 kg.  Once in orbit, it
unfolds a couple of long solar panels, locates the Sun, spins itself up
to a few RPM for stability, and fires up a pair of solar-powered xenon
ion thrusters.  Average thrust is only about three times atmospheric
drag in the beginning, but that's enough.  LGAS (Lunar GetAway Special)
spirals out from Earth over about two years, and then spends another six
months spiralling down to a 100-km lunar polar orbit.  Payload is a
10-kg gamma-ray spectrometer, which will settle the question of whether
there are frozen volatiles at the lunar poles, while also extending the
Apollo elemental-abundance survey of 23% of the lunar surface to the
entire surface.  It will also give the gamma-ray astronomers another
triangulation point for locating gamma-ray bursts, and precision
tracking of LGAS will improve mapping of the Moon's lumpy gravitational
field.  Transmitter power will be 1 watt, with 1.5 megabits of RAM
storing lunar-farside data for delayed transmission to Earth.  The
spacecraft design would have other uses; in particular, with a launcher
like Delta that could start it from a higher orbit, it could fly
missions to near-Earth asteroids.  A major side benefit is that it tests
solar-ion propulsion *in space* at low cost and risk, clearing the way
for its use on more ambitious missions.  The JPL group hopes to arouse
enough interest to turn LGAS into an approved project; earliest launch
would be July 1991.

[Back to AW&ST]
USSR now has six "crew-related" spacecraft, all different, in orbit:
Soyuz, Mir, Kvant, the tug that brought Kvant up, Salyut 7 (mothballed
but still alive), and the Cosmos 1686 module docked to Salyut.  Seven if
you count the Progress tankers.

JPL may add a second UV spectrometer to Galileo; it's a spare from
Voyager that could be added easily while Galileo is being rebuilt for
its latest mission plan.

Shuttle thermal protection in the wing/elevon cove area being redesigned
for better protection; there has been serious reentry damage here in the
past.  The area between the nose cap and the nosewheel door is also
being worked on, for the same reason.

Mitsubishi refuses to sell McDonnell-Douglas the LE-5 oxyhydrogen engine
(used in the H-1's upper stage) for use in a Delta upper stage, because
of Japanese restrictions on military use of space technology.  [McD-D
hoped to use the H-1's upper stage to soup up the Delta.  So much for
that...]

Fletcher meets with White House Chief of Staff in hopes of better White
House NASA support and reinstatement of the cancelled Soviet
space-program briefing for Reagan.  Meeting was "short and
inconclusive".

Soviets launch 15-20-ton Earth resources platform, largest civilian
Earth-survey spacecraft in history.  It resembles the sort of thing the
Ride report recommended as a major goal for NASA.  [Also of note, in
Spaceflight I think, is the observation that its orbit matches those
used for some Salyut flights.]  Rep. Bill Nelson: "The Soviets manage by
objective -- not by budget."

Visiting Soyuz crew returns from Mir, with Alexandrov replaced by Laveikin.
Laveikin developed a heart abnormality in orbit on Mir, so Soviet mission
control decided to replace him with Alexandrov.  He was not ill and was
working normally (after a difficult adaptation to free-fall), but bringing
him back down was felt to be safest.  [Here we have the first unscheduled
space-station crew rotation, done as a matter of routine.]

Hughes teams with Lockheed and Pratt&Whitney for the ALS competition.
Hughes's design uses a modular design with the P&W RL-10 oxyhydrogen
engine, now used in Centaur.  They will have to stack a lot of RL-10s
together to launch a heavy payload -- its thrust is only 16,500lbs --
and it's not a terribly efficient engine, but its reliability record is
very good.  Hughes is still talking about launching from Palmyra Island.

NASA to power up Discovery, restarting shuttle launch processing cycle.
Various issues remain unresolved; delays from the June 26 launch date
are quite possible.  Two problems of note are lingering troubles with
the 17-inch feed-line valves (which must be fixed before Discovery goes
to the VAB for stacking, because of their location), and the discovery
that some nuts in the orbiters may have been overtorqued during
assembly.

NASA extends space-station crew tour of duty from 90 days to 120 for the
early crews, with a rise to 180 expected after the first year.  This
will reduce the number of shuttle missions needed for station visits.
NASA medics think 120 is okay but want to examine 120-day results before
approving longer stays.  Other changes are under consideration, notably
jettisoning trash into the atmosphere for destructive reentry rather
than taking it down in the shuttle and building the logistics module
with composites rather than aluminum to reduce its dead weight.  There
is growing support for using a heavylift launcher for station assembly,
and contractors may be told to allow for either.  NASA is also
re-examining the current policy which provides for essentially no
structural spares, which would leave the program very vulnerable to a
launch failure or a major ground accident.

NASA broaches the issue of canceling Phase Two of the station (upper and
lower booms, solar-dynamic power, servicing bay); Congressional reaction
is strongly negative.

British space program down the tubes: Thatcher government reneges on
pre-election promise of expanded British space program, freezing British
space budget and casting doubt on the future of Hotol and the Space
Platform segment of Columbus.  [Roy Gibson, head of the British National
Space Center, resigned in response.]

USAF to buy five more early-warning satellites from TRW.

Charles Stark Draper, father of inertial navigation, dies.

India chooses Delta to launch Insat 1D comsat in late 1989; this will be
the first commercial Delta launch, although it's not the first order.

Japan Air Lines to experiment with satellite link to supply
north-Pacific airliners with stock prices and other business
information, starting 1989.

Picture of JPL design for aerobraked Mars orbiter/rover.

Video teleconference between Boulder and Moscow on Mars exploration.
Solidest results probably in areas like engineering models of Mars and
standardization of navigation beacons.  Soviets are confident that the
prolonged-free-fall problems of a manned mission are solvable, and are
suggesting control of Mars rovers from orbit.  Soviets, unlike US, have
not given up on the possibility of life on Mars, and want to look deeper
underground.

France proposes twin-balloon platform to go on early-90s Soviet Mars
lander.  One balloon would be filled with helium, the other would be a
solar-heated hot-air balloon.  The pair would lift the instrument
package to 6-8 km during the day, letting the winds carry it perhaps 500
km per day.  At night the hot-air balloon would deflate and the craft
would land, with the helium balloon holding the balloons themselves
aloft for a clean takeoff the next day.  This will give ten or more
landings in widely-separated areas.  A later mission might use the same
system to collect surface samples from many places, with the balloon
eventually jettisoned, leaving the payload and a locator beacon awaiting
recovery by a rover mission.

Australia and Japan agree on Australian reception of images from Japan's
MOS-1 ocean-survey satellite.

Australia is studying an Australian Science and Applications Spacecraft,
possibly launched into polar orbit for remote-sensing work and other
applications.

Letter of the week:

	"Regarding the Harvard Business School report on commercial
	space... this has been common knowledge within industry for 7-8
	years at least... Cost, access to space, macroeconomics (how the
	US competes...) are issues that Congress and the various
	administrations have chosen to ignore, from an industrial point
	of view.  Creation of capital must be left to the printing
	presses, as far as they are concerned, and launch vehicles are
	just silly play toys for scientists.

	"It is a good thing that they did not think that way about the
	railroad and the airplane.

	"Now that someone has done a study, what will be done with it?
	Can anyone think beyond the next two years?"

					"W. David Montjoye, Ohio"

"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 23:05:19 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Dumb idea of the month
To: REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, tektronix!tekcae!vice!keithl@ucbvax.berkeley.edu,
        Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>

> Or maybe just buy launch vehicles from other nations, such as the USSR,
> if we can't do a good enough job ourselves?

Just what we need - to depend on the USSR for access to space.  Why not
turn over all border stations, shipyards, and airlines to them while we
are at it?
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 22:41:48 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Deflecting asteroids
To: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)

> To avoid splitting the [asteroid] with the shock, it would probably be
> necessary to use many bombs rather than a few big ones.

It is generally believed that most asteroids are loose aggregates - like
piles of rocks rather than like individual rocks.  Of course nobody
knows for sure, yet.
							...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 87 18:01:54 GMT
From: unc!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Deflecting asteroids

In article <257040.870918.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>It is generally believed that most asteroids are loose aggregates -
>like piles of rocks rather than like individual rocks.  Of course
>nobody knows for sure, yet.

    References, please? I've never heard this about asteroids, even in
the course on asteroids & comets I took last spring at Caltech. I know
there is some sentiment that COMET nuclei may be aggregates.

    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu)
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 15:09:46 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@rutgers.edu  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Moon Colony

In article <2374@calmasd.GE.COM> jnp@calmasd.UUCP writes:
>(David Smyth) writes:
>> Would it be practical to build a space port on the Moon ...
>> .....
>> *	Where would the fuel come from (Oxygen plentiful,
>> 	but what about hydrogen?  [...]
>
>Rocks.  Crystaline rock contains considerable "water of crystalization"
>which can be liberated by, among other techniques, solar-heating.

  On *Earth*, *some* rocks do.  Lunar rocks are particularly devoid of
hydrogen.  Unless there's ice in some of the permanently shadowed areas
at the poles (we *need* a Lunar Polar Orbiter to find out!), about the
only other 'native' source of lunar hydrogen is solar wind protons.

>> *	Who would really want to live on the moon?
>ME! (at least for a "tour of duty"), just tell me where to sign up!
 
  Me too.  The question may be, who wants to live there for more than
just "a tour of duty".  There are moves afoot to get a private lunar
colonization venture rolling, but it'd likely be a one-way trip.  For
all that, I know a lot of people still willing to go.

Alastair JW Mayer

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 00:19:02 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

> How does the Mir compare with Skylab, besides the obvious fact that we
> no longer have Skylab.

Roughly speaking:

1. Mir is quite a bit smaller than Skylab.  Necessarily so, it was
   launched by a rather smaller booster.

2. Mir has four docking ports earmarked for future expansion plus two
   used for routine operations, where Skylab had one plus an emergency
   spare.  (It did have expansion ports originally, but lost them later
   in its development when it became clear that they would never be
   used.)

3. Mir has a propulsion system used to reboost it periodically, Skylab
   didn't.

4. Mir is designed to be resupplied in space, Skylab was not (for lack
   of a suitable cargo vehicle and because, again, it was clear that the
   capability would never be used).

5. In short, Skylab was a one-shot while Mir is the nucleus of an
   ongoing space-station project.

"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #361
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 24 Sep 87 06:53:40 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA23314; Thu, 24 Sep 87 03:17:15 PDT
	id AA23314; Thu, 24 Sep 87 03:17:15 PDT
Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 03:17:15 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709241017.AA23314@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #362

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 362

Today's Topics:
		     space news from Aug 10 AW&ST
		Re: Space Station orbital` inclination
		Re: Space Station orbital` inclination
			Re: Things aint so bad
		     Re: What I was responding to
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 23:11:38 GMT
From: linus!utzoo!henry@husc6.harvard.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: space news from Aug 10 AW&ST

[There is a lot of news in this issue.]

[Second recommendation for space magazines has to be, I think, Space
World.  It used to be okay but ho-hum; it has gotten significantly more
interesting of late, perhaps partly as a side effect of the NSI/L5
merger.  Aimed at relative beginners, no heavily technical stuff.  One
of the more interesting features is interviews with interesting people;
summer readers may recall me quoting large chunks out of one of those.

The way to get Space World is to join the National Space Society, which
is what was formed when the National Space Institute and the L5 Society
merged.  This is a Good Thing and you should join anyway.  NSI was
always a fairly quiet group that didn't do a whole lot in my opinion
(except for their Shuttle launch tours, which were pretty good; I saw
41C go up that way).  L5 was different, it being credited with little
things like scuttling the infamous Moon Treaty, saving Galileo, making a
key difference in getting the replacement orbiter funded, etc.  The
publications weren't all that great but the results were fairly
impressive; being the only space-activist group that the US State
Department hated was a distinction of sorts... :-) (State backed the
Moon Treaty, as did almost everyone else who cared except L5.  Score: L5
and mankind 1, State Dept 0.)  It is a little too early to tell what
will come of the merger, but there are hopeful signs.

NSS (the name is likely to change, many people dislike it) is at PO Box
7535, Ben Franklin Station, Washington DC 20044.  Regular dues are
$30/year, with a reduction to $18 for people under 22 or over 64, I
believe.  (I'm a life member and proud of it; unfortunately, you can't
buy a life membership any more -- it was a casualty of the merger.)]

Signs that the White House may be waking up to the state of the US space
program.  AW&ST pats itself on the back for making noise about it, which
apparently got read at fairly high levels.

USAF Space Division passes control of the DMSP military metsat to USAF
Space Command [you can't tell the players without a program...] since it
is now operational in orbit.

[This should be old news to readers of this group by now.] Proxmire is
going to try to kill the space station.  Garn will lead the defense.

Rep. Nelson: "NASA is awash in so much uncertainty due to a lack of
direction from the White House [that] decisions are being made by
indecision."

USAF completes first conversion of Titan 2 ICBM to booster, rolled out
of Martin Marietta plant on Aug 3 for shipment to Vandenberg.  MM has a
contract to convert 7 more, with an option for another 5; there are
about 50 of the missiles in mothballs since their recent deactivation.
Air Force Sec. Aldridge predicts that the program will go beyond the
existing contracts.  The missiles are in good shape.  Changes to make
them into launchers are mostly electronics upgrades and modifications to
the nose to take a payload instead of a warhead.  Payload is 4800 pounds
into low orbit.  Modifications to Vandenberg pad SLC4-West got underway
after the launch of the last Titan 3B in February; the Titan 2s are a
bit shorter.

[Micro-editorial: This is what the USAF should have done all along, and
in particular this is what they should have done if they were really
concerned about getting the Navstars launched.  Instead, for Navstar,
they held a lengthy competition and then bought, "off the shelf", a
version of Delta that does not exist yet and has never flown!  Can you
say "subsidy"?  Can you say "pork barrel"?  And they complain about
Ariane subsidies.]

Hopeful signs for space science at NASA.  DoD is moving things off the
shuttle as much as possible, which is good news for science payloads.
NASA is trying to go back to building backup spacecraft for planetary
missions.  [About time!!  The lack of a Galileo backup in particular is
a national scandal, given a complicated, ambitious mission and a new and
(in my opinion) risky spacecraft design.]  Funding for a Mars Observer
backup is in FY88 authorizations; if the primary spacecraft works, the
backup may fly as the Lunar Polar Orbiter.  [ABOUT TIME!!  We are long
overdue for a lunar-polar mission.  I also applaud the idea that backups
which aren't needed as backups should be *flown*, perhaps on a different
mission, rather than being donated to the Smithsonian.  If you think the
Viking and the Voyager in the Smithsonian look realistic, it's because
they *are* real.]  Lennard Fisk, new Space Science & Applications head
at NASA, is pushing for long-term continuity in several ways:

	- One Scout-class science satellite per year, aimed at getting
	small research groups active again in flight programs.

	- Regular Explorer-class missions, starting with Cosmic
	Background Explorer in 1989, Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer in
	1990, and then X-Ray Timing Explorer in 1992.

	- Continuation of the "great observatories" program.  "We are
	the only nation capable of doing such great space observatories
	-- it's time we got on with the rest of them."  The Hubble
	telescope is ready to fly and the Gamma Ray Observatory is in
	the works, but the others are still stalled; in particular, the
	Advanced X-Ray Astro- physics Facility is high on the list for
	an FY89 new start but has competition from the planetary
	program.

	- Getting planetary missions going again.  Comet Rendezvous and
	Asteroid Flyby is AXAF's competition.  The CRAF backup could
	turn into the Cassini Saturn mission.  [Pity there won't be a
	Galileo- Saturn mission, since the chance to build a second
	Galileo has been lost.  There were hopes for it; some of the
	Galileo software has a Jupiter/Saturn bit in it.]

	- Earth Observing System, aka the US polar platform, probably a
	FY91 new start for launch circa 1995.

Fisk is trying to sort out who gets priority if AXAF and CRAF collide
for FY89 funding.  AXAF may have a slight edge, because CRAF could delay
a year (by picking another comet) while AXAF's optics development is a
tricky long-lead item; AXAF would also start out cheaper.

Soviets activate Cosmos 1870 polar platform.

Cosmos 1871, launched Aug 1, seems to be a Soviet equivalent to the
early Big Bird spysats, based on its orbit and early activity.

Progress 31 tanker docks with Mir.

China orbits recoverable imaging satellite carrying French experimental
payload piggyback.

Japan decides to develop three new advanced spacecraft: ADEOS (Advanced
Earth Observation Satellite), an Earth/ocean satellite for launch in
1993 on an H-2 and later refuelling and servicing in orbit; an
experimental data relay and tracking satellite for launch in 1994; and
an advanced Clarke-orbit metsat to fly in 1993.

Japanese controllers regain full control of MOS-1 after an Earth-sensor
malfunction forces it into a backup attitude-control mode.  Details
still under investigation.

US plans $1G five-year program looking at lightweight-satellite
technology.  DoD is semi-interested in the idea of lots of small
satellites rather than a few big ones, since it would make overall
systems much more resistant to attack.  Some (e.g. Aldridge) are
skeptical because big satellites are needed to meet requirements, but
others note that battlefield commanders would much prefer small cheap
satellites under their direct control.  DARPA is pursuing both
light-satellite technology and portable-launch-system ideas.

Morton Thiokol hot-fires the new shuttle SRB joint design for the first
time.  On first inspection, looks okay.  First full-size SRB test set
for Aug 26.

NASA formally awards contract for Challenger replacement, orbiter
OV-105.  It will be essentially a duplicate of Atlantis and Discovery,
with minor upgrades that will also be retrofitted to them.  The existing
structural spares will be used; discussion on building a new set of
structural spares will start soon.

Picture of the shoulder patch for STS-26, quite a pretty one.

NASA to start shuttle-derived heavylift booster studies despite USAF
opposition.  Now called "Shuttle-C", aimed at operational status by
mid-1993 for space station assembly.  Payload 100-150,000 lbs into low
orbit, availability rather sooner than the USAF's ALS.

Martin Marietta and Amroc sign agreements with USAF for use of
government launch facilities.  McDonnell-Douglas and General Dynamics to
follow.  The insurance situation remains less than ideal.  Also, the
agreements contain pious platitudes but no real guarantees about
preemption by government missions, and the government is not liable for
preemption costs.

Roy Gibson, director of British National Space Centre, resigns in
protest at Thatcher decision not to boost space funding.  European
sources comment: "This could not have come at a worse time...".  Outlook
for Hotol cited as "extremely grim"; other ESA and British projects
endangered.

Inmarsat chooses Delta for an Inmarsat 2 launch in late 1989.

NASA is looking at the problems of transporting space station modules
and related large payloads.  They are too big for ground transport, and
water transport has a lot of problems.  Air transport is preferred for
several reasons, but the aircraft aren't up to it.  The NASA Super Guppy
has troublesome weight limits and in any case is about to be retired; it
would need massive overhauling to stay in service.  The USAF is
modifying two C-5As to accommodate shuttle-payload-bay-sized loads, but
there is no formal agreement for NASA use of these aircraft.

Aerojet tests rocket engine, originally meant for commercial-space uses,
that might go into the new USAF upper stage.  It's a leftover from a
Ford Aerospace project called "Transtar" for shuttle-to-geosynch
transport, and has been funded privately since Transtar's cancellation,
with an eye on government use.

JPL is working on improving Voyager 2's attitude-control software for
the Neptune encounter; low light levels will again require moving the
whole spacecraft to compensate for Voyager's motion during long
exposures.  Also under study is the exact encounter trajectory.  There
are no more gravity-boost constraints since Neptune is Voyager's last
stop.  The Polar Crown trajectory plan takes Voyager very low over
Neptune's north pole and then past Triton.  There are some worries,
though: Polar Crown passes very close to a possible Neptunian ring, a
strong Neptunian magnetic field (considered unlikely) could cause
trouble during the north-pole pass, and getting too close to the
atmosphere could cause heating, drag, or arcing in high-voltage
circuitry.  The encounter trajectory could be changed up to a few weeks
before encounter (August 1989), but a late change would mess up
encounter planning.

Soviet radar-equipped ice-tracking satellites have proven valuable
enough that the USSR will establish a permanent ocean-monitoring
satellite system.

FCC receives three filings for permission to operate a mobile satellite
system.  This is two more than they hoped for; attempts to form a single
consortium, to avoid protracted spectrum-space battles, have failed so
far.

McDonnell-Douglas studies larger versions of the PAM upper stages, for
use with large comsats launched on Titan or Long March.

Teledyne Brown exhibits reusable-spaceplane model at Paris airshow.  A
747 would carry it to altitude.  Engines would be four RL-10 Centaur
engines and one Shuttle main engine.  Payload would be 3500 kg, with
increases possible later.  The 747 would need some sort of thrust
augmentation, either hydrogen duct-burning in its engines [Dani Eder
says that Boeing believes this is practical; it more than doubles the
thrust, and doesn't hurt the engines if it's brief] or else replacement
of the engines with eight afterburning fighter engines [world's hottest
747!].

Aerospace Forum article from David Morrison, chairman of the SSEC,
arguing for ongoing commitments to planetary exploration.  "The primary
difficulties are not technical; they simply reflect lack of commitment
and funds.  Like other space science areas within NASA, the planetary
program is never treated as a continuing activity.  Individual missions
are proposed and perhaps eventually approved.  Meanwhile, as previous
missions are completed their funding is terminated automatically.
Continuity and efficiency are lost.  Without an infusion of new starts,
science at NASA is always in a going-out-of-business mode... The US
cannot regain international leadership in planetary exploration without
a specific commitment and well-understood long-range objectives...
Business as usual -- meaning an annual new-start competition between
disciplines within a highly constrained NASA space science budget -- is
likely to result in further frustration and erosion of the field..."

Langley experiments with using optical disks to distribute satellite
data to researchers.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 04:34:36 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Space Station orbital` inclination

In article <1011@scicom.alphacdc.com>, wats@scicom.alphacdc.com (Bruce Watson) writes:
> Current plans are to have the US space station put into an orbit with
> an inclination to the equator of 32 degrees.  The space station will
> be the largest object in orbit and will be very bright to a ground
> observer.  But at this inclination it will not be seen well north (or
> south) of latitude 38 degrees.  Does anyone know why this inclination
> . . .

>From the "National Space Transportation and Support Study Civil Needs
Data Base, version 3.0, Payload Listing Report" NASA Headquarters, Code
MD, Washington DC 20546, 16 July 1987, pages 589ff:

Space Station Infrastructure Flight #	Altitude(NM)	Inclination(deg.)
	1				150		28.5
	2				190		28.5
	3				190		28.5
	4				190		28.5
	...
	30				190		28.5
Logistics Flights			220		28.5

What that means is that the station will be assembled mostly at 190
miles altitude, to give the Shuttle more payload on deliveries of
station components.  After the last parts of the initial station are
delivered, the station is moved up to 220 miles to reduce atmospheric
drag.

Note that this 'plan' is still very subject to change.  There is a lot
of activity centered around reducing the number of launches required to
deliver the station parts by using a heavy lift vehicle.  There is a
battle under way over whether the heavy lift vehicle should be made of
shuttle parts, or be the Air Force 'Advanced Launch System'.  Stay
tuned.

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Launch System Program

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 21:27:20 GMT
From: unc!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Space Station orbital` inclination

In article <1438@ssc-vax.UUCP> eder@ssc-vax.UUCP (Dani Eder) writes:
>What that means is that the station will be assembled mostly at 190
>miles altitude, to give the Shuttle more payload on deliveries of
>station components.  After the last parts of the initial station are
>delivered, the station is moved up to 220 miles to reduce atmospheric
>drag.

    How will they move it? Does the Station include manuevering
thrusters?  Figuring out how much thrust a large structure like that can
withstand, and where to apply it as the structure changes configuration,
sounds like one of the harder problems involved.

    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu || ...mcnc!unc!leech)
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 23:04:24 GMT
From: ihnp4!inuxc!inuxm!arlan@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (A Andrews)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

> I was recently told by one of my Space Studies professor (Dr. James
> Vedda, now of the University of North Dakota) that Skylab was larger
> than the CURRENT Mir configuration.  However, I believe that Mir is
> scheduled to grow much larger.
>      
>              Scott Udell
>              UD140469@NDSUVM1.BITNET

On the other hand, Skylab has been in central Australia since 1979,
while the Mir ("Land", NOT "Peace") is a few hundred miles above it.  It
ain't what you done, it's what you done LATELY that counts!

(You all should have heard Stine and Pournelle at NASFIC in Phoenix,
couple of weeks back, backtracking their original support of the Shuttle
(our shuttle, that is) and saying now what they shoulda said then: a
stupid government project, a spaceship built by committee...)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 18:04:42 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: What I was responding to

> ... we'd have CORPORATE space stations up before...

Folks on the net might be interested to know that there is a serious
proposal for a corporate space station.  Not the External Tanks
Corporation idea, which is a little different, but an honest-to-God
privately-owned space station.  The fun part is that it would cost less
than $500 million (million, not billion) and would be up within five
years.  There are two key parts to this.  First, it would be designed
and built by a construction company, *NOT* an aerospace contractor!  And
second, the launch services would be bought commercially from the lowest
bidder: the USSR.  The hardware would go up on four commercial Proton
launches, followed by whatever number of commercial Soyuz launches are
needed for construction and operation.  Art Dula, the fellow who's been
trying to sell Proton launch services in the US, came up with this one,
and apparently is serious about it.

Needless to say, there are people in Washington who are *really* unhappy
about this idea.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #362
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 25 Sep 87 06:21:17 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA25122; Fri, 25 Sep 87 03:19:03 PDT
	id AA25122; Fri, 25 Sep 87 03:19:03 PDT
Date: Fri, 25 Sep 87 03:19:03 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709251019.AA25122@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #363

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 363

Today's Topics:
			Re: Things aint so bad
			  Space colonization
		    Re: New evidence for 5th force
		    Re: New evidence for 5th force
			    Re: 5th Force
		    Re: New evidence for 5th force
		      New evidence for 5th force
		    Re: New evidence for 5th force
			  Triassic-Jurassic
		     Face on Mars - Erosion rate?
			Re: Things aint so bad
			Re: Things aint so bad
			  Things Are So Bad
			Re: Things aint so bad
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 21:39:09 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

> Mir ("Land", NOT "Peace")

My dictionary also gives the alternative translation of Mir as Village.
-- 
These opinions are solely mine and in no way reflect those of my employer.  
John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp          jnp@calmasd.GE.COM

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 23:23:08 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Space colonization
To: eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>

> Truly ironic, you realize you wrote about this topic 3 years or so
> ago, maybe 2.

Haven't you noticed that all lists repeat themselves?  I'd bet that if
the moderator of any list ran message from five years ago, nobody would
notice the difference if it weren't for the old-fashioned message
headers.

> I would debate that.  There is open space but little air, I would not
> call this "room."  To you believe as REM that man will adapt to
> living in vaccuums?

Did REM say that?  I don't.  I believe we can manufacture air and
everything else we need out of resources in the asteroid belt and
elsewhere in the solar system.

>> Antarctica?  While easier to get to, it is much more hostile than
>> space, actually.

> You have been there I assume?

No.  Does one have to have been somewhere to know anything about it?
Then nobody on this list could discuss space. :-)

> I would debate this statement as well.

Well, space has no temperature, so you don't need protection from
bitter cold.  Space doesn't have fierce storms that will destroy
your shelter.  Neither does it have big cracks opening up at random
to swallow the works of man.  Nor does it have white-outs, where
you can get lost twenty feet from shelter.

Also, space is much bigger than Antarctica.  And easier to travel
through.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 00:23:47 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force

>I thought there were only three known fundamental forces:
>
>1. Strong nuclear force
>2. Electroweak force
>3. Gravity

Well, if you want to be picky, there is widespread consensus that we are
not far from unification of the strong and electroweak forces, and that
gravity will come into the fold eventually somehow.  Under normal conditions,
though, they still look like four distinct forces.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 03:08:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force

I wrote...

> > How significant is 1-2%?  I thought that G was one of the
> > least-accuratly know physical constants.  I have different Orbital
> > Mechanics texts that give values which differ by 0.1% -- these were
> > undoubtedly published on the same planet.

Phil wrote...

> You're right, G isn't known very accurately. My Casio calculator has
> it in rom as 6.672e-11 Nm^2/kg^2. On the other hand, Gm, the product
> of G and the mass of the earth, is known much more accurately (10
> digits or so) from precise observations of earth satellites.
> 
> Phil

I hate being right when I don't really know what's going on.

Does anybody know where the data for G come from experimentally?  The
only things I can think of to measure have to do with Gm, where m is the
mass of a large body.  Is there a way to measure G seperate from m, or,
failing that, is there a way to measure m seperate from G then work
backwards?

        -- Ken Jenks
		Graduating MS: Aero/Astro Engineer (BS: Computer Science),
		(Looking for a full-time manned-space job, starting 6/88)
		Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
{ihnp4!pur-ee}uiucdcs!uiucdcsp!jenks

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 1987 16:50-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Re: 5th Force

I have a radical idea.

READ the journal reference I posted BEFORE arguing about it!

I'll remain neutral on the issue because I'm not an expert in areas
that are necessary to evaluate the validity of the geophysical
experimental methods used.  I just posted an interesting reference for
y'all's perusal. If someone were to read the article and discuss
shortcomings, or such, that might be worth everyone's time.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 05:35:22 GMT
From: newton.physics.purdue.edu!clt@ee.ecn.purdue.edu  (Carrick Talmadge)
Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force

In article <74700016@uiucdcsp> jenks@uiucdcsp.cs.uiuc.edu writes:
>> Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force.  Two seperate
>> borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a
>> team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from
>> theory. This is in the range of Fishbach's findings of discrepencies
			           ^^^^^^^^  that's Fischbach.
>> with the Eotvos data.
>> 

>How significant is 1-2%?  I thought that G was one of the
>least-accuratly know physical constants.  I have different Orbital
>Mechanics texts that give values which differ by 0.1% -- these were
>undoubtedly published on the same planet.
>        -- Ken Jenks, Univ. of Illinois, Urbana/Champaign

The 1986 CODATA value [Ref: E.R. Cohen and B.N. Taylor, Physics Today,
August 1987] gives for the latest value of G:

    G = (6.67259 +- 0.00085) x 10^-11  m^3 kg^-1 sec^-2,

which is accurate to about 1 part in 10,000.  This measurement is
essentially that of Luther and Towler [Physical Review Letters 48, 121
(1982)], with an inflated error.  The fellow making the measurement at
Michgan, by the way, is Albert Hsui -- a geophysicist at the University
of Illinois at U/C, though he was on sabbatial leave at Princeton when
he published this work.  If Hsui's value is reliable [this is the BIG
question], it would certainly be "significant".

There is also an interesting article reporting a "fifth force" type
effect by a group headed by Paul Boynton at the University of Washington
in Seattle which will be coming out (I think) next Monday [Sept. 28] in
Physical Review Letters.  Boynton was a postdoc under The R.H. Dicke at
Princeton back in the 1960's studying the cosmic ray background.  For
the interested, Boynton's article gives a fairly complete bibliography
of fifth force experiments which have been reported to this date,
including the first repetition of the original Galileo free fall
experiment since the 17th century.


Carrick Talmadge			 clt@newton.physics.purdue.edu

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 21 Sep 1987  19:31 EDT
From: RP%OZ.AI.MIT.EDU@xx.lcs.mit.edu
Subject: New evidence for 5th force

     Date: 11 Sep 1987 14:25-EDT 
     From: Dale.Amon at cs.cmu.edu
     Re:   New evidence for 5th force

     Recent experiments favor existence of a 5th force.  Two seperate
     borehole measurements of G, one by a team in Australia and one by a
     team in Michigan, have found roughly the same 1-2% deviation from
     theory.  ...

Would someone please explain the details of the experiment and what sort
of accuracy the experimenters envision?

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 13:45:00 GMT
From: jenks@p.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: New evidence for 5th force


Speaking of that "inflation factor", I read a speculation (I believe it
was in Analog SF/SF) that G has been *increasing* with time.  It seems
that some of the earlier measurements of G were lower than later ones.
Since the trend in these measurements were steadily (albiet slowly)
increasing, the idea was that data errors were possible, but so was a
change in the "constant".  Possible reason: expansion of the universe.
Amusing speculation.

        -- Ken Jenks

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 1987 19:08-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Triassic-Jurassic

Some researchers are studying the possibility that the Manacouagan
impact structure in Quebec (70km diameter) may have caused a mass
extinction at about 200M BP. Evidence is interesting but not solid at
this time. It is not proven that the extinction was indeed a boundary
event, nor is the dating yet accurate enough to suggest a compelling
causal link with the impact structure. Work is proceeding.

If anyone is interested, the reference is: "New Early Jurassic Tetrapod
Assemblages Constrain Triassic-Jurassic Tetrapod Extinction Event", PE
Olsen, NH Shubin & MH Anders, Science, 28-Aug-87, p1025-1029

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 20:34:42 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Face on Mars - Erosion rate?

Ignoring the question of whether the so-called "Face on Mars" in the
Cydonia region is a natural phenomenon or not, or even looks like a face
from different sun angles (I'm prepared to wait for more data), I'd be
interested to know just how long such a structure would remain
recognizable under Martian conditions.
   Assumptions have to be made, of course - carved rock or heaped dirt?
And how have erosion rates changed over the years?  However, given what
(little) we know about meteor impact rates, freeze-thaw erosion, wind
erosion, and even water erosion in that region of Mars, what would the
upper bound be for a structure of that size (about a mile long?) to stay
recognizable?  A million years?  10 million?  100 million?  A billion?

 Alastair JW Mayer

 "What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle."

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 87 04:04:06 GMT
From: mnetor!genat!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net  (Gordan Palameta)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad


In article <477@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
> [...]

As briefly as possible...

The shuttle, when it flies again, will be safe.  It will *not* be
cost-effective, and will *not* be able to fly often enough.

Dear Lord, the flames we'll be wading through for the next week.  And me
stuck with a 1200 baud terminal.

------------------------------

Date: 18 Sep 87 18:28:35 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

(Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
>> ...stuff about our dormant shuttle...

> No kidding.  And I beleive there's good reasons for it.  But when it
> flies again, we'll see regular shuttle launches and a VERY reliable
> system.

Am I the only one in the world that thinks that this is BUNK!

We had a VERY RELIABLE shuttle.  It blew up - AND WE KNOW WHY! If we
avoid that condition (freezing the poor O-rings before launch) it would
remain reliable.  By re-designing it we now have an unknown system -LESS
RELIABLE NOT MORE!

John M. Pantone @ GE/Calma R&D, Data Management Group, San Diego
...{ucbvax|decvax}!sdcsvax!calmasd!jnp          jnp@calmasd.GE.COM

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 19 Sep 87 20:18 EDT
From: "Paul F. Dietz" <DIETZ%sdr.slb.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject: Things Are So Bad

In response to Lawrence Dziegielewski's comments about the "zippy" shuttle:

Lawrence is confusing technological gee-wizardry with engineering
accomplishment. The shuttle is certainly a more breath taking vehicle
than the boring Soviet launchers. Unfortunately, is also much more
expensive, old NASA lies to the contrary. Even if they get it up to 12
or even 16 launches/year (for a four shuttle fleet), and even if it
never crashes again, it's still much more expensive than the Proton (or
the Saturn).  NASA's predisaster propaganda was based on 24 flights per
year from a 4 shuttle fleet -- something that objective observers say is
impossible.

Lawrence stated that after these fixes it will be a safe vehicle.  His
faith in NASA is touching.  Perhaps the SRBs won't kill it, but does he
really think that there are no other hidden problems that NASA hasn't
stumbled on yet, has failed to recognize the severity of, or just aren't
solvable?

Lawrence's hope that the shuttle will be flying regularly again soon is
not well founded.  Is NASA going to risk losing another shuttle when
that could kill the space station?  It's in NASA's best interests to be
very slow in returning the shuttle to "full" operation.

	Paul F. Dietz
	dietz@sdr.slb.com

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 15:38:03 GMT
From: clyde!watmath!utgpu!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@rutgers.edu  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

In article <474@eplrx7.UUCP> lad@eplrx7.UUCP (Lawrence Dziegielewski) writes:
>In article <8561@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> > Even granting its problems, we DO have the shuttle; no-one else
>> > presently has anything nearly as zippy...

>> Anything nearly as zippy, no.  This has nothing much to do with
>> usefulness, though.  The Soviet hardware consistently does almost
>> everything better than the Shuttle does it, albeit less glamorously.

>I don't know where you're getting your information, but the Soviets
>have NOTHING that can compare to the shuttle.  There is nothing on the
>pad anywhere in the Soviet Union that even remotely resembles the
>shuttle. 

 On the contrary, the next launch of Energia will probably be carrying
 "Shuttleski".  Satellite photos of Tyuratam have shown shuttle vehicles
 for years.  Looks like they're ready to launch.

>there's no way you can get me to beleive that ANY Russian hardware
>performs better than the shuttle. And 'glitz' or 'zippiness' has
           ^
   Define "better".  Even ignoring the fact that right now, the shuttle
 doesn't perform at all, hasn't for a year and a half, and probably
 won't for another year yet.  *Potential* performance doesn't orbit any
 satellites.  At least the Sov's are actually *flying* their hardware.
 Anyway, Energia is a Saturn V-class launcher (ignoring the minor detail
 that the only Saturn Vs left are being used as lawn ornaments) and can
 put a hell of a lot more payload up than can Shuttle.  Or, it can put
 the Russian Shuttle and payload up.
   Are you talking about Shuttle's man rating?  Okay, it can stay
 on-orbit for a bit over a week.  Mir has been continuosly manned for
 nearly a year now.

>The Soviets do not have the capability of transporting payloads into
>space and returing with other payloads.  They do not have the
	   ^
       Certainly they do.  The Progress vehicles (essentially unmanned
  Soyuzs) used to resupply Salyut and Mir have been bringing back down
  film packages, expermental data, zero-G processed materials (not just
  experimental results, the Sovs are using zero-G processed crystals for
  sensors in military hardware) etc for years.

>sending teams of scientists and technicians into space all at once like
>we can with the shuttle.
     Hmm, there are probably half a dozen people up there now even as
  we speak, er, type.  If you can launch a Soyuz a week with a couple
  or three people each, and have a couple of space stations up there
  (Salyut is still up) for them to work in, is that really worse than
  sending up seven at once in a vehicle that can, with maximum effort,
  only be launched every 5 or 6 weeks?

>> However, our most fundamental problem -- the damn boosters cost too
>> much and fly too seldom -- will NOT be solved this way.  This is a

>Cost too much?  Maybe, but if flown like they were in '85 and '86 the
>cost comes way down.  The cost of flying the shuttle will remian high

    Sorry, but it doesn't.  *Operation* costs for shuttle are far higher
  than originally promised, or that NASA would have you believe.
  There's just too much expensive hand labor (actually, most of that is
  management) involved.  It still costs $4-$5000/lb to launch on
  shuttle, plus $50,000 an *hour* to get an astronaut to do anything.

>get them going regularly again (soon, I hope).  Besides, high
>technology is expensive, and the shuttle is probably the most advanced
>space vehicle in the world today.  IT'S WORTH IT.

    As a research vehicle, perhaps.  *NOT* as a way to get us routine
  access to space.  Shuttle is also the most expensive space vehicle in
  the world today.  Certainly, do the research for the next generation
  of launchers.  But we *NEED* cheap, reliable launch technology today.
  NASA has seen that as threatening their precious (it pays their
  salaries) Shuttle, to the deterioration of US launch capability.
    NASA also does research on aeronautics, and has some pretty
  fancy, advanced (expensive!) research aircraft.  You don't see them
  trying to compete with Fed-Ex or American Airlines or any of the
  other dozens of air cargo and air passenger companies do you?  You
  don't see NASA telling the airframe manufactures that they can't sell
  airplanes to anyone they want to.  You don't see NASA trying to run
  the airports the way they do half the spaceports do you?
    NASA's role in space should be research.  The Shuttle is OK as a
  research vehicle.  As a commercial "space truck" it sucks dead
  bunnies.

>Get on the stick and get with the program, man.  Or at least get the
>right information.

    Not a bad idea.  Have you taken your own suggestion?
 
>	Lawrence A. Dziegielewski	|	E.I. Dupont Co.

 Alastair JW Mayer

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #363
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 26 Sep 87 06:31:42 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA01064; Sat, 26 Sep 87 03:17:37 PDT
	id AA01064; Sat, 26 Sep 87 03:17:37 PDT
Date: Sat, 26 Sep 87 03:17:37 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709261017.AA01064@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #364

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 364

Today's Topics:
		  Answers about Mir elements (long)
			Re: Things aint so bad
			Re: Things aint so bad
			Re: Things Are So Bad
			Re: Things aint so bad
	    Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?
	    Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?
	  Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 87 23:12:00 GMT
From: kenny@b.cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Answers about Mir elements (long)

I have been receiving enough queries about the nature of the Mir orbital
elements to warrant a posting to the net at large, rather than attempt
to answer all of them by email, particularly as I do not appear to have
valid return paths for all the people who have asked.

Mir is the Soviet space station.  It is crewed permanently, and orbits
the earth in a slightly eccentric ellipse.  Its altitude varies between
roughly 306 and 354 km.

Mir is quite clearly visible to the naked eye if it is overflying the
observer's location shortly after sunset or before sunrise.  When it is
in full sunlight, it appears from the surface of the earth as a moving,
starlike object that is comparable in brightness to the brightest stars
(for the astronomically inclined, its visual magnitude is roughly -0.5).

In order to spot it, though, an observer needs to know where to look and
when.  The calculation of this is fairly complicated, and the apparent
position of Mir in the heavens varies substantially between one location
and another.  For this reason, one really needs a computer program to do
the prediction.

The four programs that I've tried all take the orbital data as a
standard set of numbers, the so-called ``Keplerian orbital elements.''
These numbers describe the motion of a satellite with respect to the
Earth's dynamical center; the programs extrapolate this to a given time
and give the satellite's apparent position from a specified location.
The elements are the figures that I post periodically -- a set of
elements is good only for 2-3 weeks' predictions, owing to unpredictable
interactions between the spacecraft and the upper atmosphere,
perturbations by other bodies, and maneuvers executed by the crew of the
station.

The program that I use most frequently is Bob Wallis's SGP4-C-2.  It has
the advantage that it filters out overflights for which the lighting
conditions are unfavorable (the observer in sunlight or the satellite in
darkness), while the other programs require the user to select the orbit
pass manually.

The other programs that I use are the two C-ORBITS programs from Amsat,
and an ancient ``dusty deck'' in Fortran called SPACETRACK.  The
advantage to C-ORBITS is that it reports on the latitude and longitude
of the spacecraft, allowing it to be plotted on a map; SPACETRACK is the
most accurate orbit predictor of the three, at the expense of a lot of
computational complexity.

Probably the easiest way to get any of the programs is to download them
from T.S.Kelso's `Celestial RCP/M', located in Austin, Texas.  It is
available 24 hours a day by calling +1 512 892 4180.  It speaks 300/1200
baud, 8 data bits, 1 stop bit, no parity.

In addition, a program for the IBM PC is available from the National
Space Society headquarters in Washington.  I haven't tried it, but it
has been used by NSS to make the predictions for their ``Mir Watch''
expeditions.

Please do NOT ask me to email copies of any of the programs, as I do not
believe that I have entirely current versions of any of them, and some
of the program authors may also object to my redistributing them.  If
downloading them is impractical, you may possibly be able to arrange
other means by contacting the program authors or Kelso directly.
Please, don't take up their time with frivolous requests!  They, like
anyone else, have real work to do, and are conducting visual
observations as a hobby.

Program		Author(s)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
C-ORBITS	(1) Robert Berger (Robert.Berger@C.CS.CMU.EDU)
		(2) Marc Kaufman (kaufman@Shasta.STANFORD.EDU)
SGP4-C-2	Bob Wallis (pyramid!weitek!wallis)
SPACETRACK	Felix R. Hoots (?)
		Ronald R. Roehrich (?)
		T. S. Kelso (tskelso@ngp.UTexas.EDU,
			     {ihnp4, seismo, sally}!ngp!tskelso
Mir Watch	Gordon Woodcock, off net.  For information on Mir
		Watch and the Mir Watch software, contact Henry
		Vanderbilt of the National Space Society:
		+1 202 543 1900 days.  He also has a service that
		provides the elements over the telephone:
		+1 202 543 4487.

If you're interested in learning how the programs operate to compute
satellite positions, you should consult a good textbook on celestial
mechanics.  A gentle introduction to the subject is available in

	Duffett-Smith, Peter.  Practical Astronomy with Your Computer.
	2nd ed., New York: Cambridge University Press, 1981.

It stops short of the techniques needed to do a really good prediction,
though.  For these, one needs a more advanced text, such as

	Escobal, Pedro.  Methods of Orbit Determination.  New York:
	Wiley, 1965.

Good luck and clear skies in spotting Mir!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kenny			UUCP: {ihnp4,pur-ee,convex}!uiucdcs!kenny
Department of Computer Science	ARPA: kenny@B.CS.UIUC.EDU (kenny@UIUC.ARPA)
University of Illinois		CSNET: kenny@UIUC.CSNET
1304 W. Springfield Ave.
Urbana, Illinois, 61801		Voice: (217) 333-8740

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 00:04:16 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

> So?  When will it fly.  Others beleive the Russian Shuttle is a mockup,  a
> non-working hoax.  I think you're years away from a launch.  Years.

Well, I recall a very interesting paper in JBIS (I think) that firmly
claimed that the Soviet "G" booster had never existed, and that their new
big booster didn't either.  The hilarious part was that publication delays
meant I read it just *after* the Energia launch!
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 00:21:34 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

>        ... The Progress vehicles (essentially unmanned
>   Soyuzs) used to resupply Salyut and Mir have been bringing back down
>   film packages...  etc for years.

Mmm, you might want to re-check this.  The normal Progress is a Soyuz
derivative, not just an unmanned Soyuz, and lacks a heatshield.  It burns
up on re-entry.  Cargo return has been via Soyuz.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 21:21:59 GMT
From: unc!leech@mcnc.org  (Jonathan Leech)
Subject: Re: Things Are So Bad

In article <8709200324.AA15208@angband.s1.gov> DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
>Lawrence's hope that the shuttle will be flying regularly again soon is
>not well founded.  Is NASA going to risk losing another shuttle when
>that could kill the space station?  It's in NASA's best interests to be
>very slow in returning the shuttle to "full" operation.

    NASA seems to have turned a collective blind eye to the near
certainty of losing another shuttle. Quoting from an AP story printed
9/15 on an NRC study of the station:

   "NASA's plan to build a space station will be difficult and risky,
    the NRC says, and the agency should prepare for the contingency
    of losing a shuttle orbiter during its construction.
    ...
    Using the space shuttle to build the station, the report said,
    would pose a 60% probability of losing another orbiter. It said
    NASA should prepare for such a loss by planning to build another
    reusable spacecraft.
    ...
    NASA, however, said it had "a high degree of confidence that the
    space station can be successfully deployed with the current
    shuttle system."
    ...
    NASA also did not endorse the suggestion that a fifth orbiter be
    built."

    I suspect the same thing is happening with the Station that happened
with the shuttle - NASA KNOWS it will cost substantially more than they
claim, and believes they will not get funding for the project if they
admit the higher cost. I admit I don't have any facts to base that
belief on.

    Jon Leech (leech@cs.unc.edu || ...mcnc!unc!leech)
    __@/

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 16:25:51 GMT
From: tikal!phred!petej@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Pete Jarvis)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

In article <4347@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes:
>Especially if they are flown the way they were in '86. After a while,
>we'll loose the three remaining shuttles (they way we did in '86) and
>the cost will eventually reach zero, it might be argued. (Let's see, we

"...flown the way they were in 1986."?  Come on Dick. We won't be flying
as we did in '86 any more, obviously, because of the re-designed SRB's
and re-vamping of procedures. Many other items also have and will have
been taken care of. I have great confidence the Shuttle program will
continue smoothly and we will benefit greatly from it over the long run.

Peter Jarvis......Test Engineer, Physio-Control Corp.

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 15:13:58 GMT
From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu  (Townsend Brown)
Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?


commercial airlines have, for awhile now, occasionally come to a
landing with "unexplainable" 1-2" holes burned through the fuselage
(rudder) section...hit in flight no less!!

and everyone calls me nuts for doing tesla experiments!

:-)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 20:25:00 GMT
From: spdcc!m2c!frog!john@husc6.harvard.edu  (John Woods, Software)
Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?

But you should possess sufficient common sense to wield an Occam's
Razor.  Specifically regarding the Challenger disaster: burn-through of
O-rings had been noted many times in the past (maybe not in Time or
Newsweek, but noted in public nevertheless), so a burn-through of both
rings is certainly a highly plausible result, especially considering the
physical circumstances.  It seems less likely that the Soviets are able
to deliver half-inch-wide pulses of radiation to targets thousands of
miles away moving at a very good clip AND being buffeted about by winds.
Reason demands that you go for the simpler theory, NOT the theory that
exercises your adrenals more.

John Woods, Charles River Data Systems, Framingham MA, (617) 626-1101
...!decvax!frog!john, ...!mit-eddie!jfw, jfw@eddie.mit.edu

Maybe it's the sound of a WET RAG hitting a smooth WEASEL!

------------------------------

Date:     Wed, 23 Sep 87 06:25 CDT
From: <TESLA%FNALC.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
Subject:  Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches
Original_To:  Orig_To! space, TESLA

In article <2411@drivax.UUCP> macleod@drivax.UUCP (Macleod) writes:

> Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret), late of the Army Weapons Center at the
> Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the
> Atlas-Centaur failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were
> all caused by tests of Third? Generation Soviet Tesla-effect scalar
> wave transmitters

     To begin my response here, let me first ask who this Col. Thomas
Bearden is and what his credentials and sources of information are?
Before any real analysis of the claims of mysterious 'Tesla Effect'
weapons can be done, we must know where this information comes from.

     Next, I will provide some background information on myself so that
my analysis of this matter can be examined in the proper light. Several
years ago while I was stationed at some rather remote Air Force Bases
where there was very little else to do, I spent a considerable amount of
my time researching late 19th and early 20th century technology. A
significant portion of this time was spent on accumulating and studying
information on Nikola Tesla - one of the more dramatic figures of that
era. I consider myself an expert on this period of the history of modern
physics, and on Nikola Tesla in specific. As such, I am especially
annoyed at those who have picked up on some of the more radical ideas of
Dr. Tesla and promulgated a cult of pseudo-scientists based on those
ideas. I am equally annoyed at those of the legitimate scientific
community who regard Dr. Tesla himself as a crackpot because their
knowledge of him is based only on what they have heard from these fringe
groups.

     Although Nikola Tesla was most certainly eccentric, he was also a
legitmate scientist, fluent in several languages, and educated as well
as the best of his contemporaries. His contributions include not only
the AC electric devices and systems that he is best known for, but the
first actual radio transmissions (which a court decision decided was
his, rather than Marconi's), the first radio-controlled devices, radar,
the first CRTs and fluorescent lights, and many others in areas such as
fluid dynamics and aerodynamics.  Overall during his lifetime, he
acquired approximately 700 patents, 25 of which were the basis of the
current Westinghouse Corporation. Since this is a space digest, I think
it's appropriate to mention that in 1926 he performed some calculations
that were accurate to within .1% of the amounts of force and fuel
necessary to send a spacecraft to the moon. However, let me now proceed
to what I think is the basis for the claims of 'Tesla Weapons'.

     In the years around the turn of the century, Nikola Tesla had
established a laboratory on the top of Pike's Peak near Colorado
Springs, CO. It is from here that the famous picture of Tesla sitting
quietly reading while sparks flash around him comes from. His
experiments at that time were directed to discovering a means of
transmitting large amounts of power wirelessly. His theory was that if
you treated the Earth as a conductor of a limited length, that you could
create standing waves within it from which you could tap off energy at
some distance away with the proper receiving equipment. Many current day
devices work on similar principles, and if you are interested in the
details, look in any first year physics textbook. Tesla claimed that the
energy tapped off could possibly be much larger than the amount of
energy his transmitting systems were putting into the earth. This was
based on his earlier research into the phenomena of resonance.

     An example of resonance that most of us are familiar with is the
case of a group of soldiers walking in step across a bridge. It is well
known that if the rhythm of the soldier's steps is in harmony with the
natural resonant frequency of the bridge, that vibrations in the bridge
will increase in amplitude until the bridge begins to crumble. For more
details on this, refer to the discussions of simple harmonic oscillators
in any physics texbook.

     It seemed to be Tesla's belief that if his transmitting systems
could provide the appropriate electrical 'push' to the standing waves in
the earth at the right time or frequency, that the energy within the
earth itself would come into resonance with the waves that he was
creating and could be tapped off accordingly. He further speculated that
if you could set up two or more of his generating stations, that through
the phenomena of wave interference you could control the degree of
electrical activity at any point on the surface of the Earth. You could
therefore, possibly, create artificial lightning by increasing the
electrical potential of an area of the Earth's surface until it was high
enough to break through the dielectric insulating middle layers of the
atmosphere. For anyone that doesn't know, lightning is essentially the
same as a capacitor discharge. The upper layers of the atmosphere,
charged constantly by the solar wind, and the surface of the earth, are
the plates of the capacitor while the middle, denser layers of the
atmosphere serve as the dielectric insulator.

     From Tesla's notes and photographs, it would seem that his
experiments to this end were somewhat successful. He managed to light up
a 10 Kilowatt bank of lamps at a distance of 26 miles, while at the same
time destroying most of his transmitting equipment and overloading the
generating stations in Colorado Springs that were providing his power.
His equipment, and Colorado Springs generators were shortly rebuilt, and
he continued his experiments, but many of the details to the rest of his
experiments there are not known.

     Several years later, with the backing of George Westinghouse and
Andrew Carnegie, Tesla began to construct a second generating station at
Wardencliff, Long island N.Y., with a third station planned at an
unspecified location somewhere in the southeastern states. However, the
Wardencliff station was never fully completed, since Tesla had
squandered much of his own fortune and his backers apparently withdrew
their support for nondisclosed reasons.

    When Tesla died in 1943, it is said that his notes were confiscated
by the FBI, since he was supposedly involved in some kind of weapons
research as part of the war effort. An alternative explanation says that
they were returned to his family in what is now known as Yugoslavia
(hence 'the Russians have them'), or maybe they were returned to his
family after the FBI examined them. To be honest, no one really knows
where they are, or if they ever existed at all.  Nikola Tesla was known
to have had a photographic memory, and he may never have committed all
his research to paper. We do know that his personal diary is now in the
Nikola Tesla museum in Belgrade.

     That's it. The previous encapsulated history of Dr. Tesla should
show where the rumors of 'Tesla Weapons' come from. Now all we have to
do is decide if they're real. To this end I offer the following
arguments.

     1) If the electrical potential of the Earth were drastically
changed in a particular area, it would seem to me that all electrical
transmissions and communications in the area of effect would be
disrupted. I don't believe there is any record of this sort of effect.

     2) If any 'weapon' of this sort exists, I think (based on my
knowledge of Dr. Tesla's theories and my knowledge of physics), that it
could not be so precisely controlled that it could affect an object as
relatively small as the shuttle. The waves that Tesla spoke of were low
frequency long wavelength distrubances which could possibly affect
regions the size of large cities. To have more precise control of the
region disturbed would mean that the waves would have to be higher
frequency, or that the Russians would have to have many generating
stations so that the interference patterns could be more precisely
controlled. If the waves are higher frequency, the my argument in #1
applies even better. If there are a large number of generating stations,
then surely our satellite reconnaissance would have shown them, and our
government would have taken measures to find out what they were, and how
to protect ourselves from them.

     3) It is doubtful in any case, that our military would be unaware
of the potential of such devices, and if they are plausible, would not
have created some of our own. I should add to support this argument that
there are records of a Dr. Robert Golka having done experiments similar
to Dr.  Tesla's at Wendover AFB in Utah within recent years.

     4) Dr. Tesla may have actually been in error as to the effects his
apparatus were causing. I don't doubt that he lit up the lamps I
described earlier, as I have pictures of this event, but perhaps it was
simply caused by more standard RF energy. At the time he did this, there
were really no other communications and such to disrupt, and the effects
described as occuring around his transmitting station at the time could
just as easily have been caused by simple RF.

     5) If we assume that the weapons are plausible, and can be
precisely controlled, then they may actually provide an adequate defense
screen against a large number of incoming missiles by providing effects
similar to EMP or plasma effects in addition to being able to be used as
offensive weapons. If this is the case, then our present Mutually
Assured Destruction deterrent falls apart, since if only one side has
this capability an effective first strike could be launched with few
losses.

     6) Although I haven't really examined the physics of such an
appartus, it would seem to me that it would take quite a power drain to
operate. If nothing else, this effect would have been noticed by our
satellites, or by someone monitoring the Soviet power grid.

     7) Last of all, I don't know exactly what is meant in the (Macleod)
message by 'kindling electrons out of the virtual state' unless it is
referring to the creation of electron-positron pairs as occurs in some
particle accelerators or in other high energy phenomena, but it sounds
fictional to me. If it is electron-positron production, then tell me how
it is used in any sort of weapon.

     If the above isn't enough to discourage anyone who believes in
these mysterious weapons, then contact me and we'll discuss it in more
detail. At the very least, I would be interested in responses to my
comments, and I would like to find out what the Bohm-Ahranov effect is
without having to dig through my library. I would also like Macleod to
tell me where he got his info, and something more about Col. Beardens
comments, physics, and math.

                                                       Rick Johnson
                                                       TESLA@FNAL.BITNET

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #364
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND-GW.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 27 Sep 87 06:25:50 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA02550; Sun, 27 Sep 87 03:17:07 PDT
	id AA02550; Sun, 27 Sep 87 03:17:07 PDT
Date: Sun, 27 Sep 87 03:17:07 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709271017.AA02550@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #365

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 365

Today's Topics:
	    Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?
			Re: Things aint so bad
		   Re: space news from Aug 3 AW&ST
		      bids for launch priority??
			    Private space
			   Defense spending
			   Defense Spending
			  Re: Private space
		    Re: bids for launch priority??
			Re: Private spaces...
	     Re: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act
	     Re: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 17:19:17 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?

(Stephen P. Masticola) writes:
> Occam's razor supports the argument that Tesla effect weapons were not
> used to destroy our space launches, and that neither the Russians nor
> the Israelis have them. It sounds like just more red-scare stuff, for
> which we have paid too much already this decade.

I truly wish I knew who said:

"Never attribute to conspiracy that which is adequately explained by
stupidity"

John M. Pantone <jnp@calmasd.GE.COM>

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 87 21:44:53 GMT
From: larson@unix.sri.com  (Alan Larson)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

In article <772@maccs.UUCP> gordan@maccs.UUCP (Gordan Palameta) writes:

>The shuttle, when it flies again, will be safe.
>It will *not* be cost-effective, and will *not* be able to fly often enough.

Am I the only one who is having trouble with this first claim?  There
were a large number of items (I think they called them criticality-1
items) which, if any one of the failed, would lead to catastrophe.

I don't have a list of these items, but I did have the impression that
there was very little being done them.

	Alan

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 87 23:19:54 GMT
From: jtk@mordor.s1.gov  (Jordan Kare)
Subject: Re: space news from Aug 3 AW&ST

[From Henry Spencer's excellent summary of Aviation Week:]
>NASA to power up Discovery, restarting shuttle launch processing cycle.
>Various issues remain unresolved...
>Two problems of note are lingering troubles with the
>17-inch feed-line valves ... and the discovery that
>some nuts in the orbiters may have been overtorqued during assembly.

Oh, come now, Henry, that's no way to refer to the Shuttle crew, 
even if they _are_ getting annoyed at all the delays.  :-)

	Jordin Kare

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 11:29:56
From: Robert Elton Maas <REM%IMSSS@sail.stanford.edu>
Subject: bids for launch priority??

<ML> Date: 26 Aug 87 17:19:56 GMT
<ML> From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Michael Lodman)
<ML> Subject: Re: newspeak in orbit: a review of the Newsweek article

<ML> Or maybe it is correct to say that NASA is under-focused. It has no
<ML> business launching commercial payloads with the taxpayer's money
<ML> underwriting everything.

Any value to the suggestion that at times of surplus business and
shortage of launch capacity, such as the next five years, it should take
bids for launches, accepting the highest bidders first? It could always
force a government-funded payload, such as Galileo or HST or military
missions, into an early slot by allocating extra money to the project
that wants the launch, which would effectively be "funny money" since it
comes from the budget, goes to the want-launch agency, passes to the STS
budget, and as a profit returns to the general budget. But among the
various private companies such bidding would select those companies that
really wanted to launch because they thought the application would be
really profitable, and leave the next group that bid slightly lower
clammering for private launch services at a cost they can afford. As
soon as private launch services really existed, some of the high bidders
would then switch from STS to the private service, paying top dollar for
timely (early) launch, giving private launch companies a nice profit if
they deliver better than NASA does.

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 18 Sep 87 23:25:29 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Private space
To: ihnp4!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: ihnp4!meccts!pwcs!dennisg@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dennis Grittner)

> Let's work toward having a good program without guarnateeing any
> privateers their profits. If they want to take risk, let them - that's
> 'private enterprise'.

Right.  And lets ALSO abolish restrictive laws that apply to private
launches.  And lets make space industry tax-free.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 03:25:28 GMT
From: clyde!burl!codas!killer!usl!elg@rutgers.edu  (Eric Lee Green)
Subject: Defense spending

in article <558655360.amon@h.gp.cs.cmu.edu>, Dale.Amon@CS.CMU.EDU says:
> The US is not going to be able to even pay to defend it's OWN shores
> if we keep going at the rate we are. Many would make the case that the
> very high expenditures in defense are wrecking the US economy.

Defense spending is less than 1/3rd of the Federal budget, and the ratio
is falling fast as other spending increases. It's not like the situation
in 1960 where 80% of the U.S. budget was spent on defense.  We are still
spending the same percentage of the GNP now on defense, as we were in
1957, and 30 years don't seem to have collapsed us. We could probably do
a better job of defense, at a lower cost, but if you really want to look
at the cause of the deficit monster, just look at all the pork-barrel
projects that Congress is continually dishing out on the domestic sides
of things.

Just to make this relevant to sci.space: I do not think that science and
space would get any more money if we were spending none on defense.
They'd just find another class of "underpriviliged" people to spend our
money on, like maybe out-of-work space scientists :-(.

The only way we'll ever do anything in space, is if it's economical, and
that presupposes that we have a cheap way of getting there.
Apollo-style projects are neat while they last, but have nothing to do
with assuring a continued presence in space.

Eric Green  elg@usl.CSNET           day is done, the song is over,
{akgua,killer}!usl!elg              thought I'd something more to say....
P.O. Box 92191                               --PF
Lafayette, LA 70509

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 15:39:19 GMT
From: tybalt.caltech.edu!palmer@csvax.caltech.edu  (David Palmer)
Subject: Defense Spending

In article <170@usl> elg@usl (Eric Lee Green) writes:
>Defense spending is less than 1/3rd of the Federal budget, and the
>ratio is falling fast as other spending increases. It's not like the
>situation in 1960 where 80% of the U.S. budget was spent on defense.

I have heard that this change is an illusion due to accountingchanges,
and that these accounting changes were motivated by the desire to
produce that illusion.  In 1960, the U.S. budget did not contain the
social security system, which as a properly run, self-supporting,
self-contained pension plan did not need external support by taxes.
When congress started to vote social security payments to everyone and
his brother, it was no-longer self-contained, and it had to be taken in.

Tis is just what I've heard, I wasn't alive at the time and the
newspaper articles I read about this in were probably politically
motivated.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

		David Palmer
		palmer@tybalt.caltech.edu

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 16:31:31 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Michael Lodman)
Subject: Re: Private space

In article <257063.870918.KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU> KFL@AI.AI.MIT.EDU ("Keith F. Lynch") writes:
>Right.  And lets ALSO abolish restrictive laws that apply to private
>launches.  And lets make space industry tax-free.

Agreed on the abolition of prevention of private launches, but why
should it be tax free? The space industries will be helped by the same
tax laws that now allow them to write off their losses in other areas,
and they should pay taxes to the nation of launch when they are making a
profit.

Michael Lodman  (619) 485-3335
Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego
mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 00:26:05 GMT
From: ucsdhub!hp-sdd!ncr-sd!ivory!mike@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (Michael Lodman)
Subject: Re: bids for launch priority??

In article <8709181841.AA13806@angband.s1.gov> REM%IMSSS@SAIL.STANFORD.EDU (Robert Elton Maas) writes:
>Any value to the suggestion that at times of surplus business and
>shortage of launch capacity, such as the next five years, it should
>take bids for launches, accepting the highest bidders first?

Yes, there is some value in that idea. However, to the highest bidder
might still heavily undervalue the cost of the launch.  Who would make
up the difference? Of more value would be NASA CORRECTLY estimating ALL
the costs of a particular launch, and charging accordingly. I have a
feeling that it would be outrageously expensive, and that commercial
launchers would come in and offer lower cost launching, but still
probably at a hefty profit. Supply and demand would soon take over, and
the price would adjust to some level we they all could live with.

As long as the government is willing to subsidize and underwrite the
launching of commercial payloads, no commercial competitive launching
capacity will exist. The government is using your tax dollars to make
sure HBO is distributed nationwide.  That isn't right. If it costs HBO
more to buy time on SATCOM 9 or WESTAR 8 or whatever, they will pass the
costs on to those who use their service, which is as it should be.

I think Rockwell Int., G.D., Lockheed etc should be ashamed. They have
had all of the basic research for space done at governmental expense,
yet they have done virtually nothing to utilize that knowledge for
anything but riding the government gravy-train.

Michael Lodman  (619) 485-3335
Advanced Development NCR Corporation E&M San Diego
mike.lodman@ivory.SanDiego.NCR.COM

------------------------------

Date:           Mon, 21 Sep 87 20:00:57 PDT
From: "William J. Fulco" <lcc.bill@cs.ucla.edu>
To: bob <mcvax!its63b.ed.ac.uk!bob@uunet.uu.net>
Cc: Space@angband.s1.gov, liberty
Subject:        Re: Private spaces...

> From: bob <mcvax!its63b.ed.ac.uk!bob@uunet.UU.NET>

> Thanks for your reply. Our points of view are closer than
> you seem to imply.

Sorry, this subject really gets me going, I sometimes get carried away.
I'm probably going to run for U.S. Congress for my district in 1988.
Space policy (along with education and the tax system) is (are) going to
be the issues I'll raise.  The net debates have been very useful in
helping me recognize competing arguments for my position papers to
address.

Again - I think Gov't space money would be better spent paying to get
things into orbit, not designing/building the means to get stuff there.
I saw somewhere that some company (Hugh Aircrash Co?)  was paid umpteen
millions of dollars for 2 satellites DELIVERED ON ORBIT.  The contract
was not "gimme a bird and I go fly it", it was "I want to purchase a
brand new orbiting satellite".

> My main complaint I have often made is that any privately funded space
> ventures will have to compete against the massive Goverment subsidies
> of NASA and ESA. (And the Russians Japanese and Chinese too).

> There is too much national interest in space travel (France in the
> case of ESA) for goverments to be persuaded to stop this funding.

I really think that if NASA would give up the subsidies for the STS and
the U.S. govt spent its money on purchasing launch services, that a
robust supplier network in the U.S. would develop.  It's hard to
visualize private U.S. companies competing with non-U.S.  gov't
subsidized launchers, until you think that the private firms will
eventually provide better service, better product, more ability to cater
to a diversity of user needs that the subsidized launcher.

People once told private parcel-post companies that they would be stupid
to try to compete with the U.S.Post.Office (subsidies). In order to make
a go of it, these companies, needed higher productivity, better
technology -- much lower costs... Guess what... it they go it...
customers now like the better service, and lower rates of the private
companies - now it's the U.S.P.O. that has had to lower it's rates so
that it can compete!

The same was/is true with brain-dead tariffs/quotas on imported Japanese
cars. The extra burden placed on the Japanese companies hurts them in
the short run, but after they figure how to squeeze some extra profit
from the situation, their product becomes much better - it has to be to
survive.  Pitty the poor American car company - having had an easy time
of it while the tariffs were on, now facing a fearsome/battle tried
Japanese car company that can make a good profit even with the
government of the U.S. against it.

> I have made a number of recent postings arguing this point of view.

> Until some private company invests money, and gets a return for it's
> investment, thus showing the way, Goverments are the only groups with
> enough money or motivation to finance space exploration.

They can offer to buy, there is always someone willing to supply a buyer
if the price is right.

> The British Goverment seems to be an exception to this rule. No money
> for space. Mrs T has however said she is willing to examine any other
> proposals to help space exploration. i.e. changes in the law.

> Who knows, perhaps your trip to the moon might be on a British shuttle
> yet. :->

> But don't hold your breath waiting. :-<
> 	Bob.

(bill)

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 16:16:34 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!dciem!nrcaer!cognos!geovision!alastair@uunet.uu.net  (Alastair Mayer)
Subject: Re: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act

In article <8709180241.AA13837@cauchy.mit.edu> purtill@BOURBAKI.MIT.EDU.UUCP writes:
>Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this?  This was something I
>heard about a year or two ago, possibly here.  The idea was that the
>government would guarentee to buy some (relatively large) amount of
>launch capacity at $500/kg (or some such rather cheap amount).  I don't
>know any more since I haven't been able to find a copy; I don't even
>know who proposed it.  (Please reply to me (if possible) I will
>summarize to the net).

   A draft of this act (also called the Commercial Launch Incentive Act)
was put together by the Citizens Advisory Council on National Space
Policy at the Spring '86 meeting.  The suggested text of the act (and
report of that meeting) can be found in "America: A Spacefaring Nation
Again" available from the L5 Society, er, National Space Society in
Washington.

   Briefly, the idea was that the government guarantees a market for N
thousand pounds of payload delivered to orbit, at M dollars per pound.
This was to be payable only on successful delivery of payload to orbit.
A launch company would notify the gov't in advance (a couple months) of
the launch opportunity, and the gov't could use it to put up a useful
payload.  However, if the gov't elects not to do so, the launch co. can
go ahead anyway with a payload of their own choice (even a ballast
payload) and the gov't would have to pay up if it made orbit.  The idea
behind the guaranteed market is to encourage private investment in the
launch business, especially in companies with ideas for bringing costs
down.
   We kicked around various values of N and M, as well as minimum
payload per launch and minimum useful orbit.  I think the final figures
were $500/lb, minimum payload 10,000lb/launch to LEO (this figure was
chosen to include weight of transfer stage to boost something useful - a
couple 1000 lbs - to GEO.  It's also roughly the weight of a Gemini
spacecraft...).  I'd have to check the text to say what N was, but a
total figure of $100million/year into the guaranteed market fund (for a
period of five years) sounds right.
   Understand that these figures are subject to change as the act goes
through the legislative wringer.  This act has a number of backers
(don't ask me for names, I don't have them.  You might ask in the
"space" conference on BIX, many of the people involved in putting this
together, and the L5 HQ staff, hang out there.)  There is precedent for
an act like this - e.g. the airmail contracts that got commercial
aviation its big start.
   I've probably got the text of the act on softcopy somewhere.  Ask if
you want me to dig it up.

 Alastair JW Mayer
 "What we really need is a good 5-cent/gram launch vehicle."

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 87 16:40:26 GMT
From: mnetor!utzoo!henry@uunet.uu.net  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: Proposed Commercial Space Incentives Act

> Does anyone know where I can get a copy of this? ...

It's in the report "America:  A Spacefaring Nation Again", available from
the National Space Society (see my latest AW&ST summary for their address)
for I think $10.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #365
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 28 Sep 87 06:54:26 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA04080; Mon, 28 Sep 87 03:17:53 PDT
	id AA04080; Mon, 28 Sep 87 03:17:53 PDT
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 87 03:17:53 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709281017.AA04080@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #366

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 366

Today's Topics:
		NASA tv (or pig out on shuttle video)
	Alternate information from NASA on shuttle activities
			 More on NASA Select
		    Most Successful Space Missions
		    Reply to a government employee
			Re: Things aint so bad
			    Newsweek reply
		 National Commission on Space Report
       Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons
			   Re: Ion engines
		       Plug nozzles in Energia
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 19 Sep 87 00:17:25 GMT
From: mike@ames.arpa  (Mike Smithwick)
Subject: NASA tv (or pig out on shuttle video)

I received many replies to my casual mention about the NASA tv network,
so I thought that I would post a followup and "how-toooo" article for
further details.

Like many companies and agencies, NASA supports it's own television
network. It is known as "NASA Select Television" and is used for
everything from teleconferences (audio on landline) to mission coverage.
As far as I know, it is not meant to be private. Much has been written
about it in Sat TV magazines, and there was plans at one time between
NASA and some TVRO companies to get low-cost dishes to schools for '51L
and flights following. Also, most of the network video comes from the
feeds.

Forget about the teleconferences, they're pretty dull material, but the
other stuff can easily make it worth the cost of a dish.

All, and I mean ALL, launches (non-classified) are covered live. So you
could've watched that Delta explosion, as it happened, or the last of
the Atlas launches. It's a big help while us space junkies go through
withdrawal.

Of course, the best part is the shuttle coverage. The coverage begins
several days ahead of the launch with assorted news conferences with the
crew and payload people. On launch day, tune in about 3 or 4 hours ahead
of time. You'll get the PAO commentary with the ground-loop chit-chat.

30 minutes after launch they'll replay all of the launch video, unedited
from all of the color camera positions, from about T-10 secs to staging.
At T+45 minutes they'll show the launch from the black and white on-pad
engineering cameras. It knocked my eyeballs out the first time I saw it.
And so far, I have never, ever seen any of the networks pick it up.
You'll see views from cameras immediately to the side of the SRBs, or
out next to one of the wings. 9 or 10 different views in all.

After the launch replays, they switch over to JSC until landing. Most of
the views are from those el-cheapo color cameras in the corner of MCC
looking over the consoles, or at the plot-board. But when there is
downlink TV they show it.

If the downlink TV is broadcast directly to a ground station (as it
usually is until the satillites are out of the payload bay), when live,
it'll be a funny flickering black-and-white image. What you're seeing is
the raw, unprocessed, sequential-frame video. That is, one frame is red,
one green and one blue. They then merge everything together and replay
it a few minutes after LOS. The ground stations use the same transponder
for their relays, so you'll see the signal drop for a few seconds, then
come back from Hawaii or Goldstone. When the TV comes down from TDRSS it
is real-time color as the color processing is apparently done at the
TDRSS station or someother remote site.

All in-flight press briefings are broadcast, as well as science films
about certain experiments (mainly during Spacelab). And in some cases
EVA rehersals in the water tank or building 15 (I think) are sent out.

What really makes it fun, is when the guys in the TV control room get
loose.  And it's late at night, and . . ., well maybe I better not say
anything about that.

The current transponder is on Satcom F-II, way over the Atlantic, Xpnder
13. It has a brutally strong signal here on the left-coast, so anyone
this side of Mars outta be able to get it.

I use a 12 foot dish with a 60 degree LNA, but on the east coast, there
should be little problems seeing it with an 8 or even 6 foot dish.

So be prepared for excitement on STS-26, thumb your collective noses at
the networks and tune in to the bird.  Also, stock up on video tape,
you'll be needing lotz of it.

Addendum: 

If you are in an international mood, you may want to try "ESA Select"
the next time an Arainne is launched. The boys in Guyana broadcast their
escapades usually on Spacenet 1, around transponder 21 or so. But it
changes from time to time.

   *** mike (powered by M&Ms) smithwick ***

------------------------------

Date: 22 September 1987 10:32 edt
From: TS5864@OSHTVMB.BITNET
Subject: Alternate information from NASA on shuttle activities

     Forgive me if this question has come up before, but I have only
been receiving information from the net for a month or so.

     Even though I know that the Space Shuttle will not be going up
until next summer sometime (at the earliest), I figure that it is not
too early to start preparing for the media hype that will accompany it.

     I was disturbed by the press coverage of shuttle as flights neared
the Challenger disaster (ie. getting less and less).  Since I (like many
of the other netters) like to know what is going on with the flights,
what they are doing, mission objectives, etc.  I was wondering if there
were other sources of information where I could find out more about
shuttle flights?  Are there alternative video/audio sources for the
official NASA pictures (ie. the video that the networks hack down to 15
secs for their news capsules)?

     Please respond to me directly, rather than cluttering up the net
with stuff that may have gone around before, and I'll summarize if there
is interest.

-tom
Thomas Lapp
ARPA  : TS5864%OHSTVMB.BITNET@WISCVM.WISC.EDU
      : LAPPT@OHIO-STATE.EDU

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 87 12:33:07 GMT
From: pyrdc!netxcom!rkolker@uunet.uu.net  (rich kolker)
Subject: More on NASA Select

Just one more point on NASA Select (Which I can pick up on my little 5
foot dish on the east coast...good transponder).  Your local TV station
can pick it up for rebroadcast.  Here in the Washington DC area, Channel
56 grabs most everything off NASA Select.

If you have a station in your area that's just barely getting by (like
many public stations) let them know this, and tell them the feed is
free.

You may save yourself the cost of a dish, even a small one.

 Rich Kolker

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 87 14:52:29 GMT
From: crowl@cs.rochester.edu  (Lawrence Crowl)
Subject: Most Successful Space Missions

Henry Spencer summarizes (thanks!)
from the 10 August issue of Aviation Week and Space Technology:
>JPL is working on improving Voyager 2's attitude-control software for
>the Neptune encounter; ...  There are no more gravity-boost constraints
>since Neptune is Voyager's last stop.  [Encounter in August 1989.]

The success of the Voyager 2 is absolutely astounding.  This got me
thinking--- what are the most successful space missions?  I have come up
with the following catagories:

    Earth Observation (i.e. for science; comsats and spysats are out)
    Manned Exploration (e.g. moon landings)
    Manned Space Science (i.e. earth orbit)
    Planetary Flyby
    Planetary Observation (i.e. in orbit around something other than Earth)
    Planetary Landing
    Astronomy (e.g. orbiting telescopes)

Mail me your votes (and reasons) for most successful single mission in
each catagory.  If you had to pick one mission as the most successful,
regardless of catagory, which would it be?  I will summarize to the net.

  Lawrence Crowl		716-275-9499	University of Rochester
		      crowl@cs.rochester.edu	Computer Science Department
 ...!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!crowl	Rochester, New York,  14627

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 01:16:26 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Reply to a government employee
To: eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: Eugene Miya N. <eugene@ames-pioneer.arpa>

> Interesting points.  Sometimes I wonder if it would not be better (for
> the sake of a better space program) to have a totalitarian society, at
> least it would make the launches run on time.

Smile when you say that.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 05:50:52 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Things aint so bad

In article <4004@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu>, awr@tybalt.caltech.edu (Bruce Rossiter) writes:
> 	Oh goody.  Does "regular shuttle launches" mean that we will:
> 		1) Get all the backedup payloads launched
> 		2) Have enough space to provide launch capability to
> 		   European countries and our own country as well?
> and how long until this schedule starts?  And will the European
> community ever trust our space program again?

Consider that today the US has among commercial and government programs
the following on order:

1 Space Shuttle Orbiter
23 Titan 4 Boosters
26 Titan 2 Boosters (converted ICBMs)
18 Atlas Centaurs (being built on speculation by General Dynamics)
17 Delta II Boosters 

My prediction for 1989 US launches is:

12 Shuttle
6 Titan 4's
4 Titan 2's
4 Atlas Centaurs
8 Deltas
3 Connestoga
Total: 37 launches.  Not too shabby.

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation

------------------------------

Date:     Mon, 21 Sep 87 05:58 EST
From: RON PICARD <PICARD%gmr.com@relay.cs.net>
Subject:  Newsweek reply

Hi all,

When the Newsweek article came out I sent a copy to my congresscritters.
I didn't receive any reply from my senators (not uncommon), however my
representative forwarded both the article and my letter to Robert Roe,
chairman of the house Committee on Science, Space, and Technology.  I
recently received a reply that contained an excerpt from House report
100-204 which accompanied the NASA authorization bill.

I suggest everyone on the net get a copy.  The title of the section
following what I was sent is titled "Utilization of Orbiting Shuttle
External Tanks.

Ron Picard                            | You get what you pay for 
General Motors Research Labs          | unless you pay for it with taxes

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 18:52:03 GMT
From: ihnp4!homxb!mtuxo!tee@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (T.EBERSOLE)
Subject: National Commission on Space Report

The report issued by the President's National Commission on Space is
available from Bantam Books; it is titled _Pioneering the Space
Frontier_. Copies can be ordered through the Space Studies Institute for
$11.00 sent to SSI, P.O.Box 82, Princeton, N.J. 08540. It might be in
your local bookstore now.  A six-page summary prepared by SSI is also
available. (Call 609-921-0377.)
-- 
Tim Ebersole ...!ihnp4!mtuxo!tee

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 87 14:40:48 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons

in article <8577@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) says:
> Posted: Mon Sep 14 15:19:35 1987
>> Sigh. When oh when will work really start on ion rocket and other
>> deep-space propulsion?

> As soon as there's a mission for it.  And of course, nobody will plan
> missions around unproven technologies, since NASA cannot afford
> failures.  Can you say "vicious circle"?  Sure you can.

Jeeez Henry, I know you've been reading this list since June. In June I
posted a brief article telling about some articles in the June
"Aerospace America." On page 30 in that issue is an article named "Ferry
to the moon" written by Graeme Aston of JPL. That article describes
current work on xenon and krypton ion engines. It also describes a solar
powered lunar ferry ( could be an asteroid ferry ) based on these
engines.

A brief quotation "Each engines draws a maximum input power of 5 kW,
which corresponds to a thrust per engine of 0.2 N at a specific impulse
of 3,500 sec". Lots of work is being done on ion engines.

If you read AW&ST, as I know henry does, you also know that the U.S. Air
Force has been running a small project to develop a 100 kW space rated
nuclear reactor. Put the engines and the reactor together and you have
what the man is asking for.

Ion propulsion is being developed, and has been under development since
before many of us were born. Spend an afternoon in a good, or even a so
so, engineering library and look it up. I did that about twenty years
ago.  I found references going back into the 30s. Anyone remember the
SNAP project? Or the ion propulsion experiment on board ( boy I hope
this is right ) SNAP-1A?

There are many missions that require something like ion propulsion.
Unfortunatley, ion propulsion seems to be what is known as a HARD
problem.  Give it time and don't give up.

		Bob Pendleton

P.S.

I'm starting to wonder whether some of you have entered a depressive
spiral. I've seen this happen to individuals, I can't imagine how
destructive it could be for a whole news group.

Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland
UUCP Address:  {decvax,ucbvax,ihnp4,allegra}!decwrl!esunix!bpendlet
Alternate:     {ihnp4,seismo}!utah-cs!utah-gr!uplherc!esunix!bpendlet
        I am solely responsible for what I say.

------------------------------

Date: 20 Sep 87 05:29:51 GMT
From: ssc-vax!eder@beaver.cs.washington.edu  (Dani Eder)
Subject: Re: Ion engines

In article <480@esunix.UUCP>, bpendlet@esunix.UUCP (Bob Pendleton) writes:
> There are many missions that require something like ion propulsion.
> Unfortunatley, ion propulsion seems to be what is known as a HARD
> problem.  Give it time and don't give up.
> 
> Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland

Ion engines don't have to be hard to make.  Here at Boeing there is a
project to test a simple ion engine.  It consists of a welded case, a
perforated screen, about two dozen permanent magnets, a fuel feed line,
and a power supply with 26 components.  And that's it.  Part of the
difficulty in prior ion engine designs supported by NASA were (a) they
tried to squeeze the maximum performance out of them, and (b) they took
a lab power supply setup and tried to translate that to space use,
without first simplifying the circuit.  Thus you end up with an ion
engine with a 2000 component power supply. Dumb.

The real challenge for an ion engine is finding enough power to run
them.  You need a big photovoltaic array or a nuclear generator to feed
them.

For more information, contact Don Grim.  He's in charge of the
project.  He can be reached at (206)773-2569, or at:

Mail Stop 8E-22
Propulsion Systems
Engineering Technology Organization
Research and Engineering Division
Boeing Aerospace Company
POB 3999, Seattle,WA 98124

Dani Eder/Boeing/Advanced Space Transportation

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 02:27:57 GMT
From: pyramid!weitek!sci!daver@decwrl.dec.com  (Dave Rickel)
Subject: Plug nozzles in Energia

Anyone know of any details (or sources for details) about plug nozzles
for rockets?  Apparently the Energia booster is using plug nozzles
instead of the more conventional bell nozzles.  The article guesses a
specific impulse of 485 seconds (as opposed to 455 for the SSME in
vacuum) for the second stage.  Impressive. (the article is in the August
_Spaceflight_)

david rickel
decwrl!sci!daver

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #366
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 29 Sep 87 06:20:32 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA05790; Tue, 29 Sep 87 03:18:25 PDT
	id AA05790; Tue, 29 Sep 87 03:18:25 PDT
Date: Tue, 29 Sep 87 03:18:25 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709291018.AA05790@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #367

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 367

Today's Topics:
       Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons
		    The Rocket Team #8 - In Orbit
       Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons
			  Spot and Security
			Re: Spot and Security
				 maps
			    Remote sensing
		   Re: BMD and Announcing Launches
		  Re: SDI funding of space research
			  Re: Japanese space
			  Re: Japanese space
		   Re: BMD and Announcing Launches
	  Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches
		   Re: BMD and Announcing Launches
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 18:13:45 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons

> >> Sigh. When oh when will work really start on ion rocket and other
> >> deep-space propulsion?

> > As soon as there's a mission for it.  And of course, nobody will
> > plan missions around unproven technologies, since NASA cannot afford
> > failures.  Can you say "vicious circle"?  Sure you can.
> 
> ... by Graeme Aston of JPL. That article describes current work on
> xenon and krypton ion engines. It also describes a solar powered lunar
> ferry ( could be an asteroid ferry ) based on these engines.

Right.  Now where's the budget to build it?  Especially, where's the
budget to build it based on an unproven technology?  There really is a
vicious circle here, which was quite visible in the rejection of some of
the Halley-rendezvous proposals: it takes a relatively ambitious mission
to need fancy propulsion, and relatively ambitious missions cannot be
trusted to unproven propulsion systems, which of course will never be
considered "proven" until they are tried on a real mission, which won't
happen unless the mission is hard enough to need them, and so on.

Certainly there is ongoing R&D on ion engines.  That's been true, more
or less and off and on, for thirty years.  The jump between that and
"cleared for flight" is a big one, however.

See my next AW&ST summary, which will probably come out later today, for
details on an intriguing JPL proposal for breaking the vicious circle.
-- 
"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 87 14:05:33 GMT
From: ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Dave Newkirk)
Subject: The Rocket Team #8 - In Orbit

    On the night of January 29, 1958, the Explorer 1 satellite sat on
top of its Juno 1 rocket booster, which was in the final countdown. ...
Not present were the three principals, von Braun, Pickering and Van
Allen.  They were in Washington at a communications center of the
Pentagon.  In case of a successful orbiting, the army wanted them
available immediately for the nation's press.
    On that night Aeolus, god of winds, conspired against Juno.  The
winds at 40,000 feet were 165 mph, clearly greater than those the rocket
could withstand.  The launch was scrubbed.  The next night was worse;
the winds reached 225 miles per hour.  Again there was a scrub. ... The
high winds would abate on the late evening of January 31, Meisenheimer
[the meteorologist from Patrick AFB] told Medaris, who took a gamble,
and lo, they did!
    At 20.30 hours, the countdown got underway.  At 21.45 hours, trouble
began.  Someone noted a pool of liquid on the pad beneath the launcher.
A propellant leak?
    A truly dedicated propulsion expert courageously ran onto the pad
and thrust his head under the rocket to see what was wrong.  Medical
experts were of two minds on the dangers of unsymmetrical
dimethylhydrazine, with which the Juno 1 was fueled.  Some thought one
whiff would be fatal; others thought that it could result only in
baldness or impotency.  The engineer quickly determined that the liquid
was the result of a spill rather than a leak.  A decade and a half later
he was alive, hirsute, and otherwise functional.  The countdown resumed.
    Things went smoothly until 22.35 hours.  A caution light came on,
and Robert Moser [...] told Debus that he had an indication one of the
jet vanes on the Juno 1 was deflected.  Debus glanced at his own panel,
which indicated otherwise.  No problem.  Forget it.  Resume countdown.
    At 22.45 hours, Debus nodded affirmatively and almost casually to
Moser, who pressed the switch that ignited the engine of the Juno 1.
The job of firing the upper stages fell to Stuhlinger, who followed
their flight by radar tracking and a radio beacon.  At the proper
moment, he pressed a switch that sent the firing signal to them.  All
ignited on schedule.
    At the communications center, von Braun and Pickering waited
impatiently.  The tracking station on Antigua Island had reported the
fourth stage had fired and the satellite had passed over it.  But von
Braun wanted confirmation from Pickering's tracking stations in
California before he would say Explorer 1 was in orbit.  An hour and a
half elapsed.  According to von Braun's calculation, they should have
heard by then from California.  Pickering got on the telephone to his
tracking stations: "Why the hell don't you hear anything?"  Still there
was silence.  Apparently, it had not attained orbit after all.
    Then within 30 seconds, all four stations reported they had Explorer
1's signals coming in.  It was in a higher orbit than expected, which
accounted for von Braun's prediction of a shorter period for the
satellite.  From Peenumunde to Cape Canaveral had been a long voyage,
but the team was in space at last.

[from The Rocket Team, by Frederick Ordway and Mitchell Sharpe, MIT
 Press, 1979, ISBN 0-262-65013-4, $9.95 (paper) ]

				Dave Newkirk, ihnp4!ihlpm!dcn

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 87 16:26:29 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: TRW OMV, ban on space-based mass-destruction weapons

in article <8632@utzoo.UUCP>, henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) says:

>> ... by Graeme Aston of JPL. That article describes current work on
>> xenon and krypton ion engines. It also describes a solar powered
>> lunar ferry ( could be an asteroid ferry ) based on these engines.
> 
> Right.  Now where's the budget to build it?  Especially, where's the
> budget to build it based on an unproven technology?

> See my next AW&ST summary, which will probably come out later today,
> for details on an intriguing JPL proposal for breaking the vicious
> circle.

Give it a break Henry. You're working so hard at contradicting positive
statements made in this net that you are starting to contradict
yourself.

A lunar ferry will not be funded until there are firm plans for a lunar
base. But, from your own description of JPLs proposal, ion propulsion
will not be an unproven technology by then. Now before you get all
negative about its chances of being funded; let me point out that an ion
powered LGAS is a small enough project (except maybe the deep space
tracking part) that it could be carried out by a small group of
researchers at a university funded by a small research grant. Get away
specials are cheap.

Remember NUSAT? It was built with glad handing and hard work. The step
from NUSAT to LGAS isn't very big. And what if GAS canisters aren't
available for some reason? Well it looks like the Amroc/GlobeSat people
will be launching small satelites in the near future. Not as cheap as
GAS put plenty cheap.  A lot of the people at GlobeSat are the same
people who built NUSAT.

What you see as a vicious circle I see as the disorderly, but natural,
progress of a new technology.

Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland

------------------------------

Date: 21 September 1987 13:14:34 CDT
From: <C90630JG%WUVMD.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu>
To: <SPACE@angband.s1.gov>
Subject: Spot and Security

  There have been several condemnations of attempts by governments,
notably ours, to restrict the availablity of satalite pictures.  On the
whole, I am in sympathy with this, and in any case the cat is out of the
bag and can't be put back in.
  But I'm more nervous about it than you seem to be.  I remember, for
instance, that participants in the Cuban missle crisis attributed the
successful (i.e.  non-nuclear) resoloution of the crisis in part to the
fact that they had about a week to think about the problem before the
presence of the missiles became public information.  See, for instance,
ESSENCE OF DECISION (sorry, I've forgotten the author).
  There are sometimes valid national security considerations, although I
admit that the catagory is infinitly abusbible, and frequently abused.
And as I say, the question is in this case moot.  But maybe the question
should cause you some discomfort.

Jonathan Goldberg

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 16:38:55 GMT
From: mnetor!yetti!geac!daveb@uunet.uu.net  (Brown)
Subject: Re: Spot and Security

In article <8709211842.AA17897@angband.s1.gov> C90630JG@WUVMD.BITNET writes:
>But I'm more nervous about it than you seem to be.  I remember, for
>instance, that participants in the Cuban missle crisis attributed the
>successful (i.e.  non-nuclear) resoloution of the crisis in part to the
>fact that they had about a week to think about the problem before the
>presence of the missiles became public information.
> Jonathan Goldberg

  A parallel to this is the (rather new) requirement that people being
wiretapped under a court order get a notice from the court when the
wiretap period expires.  (This is in Canada, by the way: You poor
americans still have to guess who's listing to your phone (:-))

  Perhaps the sensor people would accept a restriction on publication of
certain material for 72 hours or so?

 David Collier-Brown.                 {mnetor|yetti|utgpu}!geac!daveb
 Geac Computers International Inc.,   |  Computer Science loses its
 350 Steelcase Road,Markham, Ontario, |  memory (if not its mind)
 CANADA, L3R 1B3 (416) 475-0525 x3279 |  every 6 months.

------------------------------

Date: 16 Sep 87 15:20:28 GMT
From: uop!robert@ucdavis.ucdavis.edu  (Bugs Bunny)
Subject: maps

with all the talk over SPOT and such, and having tripped over this
book i could not pass up, i thought i would post this here.

	The Map Catalog
	Joel Makower Editor
	Laura Bergheim Assoc. Ed.
	Tilden Press
	Vantage Books
	Ret. $14.95

it lists all kinds of maps, and map software too! it is a good little
desktop reference for all sorts of maps.
and it does include SPOT and CIA sources (fun fun fun) :-)


(well, i liked it anyway)

enjoy!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 24 Sep 87 00:53:22 EDT
From: "Keith F. Lynch" <KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu>
Subject: Remote sensing
To: sunybcs!kitty!larry@AMES.ARPA
Cc: KFL@ai.ai.mit.edu, Space@angband.s1.gov

> From: sunybcs!kitty!larry@ames.arpa  (Larry Lippman)

>     In the pursuit of your goal of "freedom", be sure to advocate:

> 1.  Repeal all laws pertaining to espionage.

> 2.  Open all U.S. military installations to the public for
>     unrestricted passage.

The idea that there is any expectation of privacy for objects in
plain view of the sky is out of date.  The US and the USSR can see
eachother's military installations.  This is good, as it reduces
paranoia and unjustified suspicions.

Why forbid companies and individuals from looking at the Earth from
space?  There is really no way to do so except to ban everyone but
governments from going into space.  And nothing to be gained by it
in any case.

In the space age, there is a big difference between true espionage -
stealing private papers, etc - and looking at large objects in plain
view.  The days when weather reports, for instance, were classified
(to hinder enemy bombers) are long over.
								...Keith

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 19:46:12 GMT
From: mnetor!yetti!geac!chris@uunet.uu.net  (Chris Syed)
Subject: Re: BMD and Announcing Launches

In article <8709201923.AA16304@angband.s1.gov>, DIETZ@sdr.slb.COM ("Paul F. Dietz") writes:
> Do you think the Soviets will oblige us and announce when their launches
> occur? 

  I suspect they do... sort of. If our trackers can't tell the diff between
  an ICBM on a ballistic trajectory and a launch vehicle & payload headed
  for orbit, we're in bad trouble. I know it's fiction, but there's a nice
  account of this burried somewhere in the 700 pp. of _Red Storm Rising_ 
  by Clancy.
  cbs

------------------------------

Date: 21 Sep 87 18:06:34 GMT
From: ihnp4!alberta!mnetor!utzoo!henry@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Henry Spencer)
Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research

> > Remember that an absolute ban on weapons in space would ground all
> > ICBMs.  (A good idea, too.)
> 
> I see.  What do you propose be done when thousands of ICBMs are sent
> flying, in contradiction to the treaty?  Call the police?

Be somewhere else at the time. :-)

More seriously, if using them is illegal, there is no further legal
justification for retaining them, so they get scrapped as part of the
treaty.  Not that I have any hopes that this will ever happen...

"There's a lot more to do in space   |  Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
than sending people to Mars." --Bova | {allegra,ihnp4,decvax,utai}!utzoo!henry

------------------------------

Date: 17 Sep 87 15:20:13 GMT
From: ecsvax!dgary@mcnc.org  (D Gary Grady)
Subject: Re: Japanese space

In article <8709161649.AA22583@ames-pioneer.arpa> eugene@AMES-PIONEER.ARPA (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>The proposal to annex part of Australia to Japan sounds really neat,
>not that I think that it would ever happen, . . .

It has happened, though not in a fashion that would be of use for space
purposes.  There was a World War II Japanese POW camp at Cowra, New
South Wales, which was the site of the largest prison break in history.
It failed, and hundreds of Japanese died in the attempt.  After the war
the Japanese government discovered that the cemetary there was being
maintained, voluntarily, by the men who had served as guards at the
prison.  Touched by the gesture, Japan donated a magnificent Japanese
garden to the people of Australia.  In return the Australian parliament
ceded the land of the cemetary to Japan.

If former enemies can be so civilized about matters of war and death,
cooperation in space exploration seems relatively trivial.
-- 
D Gary Grady
(919) 286-4296
USENET:  {seismo,decvax,ihnp4,akgua,etc.}!mcnc!ecsvax!dgary
BITNET:  dgary@ecsvax.bitnet

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 01:04:20 GMT
From: ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!sugar!peter@ames.arpa  (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Japanese space

In article <8709161649.AA22583@ames-pioneer.arpa>, (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
> The proposal to annex part of Australia to Japan sounds really neat,...

Speaking as an Australian citizen and U.S. resident, I'd hate to see
that happen. I'd much rather the U.S. annexed Australia. Sometimes I
think it such a pity that the U.S. isn't the imperialist nation certain
groups would have you think it is.

Peter da Silva

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 21:25:03 GMT
From: sdcc6!calmasd!jnp@sdcsvax.ucsd.edu  (John Pantone)
Subject: Re: BMD and Announcing Launches

In article <1439@geac.UUCP>, chris@geac.UUCP (Chris Syed) writes:
>   I know it's fiction, but there's a nice account of this burried
>   somewhere in the 700 pp. of _Red Storm Rising_ by Clancy.

If anyone is interested in the technology of warfare, as currently
deployed this is the best place to start.  Clancy not only writes a VERY
good story, but also does his homework - the technology descriptions are
right on target.

John M. Pantone <jnp@calmasd.GE.COM>

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 87 20:28:54 GMT
From: faline!karn@bellcore.bellcore.com  (Phil R. Karn)
Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches

> > Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret), late of the Army Weapons Center at the
> > Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the Atlas-Centaur
> > failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were all caused by
> > tests of Third? Generation Soviet Tesla-effect scalar wave transmitters

It's hard to find better illustrations than this of the absolute necessity for
civilian control of the military.

Phil

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 87 18:55:44 GMT
From: miq%psuvm.bitnet@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Jim Maloy)
Subject: Re: BMD and Announcing Launches

In article <1439@geac.UUCP>, chris@geac.UUCP (Chris Syed) says:
     
(answering why the Soviets would announce their launches)
     
>  If our trackers can't tell the diff between an ICBM on a ballistic
>  trajectory and a launch vehicle & payload headed for orbit, we're in
>  bad trouble.
     
     Now wait a minute.  I find it difficult to believe that our (U.S.)
tracking ability is so poor as to miss the difference in velocity
between an ICBM and an orbital LV.  That'd be less than three
significant figures of accuracy.  I could do better with a plumbline,
protracter and a stopwatch. 1/2 :-)
     
     Unless the Soviets are using ICBMs that take off at orbital speeds
and then retrothrust to suborbital, this mixup should never occur.

James D. Maloy                  The Pennsylvania State University
Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL, MIQ@PSUVM   Aerospace Engineering, '87
UUCP  : {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #367
*******************

Received: from ANGBAND.S1.GOV by H.GP.CS.CMU.EDU; 30 Sep 87 06:20:04 EDT
Received: by angband.s1.gov id AA07353; Wed, 30 Sep 87 03:16:42 PDT
	id AA07353; Wed, 30 Sep 87 03:16:42 PDT
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 87 03:16:42 PDT
From: Ted Anderson <ota@angband.s1.gov>
Message-Id: <8709301016.AA07353@angband.s1.gov>
To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Reply-To: Space@angband.s1.gov
Subject: SPACE Digest V7 #368

SPACE Digest                                      Volume 7 : Issue 368

Today's Topics:
		 Midwest Space Development Conference
			    Speaker Needed
	    Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?
	  Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches
			  Re: Japanese space
	  Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches
		  Re: SDI funding of space research
	      Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?
		  Re: SDI funding of space research
		   Re: BMD and Announcing Launches
		 Re: Space Digest more international
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 1987 18:26-EDT 
From: Dale.Amon@cs.cmu.edu
Subject: Midwest Space Development Conference

	Midwest Space Development Conference
	Oct 16-19, 1987
	Holiday Inn Northwest, Worthington

	Conference rate $57/night single or double, mention MSDC to get
	special rate 885-3334 (I don't have the area code)

	Registration $30	at door $40
	Friday dinner	$12
	Saturday lunch $8
	Saturday Night Banquet $20
	Sunday Lunch $8
	Space Activist Workshop $20
	Model Rocket Workshop $10

Check payable MSDC, mail to

Midwest Space Development Conference
PO Box 261151
Columbus, OH 43226

Info Jim Woods 216-282-6329

Program includes Bonnie Dunbar (Astronaut), Gordon Woodcock (Boeing
Huntsville)

------------------------------

Date: 22 Sep 87 16:17:38 GMT
From: ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!rob@ucbvax.berkeley.edu  (Robert K. Shull)
Subject: Speaker Needed

	What is your "Vision of the Universe"? In 1987, nearly 2100
students from across Oklahoma answered this question through their art
as they participated in "Visions of the Universe" student art contest.
Sponsored annually by the Kirkpatrick Planetarium in Oklahoma City, the
contest is open to all Oklahoma students in grades K-12. Themes for the
contest range across all areas of astronomy, science fiction, and
fantasy.
	Each year the planetarium holds a reception for the finalists
and winners. Over four hundred students and parents attended last year's
reception.  Highlights of the reception included inspiring speeches by
both C.J. Cherryh and Freda Deskin, Oklahoma "Teacher in Space"
candidate. These two individuals praised the students for their work,
and encouraged them to keep pursuing their "vision of the universe" to
make it a reality.
	This year the Kirkpatrick Planetarium needs more individuals
willing to share their "vision" with the students involved in the 1988
"Visions of the Universe" contest. The awards reception will be held on
the evening of Friday, February 26, 1988. We are expecting over 600
students and parents to attend.
	The Kirkpatrick Planetarium will be able to provide air fare and
lodging for a qualified speaker. We are looking for science fiction or
fantasy writers, artists, illustrators, members of the scientific
community, etc. We would also like to hear from individuals involved in
special effects.
	If interested please contact, before January 1, 1988:
		Kirkpatrick Planetarium
		Christina R. Reeves-Shull
		2100 N.E. 52nd
		Oklahoma City, OK  73111
		Ph. 405-424-5545
	Or, send mail to rob@uokmax

Robert K. Shull
University of Oklahoma, Engineering Computer Network
ihnp4!occrsh!uokmax!rob
CIS 73765,1254		Delphi	RKSHULL

------------------------------

Date: 23 Sep 87 17:55:14 GMT
From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!miket@uunet.uu.net  (Mike Trout)
Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?

In article <538@uop.UUCP>, robert@uop.UUCP (Townsend Brown) writes:

> commercial airlines have, for awhile now, occasionally come to a
> landing with "unexplainable" 1-2" holes burned through the fuselage
> (rudder) section...hit in flight no less!!
> and everyone calls me nuts for doing tesla experiments!
> :-)

This is almost certainly caused by lightning strikes.  Planes have been
hit without their crews knowing it, and bolts may travel 40 miles or
more from their parent thunderstorms.  The burned holes through the
metal skin are very characteristic of lightning strikes.  Extensions
such as tail fins, rudders, nose cones, and wingtips are the most
frequent areas of damage.

There was a good discussion of this problem some time ago in
rec.aviation.

Michael Trout (miket@brspyr1)

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 87 17:20:03 GMT
From: concertina!fiddler@sun.com  (Steve Hix)
Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches

In article <1423@faline.bellcore.com>, karn@faline.bellcore.com (Phil R. Karn) writes:
> > > Col. Thomas Bearden, USA (Ret), late of the Army Weapons Center at the
> > > Redstone Arsenal, claims that the Challenger disaster, the Atlas-Centaur
> > > failure, and the third (Thor?) 1986 launch failure were all caused by
> > > tests of Third? Generation Soviet Tesla-effect scalar wave transmitters
> 
> It's hard to find better illustrations than this of the absolute necessity for
> civilian control of the military.
> 
> Phil

Huh!?

Other than the fact that the guy is RETIRED, and presumably no longer
affecting military operations (does anyone wonder why he was retired,
btw :]), since when are civilians more immune to infection by crackpot
ideas than the military?

If a state legislature seriously considered legally redefining the value
of pi as 3.0, what says they wouldn't do some equally idiotic thing in
any other given area?  (Not that there aren't enough examples of such
behavior in your morning paper...)

	seh

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 87 07:24:49 GMT
From: mnetor!genat!maccs!gordan@uunet.uu.net  (Gordan Palameta)
Subject: Re: Japanese space

In article <789@sugar.UUCP> peter@sugar.UUCP (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <8709161649.AA22583@ames-pioneer.arpa>, (Eugene Miya N.) writes:
>> The proposal to annex part of Australia to Japan sounds really neat,...
>
>Speaking as an Australian citizen and U.S. resident, I'd hate to see
>that happen. I'd much rather the U.S. annexed Australia. Sometimes

No no no, not the whole country, just a hundred odd square kilometers at
the northern tip of Queensland.

I posted an article on this about a week and a half ago
<769@maccs.UUCP>, but apart from Eugene Miya, who seems quite taken with
the idea, it has not met with much response of any kind.  So I'll just
recapitulate the idea here before allowing it to sink into oblivion.

Basically, at their current launch site the Japanese are severely
restricted in their launch windows, mainly because local fishermen don't
like to have spent rocket stages raining on their heads.  I think they
are prohibited from launching at least 9 months out of 12.

Now, everyone agrees that the key to a large-scale space program is
frequent launches (on a weekly basis, like the Russians do).  Some day
not too far in the future the Japanese will have a large-scale space
program, but this is clearly impossible with their current setup.

They will have two choices -- compensate the fisherman and deprive them
of their livelihood, or look for a launch site away from the Japanese
home islands.

Enter Australia, which is apparently offering a site at the northern tip
of Queensland as a launch site.  However, all they're offering is the
land itself -- investing the money to build facilities would be up to
the other party.

The proposal I made was that Australia could make the offer more
attractive by actually offering to transfer *sovereignty* of the launch
site to the Japanese (works for embassies and, apparently, war
cemeteries -- why not launch sites?)

I wrote:

>What the Japanese would get out of the deal would be a launch site near
>the equator in which they would be free to make massive investments
>without the fear of being booted out or having the rent on them being
>raised to extortionate levels (something like what happened to the
>British with their military bases in Malta in the early 70s -- they
>were eventually forced to pull out; or like what the Americans keep
>worrying about with their bases in the Phillipines).
>
>What the Australians would get would be a few paltry billion dollars
>for the real-estate, a special trade arrangement whereby Australian
>goods would be let into the Japanese zone under reduced or no tariffs,
>and an opportunity for their young scientists and engineers to study
>and participate in a space program in close geographic proximity to
>their homes.

Note the only really unusual thing here is the transfer of sovereignty.
There is ample precedent for building launch facilities far from your
main population centers (the Europeans launch from South America, but
N.B.  from French territory), and the Australians are already offering a
site.

The point is, a launch site off national territory would be a worrisome
prospect for the Japanese.  It's not just another "foreign investment"
-- a major national space program will involve investing hundreds of
billions of dollars over the next few decades.  A space program is
something that a country's future, no less, will be riding on.  When
that much is at stake, it's difficult to leave it at the mercy of the
vicissitudes of international politics, no matter how friendly or stable
a host country might be.

The economic and technological benefits to Australia would be great if
they could land a launch site and support facilities in their back yard.
And the thing is, if the Australians offer sovereignty, it just might be
the "kicker" that captures imaginations, puts the whole notion of a
Japanese launch site on the Australian continent on the "front burner",
and makes the prospect too attractive for the Japanese to refuse.

Admit it, there's a weird ring of plausibility to it, no?


By the way, Peter, if you DO want to sell your *entire* country to the
Japanese, don't let me stop you.  Some time ago, the Rhinoceros party
proposed selling Canada to the US for $20 trillion dollars -- we'd all
become millionaires and move to Florida.  (For those who don't know, the
Rhinoceros party is a joke political party in Canada, which has lately
expanded to the US -- Bill "Spaceman" Lee (ex Red Soc and Montreal Expo)
for President in 88, anyone?)

Gordan Palameta      ...!mnetor!lsuc!maccs!gordan

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 87 22:41:45 GMT
From: steinmetz!nyfca1!brspyr1!bob@uunet.uu.net  (Bob Armao)
Subject: Re: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage on U.S. Launches


For those interested in the life of Tesla, Smithsonian Magazine had
an article on him in the June 1986 issue.  I'm going to dig it out
and re-read it myself if I can locate it in my "pile".
-- 
Bob Armao  (bob@brspyr1)           |   Third line of this signature was
UUCP: ihnp4!dartvax!brspyr1!bob    |   shredded to protect National Security 
BRS Information Technologies       |   
Phone: (518) 783-1161              |--------------------------------------

------------------------------

Date: 24 Sep 87 01:36:56 GMT
From: rosevax!kksys!bird@uunet.uu.net  (Mike Bird)
Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research

In article <8631@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>> > Remember that an absolute ban on weapons in space would ground all
>> > ICBMs.  (A good idea, too.)
>> 
>> I see.  What do you propose be done when thousands of ICBMs are sent
>> flying, in contradiction to the treaty?  Call the police?
>
>Be somewhere else at the time. :-)
>
>More seriously, if using them is illegal, there is no further legal
>justification for retaining them, so they get scrapped as part of the
>treaty.  Not that I have any hopes that this will ever happen...

"And if it was made illegal to own guns, only criminals would have
them...."

Of course, this is simplistic, but if the missles were supposed to
scrapped, chances are that all sides would keep a few around "Just in
case..."

As far as telling the difference between a legit launch and a ballistic
launch, "legit" launches can behave ballistically, and ICBMs could be
launched under guidance.  Especially if the "other side" was using this
as a criterion.

Mike Bird

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 87 09:18 EDT
From: Emanuel.henr@xerox.com
Subject: Tesla-effect weapons sabotage US launches?

"What !!!!!!!"

Townsend Brown writes,

>>"commercial airlines have, for awhile now, occasionally come to a
>>landing with "unexplainable" 1-2" holes burned through the
>>fuselage(rudder) section...hit in flight no less!!"

	I have never heard anything about this sort of thing. Is this
documented fact, or anecdotal hear-say ?  More info please.

Keith Emanuel
Xerox Corp.
Rochester, New York

------------------------------

Date: 26 Sep 87 23:37:07 GMT
From: super.upenn.edu!eecae!crlt!russ@rutgers.edu  (Russ Cage)
Subject: Re: SDI funding of space research


In article <386@kksys.UUCP>, bird@kksys.UUCP (Mike Bird) writes:
>In article <8631@utzoo.UUCP> henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer) writes:
>As far as telling the difference between a legit launch and a ballistic
>launch, "legit" launches can behave ballistically, and ICBMs could be
>launched

Get real.  *All* launches* are ballistic, and guided during powered
flight.  The differences between ICBM launches and satellite launches
are:

1.)	Satellite launches come in ones and twos; ICBMs come by the gross.
2.)	Satellites launch from pads at a few launch sites; ICBMs launch
	from silos, and SLBMs pop out of the ocean.
3.)	Satellites usually launch into minimum-energy (eastward) or
	sun-synchronous (retrograde near-polar) orbits, while ICBMs head
	for their targets.

ICBMs also stop boosting at lower speeds, but that's a bit late for
ID'ing them for defensive purposes.

>Mike Bird 

Russ Cage

------------------------------

Date: 25 Sep 87 14:43:01 GMT
From: uplherc!esunix!bpendlet@gr.utah.edu  (Bob Pendleton)
Subject: Re: BMD and Announcing Launches

in article <20735MIQ@PSUVMA>, MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (Jim Maloy) says:
> 
> In article <1439@geac.UUCP>, chris@geac.UUCP (Chris Syed) says:
>      
> (answering why the Soviets would announce their launches)
>      
>>  If our trackers can't tell the diff between an ICBM on a ballistic
>>  trajectory and a launch vehicle & payload headed for orbit, we're in
>>  bad trouble.

> Unless the Soviets are using ICBMs that take off at orbital speeds and
> then retrothrust to suborbital, this mixup should never occur.

FOBS Fractional Orbit Bombing System. One of the things that gives me
nightmares is an FOBS MIRV. The idea is to do exactly what you said. Put
a number of bombs in low earth orbit and deorbit them just a short
distance from their targets. I've even hear people suggest that a
"reasonable" basing mode for MX, er Peacekeeper, is launch to orbit on
warning. But, then I know a lot of crazy people.

I don't want to sound PARANOID, but, every orbital launch could be a
sneak attack on somebody. If you really want to start losing sleep,
think about how many expended upper stages there are in orbit. How many
are large enough, and in stable enough orbits, to conceal a warhead? Do
I believe this kind of thing is going on? No. Could it go on? I don't
think so, but I wish I was sure.

Bob Pendleton @ Evans & Sutherland

------------------------------

Date: Tue, 22 Sep 87  14:52:54 EDT
From: Castel1%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu
Subject: Re: Space Digest more international

What I've heard, from a friend of mine who has spent some time in the
USSR, is that possesion of things like PC's and copiers is indeed legal
(just expensive and difficult) but possesion of a *modem* is extremely
illegal.  That makes very little difference, of course, as probably most
Russians in the astronomy field have access to (IBM!) mainframes, but
I'm sure they severely restrict E-mail access going out of the country
(even if they're using the RCF822 standard, which somehow I doubt).

-Chip Olson, UMass-Amherst (Castell@UMass.Bitnet).

------------------------------

End of SPACE Digest V7 #368
*******************

